After Britain partially withdrew forces from southern Iraq in September, the White House slandered its “closest ally,” claiming “British forces have performed poorly in Basra” and suggested “it’s best that they leave.”The White House should take notice of what has happened in Basra as British troops have left. According to Maj. Gen. Graham Binns, commander of British forces in Basra, the presence of British troops instigated violence. Now, violence has reportedly dropped to one-tenth that of earlier levels:
The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad’s Green Zone.
“We thought, ‘If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?,’” Binns said.
Sectarian tensions in Basra, a predominantly Shiite city, are not as high in other parts of Iraq, but “it has seen major fighting between insurgents and coalition troops.” British Defense Secretary Des Browne observed last month:
The people of that city are no longer subject to the significant level of violence that was directed against the British forces and our allies.
In April, 12 British troops were killed in Iraq in contrast to just 1 in October. Furthermore, “British officials expected a spike in such ‘intra-militia violence’ after they pulled back from the city’s center, and were surprised to find none,” Binns said.
When announcing a further withdrawal in early October, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Basra was “calmer” since British forces handed over their base in early September. “Indeed, in the last month, there have been five indirect fire attacks on Basra Air Station compared with 87 in July,” he observed.
While the region still sees ongoing volatility, the lesson learned by the British — that they provoked violence instead of quelling it — is one that can be applied to the U.S. presence in Iraq as well.
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
understanding government
We were warned:
“The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not.”
“Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies;
The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity
is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
“Do good to your friends to keep them,
to your enemies to win them.”
“The less we use our power, the greater it will be.”
“Leave no authority existing
not responsible to the people.”
“Experience hath shown that
even under the best forms of government,
those entrusted with power have,
in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.”
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield
and government to gain ground.”
"To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress,
is to take possession of a boundless field of power,
no longer susceptible of any definition."
“One of the qualities of liberty is that
As long as it is being striven after, it goes on expanding.
The man who stands in the midst of the struggle and says, ‘I have it,’
Merely shows by doing so that he has just lost it.”
“I am not concerned that you have fallen;
I am concerned that you
rise.
"In matters of style, swim with the current;
in matters of principle,
stand like a rock.”
“The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work
and give to those who would not.”
“Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies;
The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity
is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
“Do good to your friends to keep them,
to your enemies to win them.”
“The less we use our power, the greater it will be.”
“Leave no authority existing
not responsible to the people.”
“Experience hath shown that
even under the best forms of government,
those entrusted with power have,
in time, and by slow operations,
perverted it into tyranny.”
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield
and government to gain ground.”
"To take a single step beyond the boundaries
thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress,
is to take possession of a boundless field of power,
no longer susceptible of any definition."
“One of the qualities of liberty is that
As long as it is being striven after, it goes on expanding.
The man who stands in the midst of the struggle and says, ‘I have it,’
Merely shows by doing so that he has just lost it.”
“I am not concerned that you have fallen;
I am concerned that you
rise.
"In matters of style, swim with the current;
in matters of principle,
stand like a rock.”
why is brown antagonising a nation that has not threatened us
2.3 million US Soldiers vs 11.7 million Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007
Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:
Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right? Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day to various nations that depend on that oil.
We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70% approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll be “welcomed in the streets” after we “shock and awe” all important looking buildings to Jahannum and back.
With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the military systems of America and Iran and what I found was alarming . . .
2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol' Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas — Talk about hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta
At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit; this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch
America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair — something is about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable, think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful, be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The future of your family tree is in the balance.
I leave you with a quote:
People skew facts to paint pictures they want to paint, and people open their minds to pictures they want to see.
You must trust only the wisdom that is yours, and seek truth at the cost of even life itself.
May the force be with you,
Ty (Reign Developer)
Too bad, it's not as simple as how many soldiers each side has.
The first thing that comes to mind is the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones is confronted by an angry Arab dressed in black brandishing an enormous, razor sharp sword.Jones takes one look at the menacing figure then whips out a gun and shoots him dead.End of discussion.
I know it won't be that simple, but the US does have nukes and presumably so does israel and they're just crazy and barbaric enough to use them.
