Latest from Coffee House

Latest from Coffee House

All the latest analysis of the day's news and stories

In defence of Control Orders

David Cameron currently thinks the coalition is heading for a ‘f***ing car crash’ on Control Orders. While the Home Secretary Teresa May is now convinced of their necessity, many Liberal Democrats and some Conservatives disagree. Everyone would prefer potential terrorists be prosecuted, but sensitive counter-terrorism evidence cannot always be used in a criminal court. In addition, the European Convention on Human Rights decrees that terror threats cannot be deported to states where they could be tortured. Hoping to circumvent these problems, the previous government attempted detention without trial. When this was struck out in the courts, Control Orders were the best viable option left. Control Orders – of which there

Out of Control Orders

The government’s developing a tension headache over Control Orders, and there have been two noteworthy interventions. First, Theresa May lambasted Ken Macdonald. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, who is a now a Lib Dem peer overseeing an independent inquiry into counter-terror legislation, has made clear that he ‘will go ballistic’ if the Home Office retains Control Orders, which it is expected to recommend, in line with the advice of another Lib Dem peer, Lord Carlile. Second, David Davis has described Control Orders as ‘Kafka-esque’, the term used by Chris Huhne on the Politics Show yesterday, and has also said that he will vote against the government if Control Orders

Confronting terror at home

As Julian Glover notes, Jack Straw let the cat out of the bag. ‘Never, ever, downplay the possible consequences,’ he says. The coverage of the recent bomb plot has largely ignored that it was foiled. That, by any definition, is a success, a vindication of our security services. Independent inspector Lord Carlile is right that improvements can be made to the bomb detection apparatus in airports and targeting security at the source of a threat – i.e. packages from the Yemen rather than package holidays. The previous government would have used this plot to introduce another wave of invasive legislation – never, ever, downplay the possible consequences to justify I.D.

The fault-line at the heart of Liberal Conservativism

Andrew Rawnsley has done well to identify the problems the coalition is having deciding its line on national security. His column today is a colourful evocation of the deadlock David Cameron and Nick Clegg face over  control orders and 28-day detention without charge. He calls it “alarmed semi-paralysis”, which is about right. Now they have seen the secret evidence and had the briefings from the intelligence services they somehow don’t feel so liberal any more. It is the sign of a mature democracy that it favours the liberty of its citizens over the control of them. But it also a lot easier to say you would be prepared to take risks

James Forsyth

Are the coalition in control on Control Orders?

Friday’s foiled bomb plot is a reminder, if one were needed, that the terrorist threat has not gone away. Inevitably, given the volatile state of the argument about the balance between liberty and security, this incident has become part of the political debate on the issue. Ben Brogan is using it to argue that given the level of threat to this country, David Cameron should call off all the inquiries into whether or not the security services acquiesced in torture. This plot has also come at a time when the coalition is trying to come to a mutually acceptable position on control orders and how long suspects can be detained without

Barack Obama: suspicious packages contained explosives

The terror scare surrounding two planes in the UK’s East Midlands Airport and Dubai is now, officially, serious. In a statement this evening, Barack Obama has confirmed that packages on both aircraft contained explosive devices. The packages were sent from Yemen, and were headed for synagogues in Chicago. As Obama put it, this is a “credible terrorist threat” against the US. There is little detail yet, although the Yemeni connection suggests that this is an al-Qaeda plot. And the White House is not ruling out the grim possibility that there are more packages out there. Sadly, Islamist terror is casting its shadow across the West once again.

To the victor the spoils

The government must be doing something right with its aid policy: several NGOs absolutely hate it. Talking to the Guardian, Patrick Watt, