Blair Declares New Anti-Terror Policies - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Incosian · 08-05-2005, 04:30 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/in...rtner=homepage

Quote:

Blair Vows New Laws to End Sanctuary for Muslim Extremists
BY ALAN COWELL

LONDON, Aug. 5 - Prime Minister Tony Blair today promised new measures to close down mosques and bar or deport clerics deemed to be fostering hatred and violence, bringing the country's antiterrorism policy more into line with its neighbors' and answering critics who say Britain has given shelter to Islamic extremists for years.

He also said two Islamic organizations would be banned. A global list would be drawn up of people "whose activities or views pose a threat to Britain's security," and they would be kept out of Britain.

"Let no one be in any doubt," he said at a news conference, "the rules of the game are changing."

Mr. Blair's announcement was immediately condemned by Muslim groups here, who warned that the moves would be seen as "dangerous" and discriminatory. Fears of political reprisal have steadily risen among British Muslims since July 7, when four bombers attacked London's transportation system and killed 52 people besides themselves. A second attack followed on July 21 but caused no casualties.

The changes, which will require Parliament's approval, strike a new note in the ongoing debate here about the balance between civil liberties and national security. They seem to nudge Britain toward policies adopted by the United States - and widely criticized by leaders here - after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The initiatives still fall short of American policies that send terrorism suspects to be held without charges at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, or that allow the rendition of suspects to other countries for interrogation. But Mr. Blair warned that Britain would amend its human rights legislation, if necessary, to enable the authorities to deport foreigners to lands with questionable human rights records - a step forbidden under the European Human Rights Convention.

The new measures take aim for the first time at Islamic Web sites and book stores that are considered extremist and at "networks and particular organizations of concern." In addition, Mr. Blair said that any foreigners in Britain in "active engagement" with those sites or groups would be considered for deportation. He did not say how Britain would define the term extremist.

"We will consult on a new power to order closure of a place of worship which is used as a center for fomenting extremism and will consult with Muslim leaders in respect of those clerics who are not British citizens, to draw up a list of those not suitable to preach who will be excluded from Britain," Mr. Blair said.

He specifically mentioned two groups that would be banned: Hizb ut Tahrir, which says it supports a nonviolent campaign to restore the Islamic caliphate; and Al Muhajiroun and its successor groups, which have made a point of praising the Sept. 11 hijackers.

He also promised broader use of so-called control orders, which civil rights activists regard as a form of house arrest imposed without formal charges being laid.

Mr. Blair suggested that the new deportation powers would bring Britain into line with the procedures prevalent among some of its critics, notably France, who have said that terrorists have been given free rein here to plot attacks. "France and Spain, to name just two other European countries, do deport by administrative decision. The effect is often immediate," he said.

The threatened measures drew strong protests from Islamic groups.

Imran Waheed, a spokesman for Hizb ut Tahrir, said the move to outlaw it would cause "serious repercussions" among British Muslims and "will be seen by the Muslim community as stifling legitimate political dissent."

Massoud Shadjareh, head of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said Muslims "will think it is a war against political Islam. This is a very dangerous signal from the government."

The mainstream Muslim Council of Britain also assailed Mr. Blair's announcement, saying that "if there are groups that are thought to be contravening our laws, then they ought to be prosecuted in the courts, not driven underground."

Other countries who have criticized Britain's policies have specifically singled out Islamic groups and figures like Al Muhajiroun and its leader, the Syrian-born Sheik Omar Bakri Mohamed.

Additionally, clerics like Abu Qatada, a Jordanian of Palestinian descent, and Abu Hamza al-Masri, who was born in Egypt, were free to preach here. Places of worship like the Finsbury Park mosque were held to be centers of Islamic subversion used by terrorists including the so-called shoe-bomber Richard C. Reid and Zaccarias Moussaoui, the only man charged in America in connection with the attacks of Sept. 11.

In recent months, some of those clerics have been jailed or restricted. Mr. al-Masri is facing possible extradition to the United States, and Mr. Qatada is under a form of house arrest.

The measures announced by Mr. Blair are in addition to previously announced plans to introduce legislation later this year making it an offense to glorify, prepare for or incite acts of terrorism. Mr. Blair made clear today that the law would include such acts committed outside Britain, suggesting that threats against the United States and Britain ascribed on Thursday to Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy in Al Qaeda, would become a formal offense under British law.

Mr. Blair said he was ready to recall Parliament from its summer recess if necessary to accelerate the harsher controls.

The smaller of Britain's two main opposition parties, the Liberal Democrats, registered its "alarm" at the new proposals today. Leaders of the Conservatives said they would wait to comment until seeing the entire text of the government's proposal.

Only a few months ago, before British national elections in May, Parliament and the country's highest court diluted Britain's antiterrorism laws, arguing strongly that some of their provisions violated suspects' civil rights. But the announcement of the latest measures suggested Mr. Blair felt Britons would now support sterner antiterrorism policies.

"For obvious reasons, the mood now is different," Mr. Blair said. "People do not talk of scaremongering."

"I don't think we should allow ourselves to be backed into a corner where we say when you are protecting national security you are interfering with civil rights or civil liberties," Mr. Blair said.

In a 12-point list of measures, Mr. Blair said Britain planned as of today to broaden the grounds for deportation to include "fostering hatred, advocating violence to further a person's beliefs or justifying or validating such violence."

Previously European human rights laws prevented Britain from deporting people to nations where they might face torture or the death sentence. But under the new proposal, Britain would deport people to countries that offer assurances that no such abuse will happen. Jordan has already given an assurance, Mr. Blair said, and he has held "very constructive" talks with the leaders of Algeria and Lebanon on similar commitments.

"Should legal obstacles arise, we will legislate further, including, if necessary amending the Human Rights Act," he said.

While Britain already has powers to revoke the British nationality of people with dual citizenship, "we will now consult on extending these, applying them to naturalized citizens engaged in extremism and making the procedures simpler and more effective," he said.

Several of the main suspects in the July 21 bombing attempt are naturalized Britons whose parents were born in the Horn of Africa. Since July 21, police have arrested 39 people, of whom three have been indicted with terrorism-related offenses and 14 remain in police custody. A further suspect, Hussein Osman, aka Hamdi Issac, is under arrest in Rome where he fled after the bombing attempts.

His wife, Yeshiemebet Girma, 29, and sister-in-law, Mulumubet Girma, 21, appeared before Bow Magistrate's Court today charged with failing to disclose information about him. The family originated in Ethiopia.

"Coming to Britain is not a right," Mr. Blair said. "And even when people have come here, staying here carries with it a duty. That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here."

"This is not in any way whatever aimed at the decent law-abiding Muslim community of Britain," Mr. Blair said. "We know that this fringe of extremists does not truly represent Islam."

Blair today created anti-terror policies akin to the United States' Patriot Act, as a response to the "7/7" bombings of last month. I personally do not endorse many if not all of the tenets of the aforementioned policy instated after 9/11, and find Blair's proposal a means to supply the government with an arsenal of tools that are based on ambiguous legislation, and I believe it largely violates constitutional rights. However, I'm curious to see what the reaction is in this community to Blair's comments. I highlighted a few of the points made by the author that I think are important issues that need to be raised.

What do others in here think about this?

Here is also a BBC article that presents several different views, added for perspective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4748963.stm

Lebell · 08-05-2005, 10:25 PM

Personally, I think it's about time.

Any nation that allows vipers to breed within their mist really has only themselves to blame when they get bit.

host · 08-05-2005, 11:26 PM

Lebell....your "cure" (and Tony Blair's), to me...seem much worse than the disease. I am pleased to offer closely aligned opinions relevant to this thread's core question, from Reagan appointed U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour and from Charles V. Peña, director of defense policy studies at the [CONSERVATIVE} Cato Institute.

Who shall we place our trust in to abridge the right of due process under the law, so as only to affect the targeted suspects "du jour"? If the decision taken on this forum, on or about July 24, to block the further display of "thread views", is an indication of a deliberate act of authority, "for our own good", is any indication of a failure to anticipate an unintended consequence, (the decline in interest and in participation on TFP Politics...noticeable since the July 24 "change"....) those in authority never possess the ability to fully act in their own best interests.....let alone everyone else's. Hence...the need for a vigorous defense...at all times....and in all circumstances....of the unadulterated rights as they are reaffirmed in our constitution, and in the body of law that defines similar protections of rights in the UK.

To argue otherwise, or to permit an assault on our rights, such as the "Patriot" Acts, is as eloquently described by Judge Coughenour (below).

Quote:

"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.

Quote:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/12236957.htm
Posted on Wed, Jul. 27, 2005
Click here to find out more!

Judge's comments in Ressam sentencing

Associated Press

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour's comments during Wednesday's sentencing hearing for Ahmed Ressam, as provided by court officials.

Ressam, an Algerian national, was sentenced to 22 years for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium.

"OK. Let me say a few things. First of all, it will come as no surprise to anybody that this sentencing is one that I have struggled with a great deal, more than any other sentencing that I've had in the 24 years I've been on the bench.

"I've done my very best to arrive at a period of confinement that appropriately recognizes the severity of the intended offense, but also recognizes the practicalities of the parties' positions before trial and the cooperation of Mr. Ressam, even though it did terminate prematurely.

"The message I would hope to convey in today's sentencing is twofold:

"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.

"Secondly, though, I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.

"I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.

"Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens.

"Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel.

"The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism.

"Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. This is a Constitution for which men and women have died and continue to die and which has made us a model among nations. If that view is allowed to prevail, the terrorists will have won.

"It is my sworn duty, and as long as there is breath in my body I'll perform it, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We will be in recess."

Quote:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4019
July 27, 2005

A Useless, Intrusive P.R. Display

by Charles V. Peña and Ted Galen Carpenter

Charles V. Peña is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute and a terrorism analyst for MSNBC.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and author of six books, including Peace & Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic..........

..........Random searches on the subway are as useless as random searches of airline passengers at the gate—a practice that fortunately has been eliminated by the Transportation Security Agency after TSA administrator James M. Loy decided it was a "stupid rule."...............

........Officials in Washington, DC and San Francisco are waiting to see what happens in New York before deciding to implement random searches on Metro and BART, respectively. But deliberation won't change the fact that random searches are both ineffective and a gross violation of constitutional rights. The decision should be a no-brainer.

The outrage in America after the London tube bombings is certainly understandable—as is the desire for Americans to feel safe. At most, that's all random searches on the subway will do: make people feel safer. But such measures won't actually make them safer. It is all too easy to adopt the attitude of one New York subway passenger: "It's just part and parcel of the world we live in."

But nothing could be further from the truth. The world we live in is represented by the Constitution and the principles upon which American society rests. As such, we should heed Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Random searches on the subway ultimately mean we have neither.

Draconis · 08-08-2005, 11:42 AM

I think that very important point is being overlooked. Freedom of speech covers many, many things. It was written to protect discourse, discussion, conversation. Free speech requires active participation by both parties. However, it does not and was never meant to protect sedition. That is what is being dealt with. There would be no problem if these extremists were to participate in a forum, public or private; in a "town hall" session; in a debate. Instead, those parties in question, most of the time non-citizens, espouse and praise violent acts against the country of their domicile. A country's constitution is meant to protect its citizens first and others second; this is a given, especially since such a document would not have been written in the first place had non-citizens been given greater or equal import as citizens. Therefore, since it is an act of sedition and therefore not covered under the protection of free speech AND the party in question is a threat of foreign origin with domicile in that country and therefore not privy to the full rights and protections of citizens, it is not a violation of that country's constitution and would not even be considered one had the party in question been a citizen. I hope this has been of help.

08-05-2005, 10:25 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Personally, I think it's about time. Any nation that allows vipers to breed within their mist really has only themselves to blame when they get bit. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

08-08-2005, 11:42 AM	#4 (permalink)
Draconis Insane Location: Normandy, June of '44	I think that very important point is being overlooked. Freedom of speech covers many, many things. It was written to protect discourse, discussion, conversation. Free speech requires active participation by both parties. However, it does not and was never meant to protect sedition. That is what is being dealt with. There would be no problem if these extremists were to participate in a forum, public or private; in a "town hall" session; in a debate. Instead, those parties in question, most of the time non-citizens, espouse and praise violent acts against the country of their domicile. A country's constitution is meant to protect its citizens first and others second; this is a given, especially since such a document would not have been written in the first place had non-citizens been given greater or equal import as citizens. Therefore, since it is an act of sedition and therefore not covered under the protection of free speech AND the party in question is a threat of foreign origin with domicile in that country and therefore not privy to the full rights and protections of citizens, it is not a violation of that country's constitution and would not even be considered one had the party in question been a citizen. I hope this has been of help. __________________ STEVE MCKENNA!