Alex Jones' terrifying new film End Game: Blueprint For Global Enslavement explores the history of eugenics and answers why the elite are so obsessed with thinning the human population. Click here to order the DVD or subscribe to prison planet.tv and watch the documentary in high quality online streaming format.
The Truth Will Set You Free | November 12, 2007
Some sobering advice from a fellow blogger at reigngame.com:
Alright, I know 90% of you guys follow politics so you've undoubtably read and/or heard about the current Iran situation. I'd like to briefly talk about the figurative war with Iran. For the sake of discussion, let's begin with the questionably optimistic assumption that no major country would forcefully oppose (economically or militarily) full-scale US military operations in Iran. Nevermind Iran's 12% imports with Germany and 10% imports with China - I'm sure Germany and China's economies don't want Iran's money anyway, right? Nevermind the fact that Iran exports 2,836,000 barrels of oil per day to various nations that depend on that oil.
We can all just ride bikes until the 2 month war is over! As to the Iranians themselves, I'm sure they're just dying (no pun intended) to be invaded, er, `liberated` by Americans, considering the `horrid` 70% approval rating of Ahmadinejad and the `devastating` $8,700 gross domestic product per capita (8.6% better than China). I'm sure we'll be “welcomed in the streets” after we “shock and awe” all important looking buildings to Jahannum and back.
With a little help from the boys at GFP, I did some exploring into the military systems of America and Iran and what I found was alarming . . .
2,369,239 US Soldiers vs 11,770,000 Iranian Soldiers = DRAFT
The United States of America has 2.37 million soldiers capable of combat and available for mobilization. Let's compare with little ol' Iran! Iran has THE MOST military personnel available for combat in the entire world. In fact, Iran has more combat-ready military personnel than China and Russia combined. 11.7 million guerillas — Talk about hell. The bottom line is, America can't even handle Iraq. At one point, we thought we would rush in, smite some nubs with dirks and bubble hearth back home in time for American Idol. Not quite. And with Iran, reality is going to hurt a lot more.
America is War Stomping on Artificial Ice Above the Pit of Sparta
At the risk of loosing all my credibility, allow my concern to manifest itself in a less than mature way: Our economy is &%$#ed. We have a -862,300,000,000 dollar cash balance. That puts us LAST in the world for cash balance of our own currency. This is what people are talking about when they say deficit. But this is more than a deficit; this is an abandonment of the dollar. The conclusion? Changes. And not the type of changes 2Pac wanted. Big changes that will crash into the hull of the United States.
Nerf Executive Branch
America is tipping back way too far in her easy chair — something is about to happen. This upcoming 2008 election is extremely pivotal. I'm not going to name any candidates because this isn't that type of article. But let the point of this entire post clear: If you think times are boring, think again. If you think the future is predictable, think again. My advice to everyone who reads this is to be thoughtful, be skeptical, be wise. Learn, test what you learn and share it. The future of your family tree is in the balance.
I leave you with a quote:
People skew facts to paint pictures they want to paint, and people open their minds to pictures they want to see.
You must trust only the wisdom that is yours, and seek truth at the cost of even life itself.
May the force be with you,
Ty (Reign Developer)
Too bad, it's not as simple as how many soldiers each side has.
The first thing that comes to mind is the scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Indiana Jones is confronted by an angry Arab dressed in black brandishing an enormous, razor sharp sword.Jones takes one look at the menacing figure then whips out a gun and shoots him dead.End of discussion.
I know it won't be that simple, but the US does have nukes and presumably so does israel and they're just crazy and barbaric enough to use them.
Alex Jones' terrifying new film End Game: Blueprint For Global Enslavement explores the history of eugenics and answers why the elite are so obsessed with thinning the human population. Click here to order the DVD or subscribe to prison planet.tv and watch the documentary in high quality online streaming format.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
guilt by silence this government is to make you guilty by silence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,2207130,00.html
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Britain: Queen’s Speech signals attack on civil liberties
By Paul Bond
14 November 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister five months ago, he sought to distance himself from the unpopularity of his predecessor Tony Blair by pledging “a new kind of politics.” On counter-terrorism legislation, he talked of a consultation period of “good will” rather than an immediate rush to pursue Blair’s repressive legislative agenda. Sections of the liberal establishment gave credence to Brown’s claims that he would “strengthen our liberties,” even though Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made it clear that new anti-terror legislation would be presented later in the year.
