Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP

    There is no war on terror in the UK, says DPP
    Lucy Bannerman
    The Times

    # 'July 7 bombers were not soldiers'
    # Blair challenged on fear-driven laws

    There is no “war on terror” on the streets of Britain, the country’s most senior criminal prosecutor said yesterday.

    Those responsible for atrocities like the July 7 bombings in London were not “soldiers” in a war, but “deluded, narcissistic inadequates” who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, added.

    He gave warning against allowing the threat of terrorism to trigger a “fear-driven and inappropriate” security response which damaged Britain’s traditions of freedom.

    In what will be seen as a criticism of government measures such as control orders for terror suspects, Sir Ken called for a “culture of legislative restraint” in passing terror laws. Sir Ken’s comments to the Criminal Bar Association put him at odds with Tony Blair and the Home Secretary, John Reid, who have justified tighter security laws on the grounds of the threat posed to Britain by a new kind of terror.

    Instead of viewing the problem of terrorism as a “war” threatening the very life of the nation, it should be dealt with as an issue of law enforcement, added Sir Ken, who leads prosecutors in England and Wales as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. One of the “primary purposes” of the violent attacks carried out by supporters of international Islamist terror was to tempt countries like Britain to “abandon our values”.

    Sir Ken said: “London is not a battlefield. Those innocents who were murdered on July 7, 2005 were not victims of war.

    “And the men who killed them were not, as in their vanity they claimed on their ludicrous videos, ‘soldiers’.

    “They were deluded, narcissistic inadequates. They were criminals. They were fantasists.

    “We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”

    Sir Ken said that it should be an article of faith that crimes of terrorism are dealt with by the criminal justice system. And he made clear his concern over the threat to civil liberties from repressive legislation introduced in response to a perceived terrorism emergency.

    The criminal justice response to terrorism must be “proportionate and grounded in due process and the rule of law”, he said. “We must protect ourselves from these atrocious crimes without abandoning our traditions of freedom.”

    Sir Ken said that “a culture of legislative restraint is central to the existence of an efficient and human rights-compatible process”. And he appeared to challenge the Government’s decision to invoke threats to “the life of the nation” in order to opt out of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights which bar detention without trial.

    “Everyone here will come to their own conclusion about whether . . . the very life of the nation is presently endangered.And everyone here will equally understand the risk to our constitution if we decide that it is, when it is not.”

    “We wouldn’t get far in promoting a civilising culture of respect for rights amongst and between citizens if we set about undermining fair trial in the simple pursuit of greater numbers of inevitably less safe convictions,” he said.

    “Otherwise we sacrifice fundamental values critical to the maintenance of the rule of law — upon which everything else depends.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...563401,00.html



    Sensible stuff from the DPP

  • #2
    Yup
    "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
    "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
    "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

    Comment


    • #3
      Isn't it a little late to be challenging the government on fear driven laws? What's Blair doing that wasn't done during the Troubles?
      I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
      For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

      Comment


      • #4
        Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
        Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
        giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DinoDoc
          Isn't it a little late to be challenging the government on fear driven laws? What's Blair doing that wasn't done during the Troubles?
          Some people were opposing the excesses and continued extensions to the Prevention of Terrorism Act at the time, like the 'Diplock Courts' and internment - though more likely to be leftist and civil liberties groups than the DPP. What stands out now compared to before is the Blairite urge for sweeping laws against any strong opinions than anyone might interpret as hateful or inflammatory, as well as a general extension of state power.

          Ironically, the IRA campaign was more of a 'war' than these contemporary emotional spasms from fanatics. At least there was a historical basis of a territorial struggle. There was also the sordid business of the British State getting its hands dirty in supporting Terror on the Loyalist side - echos of which continue to haunt it to this day.

          Comment


          • #6
            “We need to be very clear about this. On the streets of London, there is no such thing as a war on terror. The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement.”
            Sensible.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah, amazingly so
              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

              Comment


              • #8
                Sir Ken

                I agree with Sir Ken, though.

                -Arrian
                grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Arrian
                  Sir Ken

                  I agree with Sir Ken, though.

                  -Arrian

                  the folks who bombed the london underground were connected to folks in Pakistan, were ideologically inspired by radical imams, and were motivated by jihadist ideology. If you can deal with them through criminal law, thats great. If you dont like the words "War on Terrorism", fine, a rose by any other name, and all that. But does Sir Ken think that MI6 should stop monitoring terrorist groups overseas? That UK troops should leave Afghanistan? That Britain should not pay attention to what happens in mosques run by radical imams?

