And This Is Justice?

One of the worst knock-on consequences of the Northern Ireland troubles was the erosion of some key civil liberties by successive UK governments, both in the province and later on the mainland.

The right for the accused to remain silent, for example, when questioned by police and during a trial without adverse inference being drawn – a right embedded in English common law since the 17th century – was shredded. First in Northern Ireland with the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 and then on the mainland with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Then we had the broadcasting restrictions introduced in 1988 by the normally sound Tory Home Secretary Douglas Hurd that banned from the airwaves 11 Irish Republican and Loyalist organizations. The absurdity of that ban was highlighted day after day when radio and television companies circumvented the ban by having actors read transcripts of comments made by members of any of the 11 organizations.

Far from undermining Sinn Fein, for example, the ban was a PR disaster for the British government, especially when it came to overseas opinion. It had the reverse effect of its intention — instead of being a useful weapon against the IRA, it was turned by the likes of Danny Morrison and Gerry Adams into a propaganda tool for Sinn Fein, the IRA’s political wing, and allowed the government to be painted as illiberal.

The same mistakes are being made now in the UK and in the U.S. and there seems no easing up the further we get away from 9/11 or the terrorist attacks in London on July 7, 2005.

The Sunday Telegraph reports today that a handful of British police officers have lost their jobs in recent years when their security clearances were revoked by senior officers after checks were carried out because of fears of jihad “sleepers” in the ranks. The paper discloses the identity of one of the officers, who was suspected of being at a terror training camp in Pakistan in 2001.

According to the paper, Abdul Rahman had been a constable for about three years when MI5 warned that he might have visited a training camp in Pakistan. He resigned from the police force after losing an appeal against the revocation of his security clearance.

Obviously, it is disturbing to learn that al-Qaeda or any jihad group may be trying to place sleepers in the ranks of the British police, and vigilance is clearly needed to prevent this happening.

But far more concerning and corrosive is how this is being handled by the authorities, which, judging by the approach towards Rahman, have entailed severe breaches of natural justice and due process.

Rahman, a father of four, is suing for employment and racial discrimination and is seeking compensation from Scotland Yard. He admits he visited Pakistan – he was born in Bangladesh and raised in the UK – but claims he is entirely innocent and never attended a terror training camp, which would be a criminal offence under UK law.

He has never been charged with any criminal offences – nor even questioned or arrested under anti-terrorism legislation. After a five-year legal battle, according to the Telegraph, an Employment

Appeal Tribunal ruled that his case can’t be heard in public and should be held in secret and that Rahman and his lawyers can be banned from parts of the hearing.

Scotland Yard says that secrecy is needed to shroud the identity of sources and highly sensitive information. There is the hint that CIA sourcing may be involved – and as we know that agency never gets anything wrong!

A security-cleared “special advocate” will be appointed on Rahman’s behalf to listen to the closed-door evidence. What good that will do in terms of serving the former policeman’s interests is anyone’s guess. The special advocate will not be allowed to discuss what he or she hears with Rahman or his lawyers.

So, we have here national security once again overriding natural justice — another case of the authorities deciding when it comes to striking a balance between civil liberties and security to favor the latter.

Three weeks after 9/11, I wrote about the dangers of throwing out civil liberties in a column for the Washington Times.

The relevant passages are below:

“Some old rules about fighting terrorism, learned at bloody cost in Northern Ireland and during the Soviet-supported ‘wars of national liberation,’ need to be recalled and restated.

Veteran British antiterrorist experts say the first rule is to remember that terrorists feed on overreaction. Democratic societies that alter themselves by introducing draconian security measures that restrict civil liberties undermine the morale of their own people. Unleashing overly harsh retaliation garners sympathy for the terrorists, is counterproductive and risks making new enemies and inspiring more gunmen and bombers.

How do you defeat an elusive and fanatical enemy who fights in unconventional ways and doesn’t observe the Geneva Convention or worry about greater geostrategic constraints? And how do you do all of that without becoming like the foe you fight and closing your open society?

Some British politicians have reckoned they ignored those rules for too long in Northern Ireland. British prime ministers would march their troops to the top of the hill, only to have to march them down again. Pledges were made. Forecasts offered of victory. Threats thundered. And overreaction increased as successive governments implemented law-and-order measures that may have made life a little more difficult for the Irish Republican Army and occasionally foiled a plot, but which corroded the democracy and orderly society that the British saw themselves as defending.

Out went the right to jury trials in Northern Ireland; out also went the right of a defendant to remain silent, both fundamental principles in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.”

 

Part 2 – The Silliness of Simon Heffer

Part 2: The Silliness of Simon Heffer

On 30th July in a Daily Telegraph column ostensibly criticising Chancellor George Osborne for arguing that any Trident replacement should come out of Ministry of Defence funds we got these gems from Simon:

“We live in a world whose massive instability seems to have passed the Prime Minister by.”

“Dave (by this Simon means Prime Minister Cameron) so obsessed is he with image management that real issues of governance are pushed to the margins.”

“If there is the political will, the money can be found to maintain the defence of the realm. As I have argued before, end the overseas aid budget, which is a pointless, socialist waste of money at £7 billion a year.”

As I asked in an earlier blog posting on Simon, are these really the comments one expects from a serious commentator writing for a supposedly serious daily newspaper?

You may or may not agree with Cameron’s recent criticisms of Israel and Pakistan or think they should have been made so publicly (I for one think the Prime Minister was right in the content of what he said and how and where he made his remarks), but does anyone really believe that the Prime Minister is unaware that we live in a dangerous World – always have actually – and that instability from elsewhere threatens?