The first Queen’s Speech of Brown’s premiership last week made clear his government’s intent to deepen the assault on democratic rights and civil liberties. The Queen’s Speech presents the legislation a government will debate and seek to bring forward over the forthcoming parliamentary session.
Among the bills proposed by Brown is anti-terror legislation, centring on two main proposals. The first is to extend the period terror suspects can be detained without charge. The second is to extend the right to question suspects after they have been charged.
At present, suspects can be detained without charge for 28 days, longer than in any other major European country. In 1997, when Labour came to power, suspects could be detained for just 4 days. Home Office ministers have confirmed that their preferred option would be to extend the period to 56 days.
Two years ago, Blair lost a vote to extend the period of detention without charge from 14 to 90 days. This was when the limit was raised to 28 days. Smith is anxious not to repeat the experience of having government bills amended in this way. She therefore refused to state what the government’s preferred extension period would be when challenged on the BBC’s “Today” radio programme, and told the House of Commons that she was “seeking to gain consensus.”
The Conservatives have claimed to oppose this extension. But they do not oppose extending detention without charge. Their preferred method would be the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which would authorise an additional 30 days’ detention on top of the 28 provided by counter-terrorism legislation.
The civil liberties group Liberty, which opposed the 90-day limit and opposes the current proposed extension, also favours use of existing legislation. It argues in favour of removing restrictions on using wiretap evidence in court, and also agrees with the suggestion that suspects should be arrested for minor charges and then interviewed further as new evidence emerges.
Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti has been among those most willing to see the supposedly positive aspects of Brown’s attitude to civil liberties. Shortly before the Queen’s Speech, she praised the government’s willingness “to consult widely, to adopt a listening tone and a less combative tone, in relation to anti-terror laws.” She expressed concern that Brown himself might be compromised by extending detention: “All this will matter little if effective internment is returned to this country.”
The police have been campaigning for an extension. The Association of Chief Police Officers stated that they could envisage circumstances in which a 28-day limit could be insufficient. They cite as justification the increasing complexity and scale of terrorism.
That this is a smokescreen can be seen from the number of recent convictions for terrorist offences that have not required 28 days of detention. In July, Brown claimed that six suspects had been held for 27 or 28 days, implying that the police were at their time limits. But commentators have noted that the police will simply use the whole time limit available to them, regardless of how long that is.
The proposals have caused some anxiety among Labour Members of Parliament who would have to justify the extension to a sceptical and opposed electorate. Andrew Dismore, of the joint parliamentary human rights committee, said that Smith had not yet made a case for the extension, and that there was no evidence of the inadequacy of the present legislation. The same stance was taken by David Winnick, who said that if the detention period was to be extended, they must have “compelling evidence that it’s absolutely essential.”
The extension of detention has been the main focus of media attention. The other proposal, to continue questioning after charging, reveals even more clearly the wider attacks on civil liberties of the Brown government. The proposal has been advanced by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as an alternative to detention without charge. The Tories claim that it was one of their policies originally.
Smith told the BBC that the proposal would effectively continue the police caution after charges had been brought. She said she saw it as “an important condition” that would provide prosecutors with “more of the tools they need” to counter terrorism.
Under the proposals, juries could be instructed to view negatively a suspect’s refusal to cooperate after being charged. Barristers have noted that after charge there is little to be gained by a suspect in commenting further. As they are already charged, their next recourse will be to explain before a jury. Some terrorist cases have taken years to come to trial.
Instructing a jury to draw negative conclusions from failure to cooperate with police efforts to build a prosecution case over a lengthy period is clearly a further attack on the presumption of innocence that is the basis for English law. Smith also suggested on the “Today” programme that such a measure might be applied more widely than just terror cases.
