Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Geoff comments on the fact that the Osman Hussain was able to leave the country on a Eurostar train.

“I’m aware that the Home Office will be looking at that. Certainly in recent times there has been enhanced security for those leaving the country as well as for those coming into the United Kingdom. It’s one of those arguments that we have used to support the idea of identity cards, because it is vitally important that we are able to say who is in the United Kingdom at any given time.”
Geoff Hoon.

I try to avoid degenerating into crude name calling, but for Hoon I reserve the right to make a special exception. He’s an idiot, he’s a bloody buffoon, he’s a slimy sanctimonious snake, he’s a pitiful posturing pompous populist, he’s an utterly useless unscrupulous unpleasant unintellegent underling. Let’s face it, he’s an arse.

In what way will ID cards enable us to say “who is in the United Kingdom at any given time?” I’ll give you a clue. It’s not. What we need for that is ID cards, *and* absolute confidence that it’s impossible to fake the cards, *and* a very long, very high fence around the entire country which is heavily guarded by border security forces at all times in all places. Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if Hoon thinks this is a good idea too. Git.

Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times (via Europhobia) hits the nail on the head. Repeatedly. I’d recommend reading it all but here are a couple of snippets.

That some London passengers were sadly killed earlier this month does not put the security of the British state at risk. I have a higher respect for that security than most people seem to have. Britain is not at war just because some Arab says so. No amount of tabloid hysteria — or tabloid government — should make it otherwise. No city can be immune to bombs but that does not subvert democracy and engender a state of emergency. Anyone who pretends otherwise is an accessory to the terrorism itself.

I concur.

Terrorism’s “useful idiots” have had a field day this past fortnight. They have jumped from “nothing can justify the bombing” (true) to “nothing can explain the bombing” (absurd). They have jumped from “Britain’s war in Iraq is no excuse for killing innocent Londoners” (true) to “Britain’s war in Iraq has nothing to do with the bombing” (palpably absurd). They jump from “we must not be driven to alter our way of life” (true) to demanding that we do just that. The “useful idiots” demand new powers, new restrictions and new measures against the Muslim community. Above all they declare “war on terror”, turn murderers into warriors and incite Islam to proclaim jihad in response.

He’s not wrong. Read it all. It’s responsible level headed writing on the current situation, and that’s pretty unusual these days. And in a Murdoch newspaper, would you believe? As Nosemonkey points out, this is somewhat negated by the Sunday Times front page story mentioned in the previous post. I wonder if the editorial staff realise that they are also terrorism’s “useful idiots”?

All five of the suspected bombers of 21st July have now been captured. It’s good to know that our security services are doing their job. A round of applause for the scary looking anti-terrorist units. Seriously, bloody good job all round.

The one really good thing to have come out of the recent unpleasantness is that it should provide some decent intelligence. Suicide bombers rarely talk. It looks like these one’s will. Osman Hussain, who was captured in Rome, has apparently already made a confession to the Italian authorities.

Here’s a handy roundup of the Sunday newspaper coverage of what he’s alleged to have said [assume “alleged” where appropriate from here on].

The Independent seems to be reasonable rational about the statement. Hussain claims that Iraq was the key motivation.

The would-be bombers watched films, “especially those in which you saw women and children killed and exterminated by the English and American soldiers, or widows, mothers and daughters who were crying”.

They also say that Hussain said:

“We never had contacts with the Bin Laden organisation. We knew that they existed. We had access to their platforms through the internet, but nothing direct.”

And they seem to have checked the authenticity of the statement with the Italian authorities.

The Italian Interior Ministry confirmed that the quotes from Hussain’s interrogation in La Repubblicaand the Corriere della Serawere authentic but declined to comment on the source of the leaks.

The Observer goes along the same lines.

In a remarkable insight into the motives behind the alleged would-be bombers, Hussain Osman, arrested in Rome on Friday, has revealed how the suspects watched hours of TV footage showing grief-stricken Iraqi widows and children alongside images of civilians killed in the conflict. He is alleged to have told prosecutors that after watching the footage:
‘There was a feeling of hatred and a conviction that it was necessary to give a signal - to do something.’