When commenting on the Coalition, Simon likes to press the idea that the Prime Minister is just a PR man focused on image solely. What he ignores is how radical this government is planning to be – and radical in a lot of Conservative/Libertarian ways. Nothing less than a radical reform of the state and the relationship between the state and the public is being aimed for, a point emphasized last week by the Economist, which noted that “it is shaping up to be an ambitious administration.”

According to Simon, the Prime Minister is not interested in “real issues of governance” but let’s look at the short record so far. The Coalition has introduced an austerity package aimed at ending the country’s fiscal deficit that could see most government departments facing cuts of up to 40 percent – it is a spending reduction package that shames other European governments who claim they too are intent on putting the public books in good order.

But the Coalition is not stopping there. Coalition ministers intend to seize the opportunity to reshape the State and are proposing truly radical changes to NHS management, the Welfare system, schools, and the relationship between the police and the public. The Coalition is already acting to push back on the astonishing civil rights encroachments of the Blair and Brown governments. As the Economist – hardly a lefty or Lib Dem publication – argued “the historic nature of the coalition government itself is now less interesting than its domestic politics.”

So much for the Simon claim that the Prime Minister is pushing to the margins real issues of governance!

Does Simon think that he is writing fine commentary when he sneers and insults and misrepresents and tries to make out that Cameron and his ministers are ignorant and immature. Is this how Heffer’s mentor T.E. Utley wrote? Utley was an ideological Conservative but in his columns he was not bombastic and stuck to the facts and he would never have demeaned a Prime Minister by referring to them in a condescending manner by their first name.

So what does Simon think he is doing? And why he is doing what he is? Well, his chums on the right of the Conservative Party no doubt are egging him on. They, of course, are unable to accept any compromises to their narrow Conservatism. As far as they are concerned Britain should have no mass immigration – European Union citizens included – and Conservatives should not share government power. They want an old Britain that stands alone, proud, free and brave, etc. That fits in well with the kind of Britain Simon would like – the England of Trollope, where the Celtic fringes and working class people knew their places.

And so to be brave and free and proud we need an independent nuclear deterrent and shouldn’t be wasting money on some natives overseas. And according to them the nuclear replacement should not come out of defence funds but the government reserve. Well, boys, I have news for you – there isn’t a government reserve, the coffers are empty!

Britain’s nuclear deterrent isn’t and never will be independent – the Americans would have to agree before we fired it! And which country are we going to shoot at? The Russians? We knock out a couple of their cities and they knock out Britain lock, stock and barrel. Terrorists who sneak in a suitcase bomb? Iran has a far more important target than the U.K. – Israel.

I can well understand why Reagan thought all the generals talking about MAD were mad.

Back to Simon, briefly. The days when Britain’s overseas budget went straight into the pockets of Third World dictators are kind of over, Simon. Aid is far more targeted and monitored – although more monitoring is needed – and aid is starting to get more results-oriented, something Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, is keen to increase.

Yes, money to India and China should cease now but a lot of good can come from that aid budget in Africa and less developed countries, helping to ease the instability Simon worries about so much and encouraging economic development and that helps to ease the immigration pressures on us. Simon, maybe you should read less Trollope and start reading more studies and books on economic development, aid mechanics and even brush-up on what is actually happening in Africa.

Backfiring Predator

It apparently took 16 drone-missile attempts by the CIA before they got Pakistani insurgent leader Baitullah Meshud. His death on August 27 – he died along with his second wife in the attack in South Waziristan near the insurgent chief’s home village of Narkosa – was greeted with jubilation by U.S. and Pakistani officials. Although none of them detailed the earlier failed assassination efforts that killed hundreds of civilians, they were keen to point to Baitullah Mehsud’s death as a turning point in the war on terror in Pakistan.

The insurgency was now a snake without a head, or so the claim went. The CIA drone attack had left the Islamic militants in disarray, the officials maintained.

Events in Pakistan since late August have shown what a hollow accomplishment it was in taking out Baitullah Mehsud. The terror response from his Tehrik I Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and its allies, including Al Qaeda, illustrates clearly what the limits are in policy results in killing top terror leaders.

Back in 2002 then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz praised the tactic of using drone-missile attacks to vaporize the enemy leadership. Speaking on CNN after a CIA Reaper firing a Hellfire missile killed Al-Qaeda operative Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, Wolfowitz claimed such attacks not only got rid of dangerous people but disrupted the terror organizations, forcing them to change tactics and operations, making them less effective.

The same kind of talk was heard in August from Obama officials But since the assassination of Baitullah Mehsud, TTP and its allies have hardly drawn breath. Take October. One week saw three spectacular attacks – one on the World Food Programme office’s in Islamabad, another on a crowded market in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar that killed more than 50, and then a stunning finale with an assault on the headquarters of the Pakistani army in Rawalpindi leaving 20 dead.

Another October week and more blood-letting. Islamic militants attacked key police facilities in two Pakistani cities, killing at least 28 people as insurgents firing automatic rifles and carrying grenades stormed the headquarters of the Federal Investigation Agency and two police training centers in Lahore.

And on and on, Pakistan’s Islamic militants have shown that they can assault an array of different targets. In the wake of the August 27 drone attack, the TTP promoted senior lieutenant Hakeemullah Mehsud to take on its leadership and he has been successful in encouraging the various Islamic militant groups in Pakistan to coalesce more and to coordinate.

In short, the Hellfire missile that killed Baitullah Mehsud backfired.

Moral and legal disputes aside about the use of the drones and the targeted assassinations – and there are plenty of compelling arguments against this tactic none more convincing than that hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed in the process – the tactic is simply not working.

President Obama has come in for a lot of criticism for undertaking yet another review of policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan – his second review this year. Critics have been up in arms about his resistance to sending more troops to Afghanistan. But if the review involves identifying a political strategy and subduing the military approach to the conflict, then the time will have been well-spent.