Liberty has been arguing for such a measure in terrorism cases, “provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is no judicial oversight,” thus allowing “for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.” Advocating what amounts to a legal sleight-of-hand—someone could legitimately be held on a host of lesser offences—shows that the group is in fact acting as an adviser to the government in how best to get away with its attacks on civil liberties.
The government’s legislative programme was boosted by statements from the head of the secret service MI5 the day before it was revealed. Jonathan Evans, giving his first speech the day before the legislative programme was unveiled, claimed that at least 2,000 people are currently believed to pose a threat to national security.
Whipping up an atmosphere of right-wing hysteria to justify his appeals for further resources, he spoke of Al Qaeda targeting young teenagers in particular.
Writing in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins pondered, “Why has General Musharraf not telephoned Gordon Brown to express his ‘deep concern’ over yesterday’s Queen’s speech? Or Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?
“Here is a government unpopular and in trouble over terrorism. Its civil rights lawyers are up in arms. Its leader postpones a general election and summarily arrests anyone he sees as a danger to his state. He butters up the military by promising them more nuclear weapons. He announces changes to the constitution without consultation, imposes central rule over dissident local districts and extends imprisonment without trial. To soften up the public, he even gets his head of security to make a blood-curdling speech depicting every child as a potential suicide bomber.”
Describing Evans’s remarks as “pure Musharraf,” he warned that “Scaremongering by ministers, the police and security officials has bordered on the hysterical.”
But Evans was clearly appealing to the government when he said, “Every decision by the security service to investigate someone entails a decision not to investigate someone else.” The Queen’s Speech has indicated that the Brown government will listen and respond favourably to any appeal to further undermine democratic rights.
See Also:
British government accessing telephone records
[18 October 2007]
Police ban London antiwar march
[6 October 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
November 7, 2007
Legal reform 'damages presumption of innocence'
(Stephen Hird/Reuters)
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said that terror and non-terror suspects could be questioned by police after they have been charged
Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, and Jack Malvern
Police could be given the power to question suspects after they have been charged not only for terrorism but for a range of crimes, the Home Secretary announced this morning.
Lawyers reacted with alarm, warning that to allow crime suspects to be questioned after charge could be the "thin end of the wedge", and undermine the presumption of innocence.
Jacqui Smith revealed that the change to the English legal system was being mooted during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said that post-charge questioning, which has been mooted for terror charges as an alternative to extending the period suspects can be held without charge, could also be used "more widely" for other, unspecified crimes.
"Well, we're looking actually, as part of our review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, at whether or not it is more widely appropriate, so it's something that we're considering more widely on a slightly slower timescale."
Related Links
More powers for security forces
Flexible working hours for millions
The Bills: what's on the way
She added that post-charge questioning was not "a panacea in itself, but it is an important condition for a bill that we believe will provide for investigators and for prosecutors more of the tools that they need to help them to counter the serious threat from terrorism".
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police can already question suspects after charge, but no adverse inferences can be drawn from a suspect's refusal to answer questions.
Under the new system juries would allowed to draw a negative conclusion if a suspect stayed silent.
The Law Society said that extending the measure to other crimes would carry the risk of police using "repeated and oppressive" questioning to build a case where there was little evidence.
Robert Brown, a leading criminal solicitor with the London law firm Corker Binning, said: "This could be the thin end of the wedge. The problem with allowing the police to question a suspect and have adverse inferences drawn from any silence, which is permitted at present pre-charge, is that it fundamentally undermines the presumption of innocence.
"If you start to say that silence helps establish guilt, you are moving away from the need for the prosecution to prove its case."
The idea of allowing police to question suspects post-charge was first suggested as a compromise by lawyers who were opposed to extending the time terror suspects could be held. The measure was seen as an alternative to extended detention limits, not as an additional weapon in the police's armoury.
Police had argued that within 28 days they may not be able to recover all the evidence - for instance, that encrypted in a computer - and that was why they needed a longer period of detention.
Page 1 of 2
Next Page
Have your say
Isn't this in reality a move to a continental judicial system required by the EU?
fnusnuank, Gen , Switz
As a defence solictor Mr Brown should know that silence does not establish guilt, neither on it's own can a defendant's scilence secure a conviction. Silence to police questioning is only relevant if the defendant mention in his trial something he could have said in his interview.