They mention potentially conflicting reports from the Italian media. They do also point out that Hussain has claimed to have had no contact with Al Queda or Bin Laden. It’s reasonably consistent with the Independent version of what Hussain said.

The Sunday Times has inside information to bring us which is far more important than the words of an actual attempted suicide bomber. Hussain’s words are relegated to little more than a footnote. They start with this instead:

A THIRD Islamist terror cell is planning multiple suicide bomb attacks against Tube trains and other “soft” targets in central London, security sources have revealed.

A classic story from that most authoratative and accountable source, the “security forces”. Oh wait, they are actually “seniour police officers”. A “member of the Yard’s firearms unit” is also quoted. A remarkable coincidence that this story should break today, I’m sure you’ll agree. Anyway, after they’ve finished scaring the pants off their readers with unattributed, unaccountable “information” (just to get you in the right state of mind you understand), they do eventually get round to mentioning Hussain.

His group decided to carry out the attacks as a statement about the war in Iraq but was not linked to Al-Qaeda or any other terrorists. Contrary to some reports, he told his interrogators that the plotters did intend to explode their rucksacks but that they did not intend to kill anybody. He is reported to have said: “Religion had nothing to do with this. We watched films. We were shown videos with images of the war in Iraq. We were told we must do something big. That’s why we met.”

I’d say the Times report, after the obligatory scare story, is also consistent as to what Hussain said.

Scotland on Sunday does it’s traditional job of scaring the living crap out of their readers.

THE London bomb plot suspect arrested in Rome has allegedly confessed to Italian interrogators, lifting the lid on the plan to bring a wave of terror to Britain.

Yikes! And there’s more.

In the remarkable confession to Italian prosecutors, Osman gave a dramatic indication that the July 21 conspiracy went far beyond the four people originally named as the key suspects for the failed attacks on three Underground trains and a bus.

Run away! Run away!

They do eventually mention that Hussain claims to have had no contact wiith Al Queda. They’re not buying it though, and even seem to have their own theory on a link to Bin Laden.

In a new development last night, it emerged that Osman made a mobile phone call to Saudi Arabia shortly before his arrest, opening up the possibility that the bomb plot was carried out with the help of Saudi extremists. Saudi is the home country of Bin Laden and 15 of the September 11 terrorists.

Even the Times didn’t think to indulge in this one. It’s a spectacular example of a relatively recent phenomenon, “Possiblity News”. Why report facts when the possibilities are endless? In fact, what Hussain actually appears to have said has been almost entirely buried by possibilities. Good job. Wouldn’t want the facts to get in the way of a splendid editorial policy.

Well, what can we conclude from all that? Newspapers used slanty writing? I think we know that already. I’ve got a post in mind about terrorism and the media. These examples are a good starting point for that.

Back to the point thought, it does appear that Hussain has provided a confession but it’s entirely possible that every word he has said is a lie. He may or may not have had direct contact with Al Queda. He says he was motivated by the Iraq war but that could be a lie too. At this stage, I don’t think we can be confident that the statement is an accurate reflection of Hussain’s motives and actions. It’s probably wise to resist placing too much emphasis on this until a lot more interrogation has been carried out. What we really need is to get the 5 suspects into court as soon as possible.

Just one final thought on a general point Blair has been making. He said that even if Iraq was linked to these attacks it was irrelevant because we can’t allow our foreign policy to be influenced by “these people” (as he like to call them). What’s the “war” on terror then? Isn’t that foreign policy influenced by “these people”? It’s another contrary Blair defence, completely devoid of common sense. Yes, I’m fighting a “war” but my foreign policy will not be influenced by my enemies in the war. Right, imagine this fictional scene. We’ve laughed at the French once to often. War is declared. The French army is assembling at Calais. Blair sends our army off to invade Poland. He’s not having the French dictate his foreign policy. Oh, we’ve been invaded. Next thing you know, we’re all eating smelly cheese and other such stereotypes. What’s French for “doh!”?

The right to protest against government policy is a fundamental right in a free democratic society.

Now I reckon there are two possible reactions to that statement.
1. I quite agree Mr Hamster.
2. Bloody liberals bleating on about their “fundamental rights”. Don’t they know people are trying to kill us?