                  If he does not believe those things, then he does support the "struggle against terror" or the "campaign against terror" or the "very cold war against terror" or the "banana against terror" or whatever those brits who havent learned from Shakespeare want to call it.
                  "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think that for starters, calling it a war dignifies the terrorists and their supporters. It also confers legitimacy on the trappings of war such as emergency war powers and suspensions of the very freedoms that are supposed to define our civilisation. It is also a war that is impossible to completely win, as ultimately it is a war against individual crimes, rather than against an enemy who can one day sign surrender papers.

                    While individual actors may have visited Pakistan, and/or participated in Jihadist activited elsewhere in the world, British terrorists are for the most part nihilist wannabes, not foot soldiers in a vast, coherent, Al-Queda army.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Bear in mind, LotM, that the context here is about crimes comitted in the UK, and not conflicts on whichever fronts around the world that have been opened up since the 'never-ending war' was announced in 2001.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cort Haus
                        I think that for starters, calling it a war dignifies the terrorists and their supporters. It also confers legitimacy on the trappings of war such as emergency war powers and suspensions of the very freedoms that are supposed to define our civilisation. It is also a war that is impossible to completely win, as ultimately it is a war against individual crimes, rather than against an enemy who can one day sign surrender papers.
                        I dont think the terrorists base their dignity on what we call the banana against terrorism. Emergency powers can be justified in case of civil unrest or extreme crime, and they can be unjustified in a war where they dont serve a purpose that justifies the cost. If you really believe that Britain is likely to face nothing more than another London train bombing every three or four years, it probably wouldnt make sense to suspend civil liberties even if every terrorist was directly carrying out orders from AQ HQ. OTOH if there is a real chance of something much worse, than such powers MAY be justified even if the most of the terrorists are acting spontaneously.

                        I agree that there should be some metrics for when the war on terrorism ceases to be a major conflict, and when extraordinary measures should be dropped. As for surrender papers, that is fine if you define everything other than a war against a state as an individual crime. I think that is incorrect. There are individual crimes, and there is organized crime, which needs to be approached differently than individual crime. There is organized crime which crosses international boundaries which needs to be approached differently yet. And here there is organized crime, that encompassses multiple loosely linked groups with political agendas, with, in some cases, conventional military capabilities, in many cases extensive counter insurgency capabilities, with related ideological networks that disavow their connection to the operatives, with intell, comm, and financial capabilities capabable of challenging a Western Intel agency, and with the capability now and then to A. Take over a State (Afghanistan) B. Take over a large portion of a state (NWFP of Pakistan) C. Engage in quasi diplomatic relations with states, making deals with ruling elements in the state (KSA and Sudan and Somalia) D. Severely damage the economy of state to the point they threaten the regime (Egypt and Algeria) then I think you have more than individual crimes on your hands. I am less concerned with any particular statute Blair wants to pass, then the recognition that this banana requires considerable investment in intell, in diplomacy, in support of counter insurgency in certain friendly muslim states, and from time to time conventional force.
                        "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cort Haus
                          Bear in mind, LotM, that the context here is about crimes comitted in the UK, and not conflicts on whichever fronts around the world that have been opened up since the 'never-ending war' was announced in 2001.
                          The fronts opened up not since any announcement, but since the reality of what happened on 9/11. In fact many of those fronts had opened BEFORE 9/11 (the NA vs the Taliban, the wars in Algeria and Egypt) but the West had not seen those as of great interest (well the US DID bomb Afghanistan in 1998, but that seems to be forgotten)

                          IMO those fronts are real, are important, and require action. One may disagree, but one shouldnt foreclose the debate by assuming that the only way to prevent legal changes you dont want is by trying to use language that would make it possible to recognize those fronts.
                          "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think it's mostly a law enforcement/intelligence matter. The military can play a role under certain circumstances (Afganistan). That part is a "war" the rest is law enforcement.

                            The WoT is yet another example of our irritating tendency to fight "wars" against things. War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Terror. It's ****ing stupid.

                            -Arrian
                            grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

                            The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Arrian
                              I think it's mostly a law enforcement/intelligence matter. The military can play a role under certain circumstances (Afganistan). That part is a "war" the rest is law enforcement.

                              The WoT is yet another example of our irritating tendency to fight "wars" against things. War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Terror. It's ****ing stupid.

                              -Arrian
                              well first intell matters arent the same as LE matters, IMO.

                              And how would you classify training Sahelian militaries to fight the GPSC? Spec ops working in the Phillipines or with Georgians in the Pankisi gorge? Political pressure on Pakistan to do something about the guys in NWFP? Or on KSA to shut down AQ financing?

                              And those things need to be, you know, coordinated. You arrest some guys in a cell in Hamburg, you find out useful stuff about whats going on in Pakistan. And vice versa. To me thats a linked campaign, with conventional, spec ops, military training, diplomacy, economic aid, intell, LE, and domestic preventive measures (all the good homeland sec stuff the Dems say is shortchanged). Now you can call that campaign a global banana against terror if you like, as long as you dont lose sight of the linkages.
                              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X