Uche George, London, England
WSWS : News & Analysis : Europe : Britain
Britain: Queen’s Speech signals attack on civil liberties
By Paul Bond
14 November 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister five months ago, he sought to distance himself from the unpopularity of his predecessor Tony Blair by pledging “a new kind of politics.” On counter-terrorism legislation, he talked of a consultation period of “good will” rather than an immediate rush to pursue Blair’s repressive legislative agenda. Sections of the liberal establishment gave credence to Brown’s claims that he would “strengthen our liberties,” even though Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made it clear that new anti-terror legislation would be presented later in the year.
The first Queen’s Speech of Brown’s premiership last week made clear his government’s intent to deepen the assault on democratic rights and civil liberties. The Queen’s Speech presents the legislation a government will debate and seek to bring forward over the forthcoming parliamentary session.
Among the bills proposed by Brown is anti-terror legislation, centring on two main proposals. The first is to extend the period terror suspects can be detained without charge. The second is to extend the right to question suspects after they have been charged.
At present, suspects can be detained without charge for 28 days, longer than in any other major European country. In 1997, when Labour came to power, suspects could be detained for just 4 days. Home Office ministers have confirmed that their preferred option would be to extend the period to 56 days.
Two years ago, Blair lost a vote to extend the period of detention without charge from 14 to 90 days. This was when the limit was raised to 28 days. Smith is anxious not to repeat the experience of having government bills amended in this way. She therefore refused to state what the government’s preferred extension period would be when challenged on the BBC’s “Today” radio programme, and told the House of Commons that she was “seeking to gain consensus.”
The Conservatives have claimed to oppose this extension. But they do not oppose extending detention without charge. Their preferred method would be the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, which would authorise an additional 30 days’ detention on top of the 28 provided by counter-terrorism legislation.
The civil liberties group Liberty, which opposed the 90-day limit and opposes the current proposed extension, also favours use of existing legislation. It argues in favour of removing restrictions on using wiretap evidence in court, and also agrees with the suggestion that suspects should be arrested for minor charges and then interviewed further as new evidence emerges.
Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti has been among those most willing to see the supposedly positive aspects of Brown’s attitude to civil liberties. Shortly before the Queen’s Speech, she praised the government’s willingness “to consult widely, to adopt a listening tone and a less combative tone, in relation to anti-terror laws.” She expressed concern that Brown himself might be compromised by extending detention: “All this will matter little if effective internment is returned to this country.”
The police have been campaigning for an extension. The Association of Chief Police Officers stated that they could envisage circumstances in which a 28-day limit could be insufficient. They cite as justification the increasing complexity and scale of terrorism.
That this is a smokescreen can be seen from the number of recent convictions for terrorist offences that have not required 28 days of detention. In July, Brown claimed that six suspects had been held for 27 or 28 days, implying that the police were at their time limits. But commentators have noted that the police will simply use the whole time limit available to them, regardless of how long that is.
The proposals have caused some anxiety among Labour Members of Parliament who would have to justify the extension to a sceptical and opposed electorate. Andrew Dismore, of the joint parliamentary human rights committee, said that Smith had not yet made a case for the extension, and that there was no evidence of the inadequacy of the present legislation. The same stance was taken by David Winnick, who said that if the detention period was to be extended, they must have “compelling evidence that it’s absolutely essential.”
The extension of detention has been the main focus of media attention. The other proposal, to continue questioning after charging, reveals even more clearly the wider attacks on civil liberties of the Brown government. The proposal has been advanced by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as an alternative to detention without charge. The Tories claim that it was one of their policies originally.
Smith told the BBC that the proposal would effectively continue the police caution after charges had been brought. She said she saw it as “an important condition” that would provide prosecutors with “more of the tools they need” to counter terrorism.
Under the proposals, juries could be instructed to view negatively a suspect’s refusal to cooperate after being charged. Barristers have noted that after charge there is little to be gained by a suspect in commenting further. As they are already charged, their next recourse will be to explain before a jury. Some terrorist cases have taken years to come to trial.