If you’re a 1, read on. If you’re a 2, I’m not sure what to recommend really. Try considering this statement instead: A repressive regime seeks to limit the rights of citizens to protest against their policies.

Our increasingly repressive regime government seems intent on reducing our right to protest. This law will restrict our right to hold peaceful demonstrations against government policy. You can see why they’re so keen on it. It also appears to have become law in large part due to Brian Haw making MPs feel “a little bit uncomfortable”. On it’s own I’d say that’s a worrying symptom of this government’s tendancy to legislate our rights away based on nothing more than a whim and a prayer, but when you consider that the intended target is apparently not affected by the new law, you’ve got to be honest and say the whole thing is just decending into farce.

The new law comes into effect on 1 August. There’s also going to be a demonstration in the exclusion zone on that day. Although it’s being arranged by the Stop the War Coalition, it’s simply a protest about the right to protest. This is a bad law for a ridiculous reason. What’s worse, it’s going to make it harder to hold legitimate protests against government policy. Does anyone seriously believe the inhabitants of the Westminster bubble should be further removed from the people they’re supposed to represent? Obviously by anyone, I mean anyone other than the majority of MPs who clearly never want to set eyes on the great unwashed ever again. But that probably goes without saying.

As usual on such occassions, I’ll be slightly hampered by the 500 miles there are between me and London. If you’re a bit closer on Monday (2pm, outside parliament) you might want to consider joining the protest. Will it be your last chance to protest against the government in this country? Not quite, but this law is certainly another step in the direction of that dangerous crumbling cliff top.

I’ve been messing around with my layout a bit. It’s nothing dramatic but I just thought I’d mention it. I’m also going to do something with my blogroll’s although I haven’t quite decided what yet. There are a fair few blogs I want to add. That’s all I want to say right now really. Carry on.

Oh, in the spirit of complete randomness, you might want to read about open source beer (via doctorvee). That’s very clever.

So we’ve now heard that IRA statement we’ve all been expecting. I’m not going to stick my big foot in that hornets nest*. I’ll just say it’s about bloody time and leave it at that.

Still, I could always pop off a few observations in the margins.
Peter Hain was talking about it on Newsnight. I was half listening to the interview, trying not to feel irritated as he went through his standard vapid utterances, when out came these words of wisdom.

Hessler: “So where do we go from here? Will we have Ian Paisley as first minister of Northern Ireland with Gerry Adams as his deputy?”
Hain: “Well, I think Ian Paisley would be a good first minister.”
[I’m paraphrasing but it’s definitely representative.]

It’s just as well I wasn’t drinking anything. I actually looked round to see if he was laughing but no, his face bore only a now familiar but utterly unconvincing attempt to adopt the look of a serious politician. He wasn’t joking. Now, Ian Paisley is the leader of the largest democratically elected party in Northern Ireland. There’s no getting away from that. But he’s also a seething mass of intolerance, and I’m afraid there’s no getting away from that either.
I recall being told that his response to the Downing Street Declaration was to say that “John Major has obviously been conniving with his cronies in Rome”.

He’s the President of the European Institute of Protestant Studies, who helpfully list “5 reasons why Catholic is not Christian” on their home page just so we get a flavour of what they’re about. Incidentally, here’s his description in the about EIPS page:

The Rev Dr Ian RK Paisley, MP, MEP, Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, Minister of Martyrs’ Memorial Free Presbyterian Church, Leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist Party, MP for North Antrim at Westminster and MEP for Northern Ireland in Strasbourg.

Did you know it’s actually an honourary doctorate? It seems somewhat remiss to have omitted this information from an otherwise comprehesive and informative list of the honourary doctor’s many roles and responsibilities. Apart from that, I’m sure any half decent tin-pot dictator would be envious of such a list.

A good first minister, Mr Hain? No, I’m afraid you’ve said something particularly stupid today. Why not think first, then speak? Or better still, why don’t you go away altogether, you irksome oik of a man?

And another thing.
Did you see Blair say it was “a step of unparalleled magnitude”? He really makes me puke these days. I think it’s an insult to our intelligence when he pretends he’s trying to find the right words like that. We all know he’s reciting something he’s already written very carefully with his murky spinwizards. Do us a favour. Does anyone still buy this soundbite, faux sincere pause, another soundbite, rubbish?

