Tuesday, October 17, 2006


Here's a not very difficult riddle.

When are dangerous terrorists not dangerous terrorists?

I don't mean when they're white. That's a whole other hypocrisy.

No, this is about the disappearance of two people subject to control orders. These two men are so very dangerous that the government wants to lock them up in Belmarsh high security prison indefinitely without charging them in a court of law. That's according to the government.

And yet, according to that same government - who have no idea where these two men are - they are now not a risk to the public.
In response to suggestions the two suspects could carry out an attack at any time, Mr McNulty said: "On balance, I don't think that's the case at all."
Yes, welcome to another edition of the Blair government's favourite game; "Ministerial Doublethink". McNulty has always been a master of this game but he really excelled himself on Newsnight yesterday.

So, are these two men so dangerous that it is necessary to discard a central tenet of our society, the right to a fair trial, in order to protect that same society? Well, it sort of depends...

There were two things which were clear from McNulty's interview.

Firstly, the government is going to blame the judges for this. To paraphrase Macnulty, if those pesky judges hadn't ruled that indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial was illegal, this would never have happened.

Because in Blair's Britain, an independent judiciary sworn to protect the fundamental principles of our society is an unwelcome hindrance to executive power. The notion that such a hindrance is vital in order to guard against the unchecked power of an elected dictatorship is just soooo Twentieth Century. Those who are concerned that the government is destroying our society in order to save it (to borrow a phrase) are relics from the past; they just don't get it. Today, we live in a brave new world. The rules of the game have changed.

The second thing McNulty made clear was that the government intends to use this episode of their own incompetence to make the case that they need even greater powers. Where would you even start to critique that? I think the one sentence says it so here it is again. The government intends to use this episode of their own incompetence to make the case that they need even greater powers. I'd say this was unbelievable but for the fact that it's par for the course for this lot.

The were only fifteen people subject to these control orders in the whole country. That the government has lost two is actually in some way a comfort. After all, if they were competent power hungry, self-serving authoritarians, that'd be an even greater worry.

Tags: , ,


fjl said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CuriousHamster said...

flj, I've just come in and read your comment. I've deleted it, possibly temporarily, while I find out a little more.

Friendly Fire said...

Brilliant post.

Anonymous said...

All this business is about keeping a number of persons detained in the UK(without trial). 17 foreign nationals have been detained without trial in the UK, under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

An appeal by 9 of these detainees resulted in the Law Lords ruling that Part 4 of this Act was illegal under International Human Rights Law. The case was A(FC) and others & the ruling was on 16th December 2004.

It is worth noting that all 9 detainees in the A(FC) and others case; none of them had been the subject of any criminal charge, & in none of their cases was a criminal trial in prospect!

Control orders then came into being on March 11, 2005, under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005; this Act of Parliament was intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004.

In April 2006, a High Court judge (Mr Justice Sullivan) issued a declaration that section 3 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Act was incompatible with the right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

You have to ask:
Why are these people being kept without trial?

They have not been convicted of any criminal acts; we are only told that they are a threat to national Security.

I believe it is because of their knowledge of events/processes in the lead up to 'terrorist events (particularly 911).

Oh, & Finsbury Park Mosque (MI5's old stomping ground) figures heavily amongst this subject.

Anyone interested in researching this further?

Anonymous said...

Just to make it clear - their INSIDE knowledge of the machinations of these (false-flag) terror events.