Instructing a jury to draw negative conclusions from failure to cooperate with police efforts to build a prosecution case over a lengthy period is clearly a further attack on the presumption of innocence that is the basis for English law. Smith also suggested on the “Today” programme that such a measure might be applied more widely than just terror cases.
Liberty has been arguing for such a measure in terrorism cases, “provided that the initial charge is legitimate and there is no judicial oversight,” thus allowing “for a charge to be replaced with a more appropriate offence at a later stage.” Advocating what amounts to a legal sleight-of-hand—someone could legitimately be held on a host of lesser offences—shows that the group is in fact acting as an adviser to the government in how best to get away with its attacks on civil liberties.
The government’s legislative programme was boosted by statements from the head of the secret service MI5 the day before it was revealed. Jonathan Evans, giving his first speech the day before the legislative programme was unveiled, claimed that at least 2,000 people are currently believed to pose a threat to national security.
Whipping up an atmosphere of right-wing hysteria to justify his appeals for further resources, he spoke of Al Qaeda targeting young teenagers in particular.
Writing in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins pondered, “Why has General Musharraf not telephoned Gordon Brown to express his ‘deep concern’ over yesterday’s Queen’s speech? Or Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?
“Here is a government unpopular and in trouble over terrorism. Its civil rights lawyers are up in arms. Its leader postpones a general election and summarily arrests anyone he sees as a danger to his state. He butters up the military by promising them more nuclear weapons. He announces changes to the constitution without consultation, imposes central rule over dissident local districts and extends imprisonment without trial. To soften up the public, he even gets his head of security to make a blood-curdling speech depicting every child as a potential suicide bomber.”
Describing Evans’s remarks as “pure Musharraf,” he warned that “Scaremongering by ministers, the police and security officials has bordered on the hysterical.”
But Evans was clearly appealing to the government when he said, “Every decision by the security service to investigate someone entails a decision not to investigate someone else.” The Queen’s Speech has indicated that the Brown government will listen and respond favourably to any appeal to further undermine democratic rights.
See Also:
British government accessing telephone records
[18 October 2007]
Police ban London antiwar march
[6 October 2007]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
November 7, 2007
Legal reform 'damages presumption of innocence'
(Stephen Hird/Reuters)
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, said that terror and non-terror suspects could be questioned by police after they have been charged
Frances Gibb, legal editor of The Times, and Jack Malvern
Police could be given the power to question suspects after they have been charged not only for terrorism but for a range of crimes, the Home Secretary announced this morning.
Lawyers reacted with alarm, warning that to allow crime suspects to be questioned after charge could be the "thin end of the wedge", and undermine the presumption of innocence.
Jacqui Smith revealed that the change to the English legal system was being mooted during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. She said that post-charge questioning, which has been mooted for terror charges as an alternative to extending the period suspects can be held without charge, could also be used "more widely" for other, unspecified crimes.
"Well, we're looking actually, as part of our review of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, at whether or not it is more widely appropriate, so it's something that we're considering more widely on a slightly slower timescale."
Related Links
More powers for security forces
Flexible working hours for millions
The Bills: what's on the way
She added that post-charge questioning was not "a panacea in itself, but it is an important condition for a bill that we believe will provide for investigators and for prosecutors more of the tools that they need to help them to counter the serious threat from terrorism".
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, police can already question suspects after charge, but no adverse inferences can be drawn from a suspect's refusal to answer questions.
Under the new system juries would allowed to draw a negative conclusion if a suspect stayed silent.
The Law Society said that extending the measure to other crimes would carry the risk of police using "repeated and oppressive" questioning to build a case where there was little evidence.
Robert Brown, a leading criminal solicitor with the London law firm Corker Binning, said: "This could be the thin end of the wedge. The problem with allowing the police to question a suspect and have adverse inferences drawn from any silence, which is permitted at present pre-charge, is that it fundamentally undermines the presumption of innocence.
"If you start to say that silence helps establish guilt, you are moving away from the need for the prosecution to prove its case."
The idea of allowing police to question suspects post-charge was first suggested as a compromise by lawyers who were opposed to extending the time terror suspects could be held. The measure was seen as an alternative to extended detention limits, not as an additional weapon in the police's armoury.