Grrr, I say. It may be that my judgement of the man is forever tarred. Every time I see him I think “weapons of mass destrucion”, and “fifteen minutes” and “intelligence” and “extensive” and “detailed” and “authoritative” and…

Did I say a few observations? I think I meant something else. Anyway, with thanks to Nice Blair via a comment, we can extract some symbolic revenge on the evil one. But don’t worry about feeling left out if you’re from the US, you can watch George instead. (I wouldn’t recommend Bikini Girl though, I find it slightly unsettling in some way I can’t quite grasp. I wonder what Freud would make of that? Oh well.)

Back to the IRA statement, and on a more positive note, I think the bravery of the McCartney sisters’ is worth applauding once again. These women have shown us real courage and determination. I hope today’s statement will be a step towards justice for their family.

*Phrase adapted from a considerably funnier but also slightly fruitier version of the same.

On 24th March 2005, the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence published a report entitled Iraq: An Initial Assessment of Post-Conflict Operations.

In section 2, Pre-war Planning for the Post-Combat Phase, the committee identified 5 key planning misjudgements in the coalition’s handling of the “post conflict” phase of the invasion of Iraq. It is, by any objective analysis, a damning report of the government’s handling of the occupation.

Let’s put to one side whether invading Iraq was in principle the “right thing to do”. As I’ve said before, I’d be cheering with everyone else if we’d removed Saddam and replaced his regime with something better for the people of Iraq. It is now self evident that our government had absolutely no understanding of how difficult this would be. The select committee report highlights some of the reasons why the government got this so badly wrong. Given that so many people warned that the situation would develop just as it has, I believe the government should be held to account for these key misjudgements.

Of course, we know that this government prefers not to be held accountable for it’s actions. Perhaps that’s why they chose yesterday to publish their response to the select committee report. There are lots of other events happening to distract the media at the moment. I don’t know how such things are scheduled so I admit I’m speculating as to the timing. Given their previous form, it doesn’t seem entirely far fetched though.

Anyway, the government has now issued it’s response. As you’d expect, it’s an honest appraisal of their own failings… oh, don’t be silly, it’s nothing like that.

The 5 key planning misjudgements are detailed in the report in paragraphs 17 - 25.
The government response starts like this:

The Government welcomes the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s report, “Iraq: An Initial Assessment of Post-Conflict Operations” published on 24 March 2005 (HC 65-I). This memorandum sets out the Government’s response to each of the main points of the Committee’s report in the order in which they were raised.

Pre-war Planning for the Post-Combat Phase
[From the report]
1. The post-conflict situation with which the Coalition was faced did not match the pre-conflict expectations…. No post-conflict mission in the last 60 years has been as challenging as that which faced the Coalition in June 2003. (Paragraph 26)

[Start of government response]
The post combat operations phase of operations in Iraq has been particularly challenging. Not only have coalition forces been faced by a determined insurgency attempting to undermine an emerging Iraqi government and inflict casualties on coalition and Iraqi security forces, but this has also been one of the first times in recent history that the UK has had to take on the obligations of an occupying power, and operated as a junior partner in a counter-insurgency. As the Committee recognises, UK forces in MND(SE) have also been operating in a situation where the link between tactical success in MND(SE) and the achievement of a favourable strategic outcome in Iraq is limited.
Nevertheless, we accept that there are lessons to be learnt in terms of improving the way that we conduct post-conflict planning, and much effort has been put into this over the last two years.

Yes, the government will respond to each of the main points of the Committee’s report, except the points they’d rather not respond to. Like paragraphs 17 - 25 for example. Direct criticism of the government is apparently not worthy of a direct response. The very thought. Don’t you know there’s a war on?

The government says that hindsight is a wonderful thing and lessons can be learned from this experience. Pardon me a moment. Hindsight? Fuck off! Half the country is now screaming “We told you this would happen, you fucking clowns! Why didn’t you listen?”

Not to worry though because the government “accept that there are lessons to be learnt”. Everything is right with the world as long as lessons can be learnt. I wasn’t aware that willfully deceptive, ignorant, manipulative bastards could learn from their mistakes. Maybe I’m wrong.

Whatever you think about the invasion itself, our government’s handling of the occupation has been nothing short of catastrophic. Is anyone going to accept responsibility for this?

Also yesterday, just in case there’s any doubt, there was yet another report on how the coalition has made a complete arse of the occupation. This one’s from a prestigious US political research body(pdf) co-chaired by Samuel R. Berger and Brent Scowcroft.

In Iraq, pre-war inattention to post-war requirements—or simply misjudgments about them—left the United States ill-equipped to address public security, governance, and economic demands in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, seriously undermining key U.S. foreign policy goals and giving early impetus to the insurgency.

Here’s a BBC summary of that report. More lessons to be learnt no doubt.

I’ve just noticed this from earlier in the week:

UN seeks definition of terrorism

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has urged world leaders to agree on a universal definition of terrorism. The bomb attacks in London and Egypt underscored the need for a definition with “moral clarity” and a UN convention against terrorism, he said.

The UN is going to have another go at defining terrorism. While I struggle to resist another scornful remark at the expense of a certain Daily Mail columnist, it’s worth asking why the proposals have been stuck in committee for the last nine years. I suspect it’ll be informative to watch how the member-states react to this new push for a UN convention.

I’m afraid I’m not overly optimistic. I genuinely hope the UN succeeds though.

I feel I need to write a post with nothing in it. Just for the hell of it. Just to celebrate that fact that I can. Here we go.

So, now is a good time to say that it is actually still worth mentioning that there’s a lame duck in our midst. I had mentioned it previously but began to feel that the message was falling on deaf ears. Via Toque, I noticed that it was still worth saying after all. Trivial. Splendid. Useless. Excellent.

I’ve not spotted any sign of anyone joining the safety elephant campaign though. Still, can’t stop flogging until I’m sure it’s dead and all that. If you’ve no idea what I’m talking about this screen grab might provide a clue.

What else can we talk about? The new football season starts on Saturday. I’m looking forward to it, although I’m not an avid supporter and it’s been a long time since I went to watch a game. My team, Aberdeen Football Club, had a good season last year, finishing fourth in the league and only missing out on a place in Europe on goal difference. Considering that we finished 11th (out of 12) the previous year, that was a huge and surprising improvement. Of course, it’s along way from the glory days of1983 when we beat Real Madrid in the European Cup Winners Cup final. Ah, those were the days my friend, we thought they’d never… Ahem. That was under Alex Ferguson of course. I believe he’s had some minor successes with his new club since he left Aberdeen. Bah!

Nowadays, the best we can hope for is third in the league and a “decent run” in a European competition. Neither has happened for a long while. Incidentally if you want to fully appreciate the dominance of the Old Firm* on the modern Scottish game, have a look at last year’s league table. There’s a bigger points difference between 2nd and 3rd than there is between 3rd and last. That’s surely not healthy. These days it’s all about the money. The big two have it and we’ve got sod all. Bah again!

Still, third looks a possibility this year. “Come on you Reds” and other such exhultations of support. You’ll undoubtedly be pleased to know that I’m likely to keep my readers informed as to how the season progresses for Aberdeen. I hope it’s a story with a happy ending but football can be a cruel mistress so who can really tell.

What else? You going anywhere interesting on holiday? I’m staying put this year. Can’t be bothered with it all. How’s the weather where you are? It been pretty Scottish in Aberdeen this week. Overcast, occassional rain, not very warm. It’s a bit like winter only not quite so cold.

Ah, I feel better for that. Feel free to engage in small talk in the comments.

*For visitors from other lands, the Old Firm are Glasgow Rangers and Glasgow Celtic. They have many times more fans than any of the other Scottish clubs. It’s been about 15 years, maybe longer, since any other team won the Scottish League and the gap is getting wider each year. Basically, it’s a two horse race. Even more basically, it’s dull.

This week’s SPBR roundup is now up. It’s slightly later than planned but, hud yer wheesht, we’re busy people you know. I’m off to sample it’s many delights. Why not come along? It’ll be fun.