Police had argued that within 28 days they may not be able to recover all the evidence - for instance, that encrypted in a computer - and that was why they needed a longer period of detention.
Page 1 of 2
Next Page
Have your say
Isn't this in reality a move to a continental judicial system required by the EU?
fnusnuank, Gen , Switz
As a defence solictor Mr Brown should know that silence does not establish guilt, neither on it's own can a defendant's scilence secure a conviction. Silence to police questioning is only relevant if the defendant mention in his trial something he could have said in his interview.
Uche George, London, England
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Ron Paul Is Money
Republican Raises Stunning $3 Million Online in Less Than 24 Hours
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., raised a stunning $3 million in less than 24 hours online. (ABC News Illustration) By Z. BYRON WOLF
Nov. 5, 2007
Font Size
Share Mark it down: A landmark moment entered the annals of political fundraising Nov. 5, 2007.
Full Coverage
VOTE 2008: Who is Your Candidate?If Texas Republican Ron Paul's Web site fundraising meter is to be believed, the Libertarian candidate, who has lagged in the polls but raised as much money as top-tier candidates, passed $3 million in online fundraising in less than 24 hours.
Paul's Haul May Set Online Record
It was a big deal back in 2000 when Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised $1 million online in the 24 hours after his upset victory over then-Gov. George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary.
McCain's impressive take was seen as the birth of online fundraising -- a moment when online donors gained considerable respect.
Paul raised just over $5 million in the most recent fundraising quarter, which ended September 30. The campaign has set an official goal of raising $12 million between Oct.1 and the end of 2007.
As of midnight Sunday, Nov. 4, the Paul campaign claimed to have raised $2.77 million.
Monday's drive was coordinated by an independent Web site but received the tacit endorsement of Paul on the stump this week.
Blog
BLOGS: POLITICAL RADARHe told supporters at a rally in Columbia, S.C., that the mainstream media is more likely to pay attention if he raises more money. And that attention will lead to more mainstream voters hearing his message.
Watch video of Paul on the stump from ABC News on the campaign trail in South Carolina
Supporters Remember Nov. 5
It's not unusual for campaigns to attach a slogan to a one-day, one-event or one-week fundraising push.
Video
Must See Political MomentsSen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., have dined with donating supporters; Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, encouraged donations for her husband's birthday.
Earlier this year, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., got his hand slapped by Major League Baseball for offering to raffle off World Series tickets to a lucky donor.
But leave it to Ron Paul's devoted legions to win the originality contest this year.
"Remember, Remember, the fifth of November," cries the call for cash.
The catchy slogan comes from a nursery rhyme about Guy Fawkes, the 17th-century crusader for Catholics rights caught in the basement of parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. He failed in his mission to blow the place up.
ABC News tracked down Trevor Lyman, the man behind the Web site that coordinated Paul's one-day money bomb on his cell phone in line at a Miami Starbucks, where the whir of the barista making his lunchtime latte could be heard in the background.
Lyman, 37, is not your average political fundraiser.
His day job is running a music promotion Web site, but he spends his free time at the helm of the grassroots Web site that conspired in online chat forums and meetup groups to send a fundraising bomb in support of Paul.
But Lyman, who has never worked for a campaign before -- and still doesn't, technically -- describes himself as "mostly apathetic" when it comes to politics, started supporting Paul back when the congressman was just exploring a presidential run.
Full Coverage
Giuliani's Favorite Film? Find Out Here!He started a Web site devoted to Paul videos, the tagline for which is "Televising the Revolution."
The first video featured when we visited showed surfers how to use holiday lights to create and illuminated "Ron Paul Revolution" yard decoration.
Reach of the 'Revolution'
Lyman launched his most recent site only on Oct. 18, and he is hoping to move back to New Hampshire soon, not to work on the campaign, just because he went to college there and said it would be a better place than Miami to raise a family.
Asked if it is appropriate to invoke a nursery rhyme about a man who tried to blow up parliament in the 17th-century as a fundraising tool, Lyman said, "Some people want to go that way. We're not going in any way violent."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=3822989&page=2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)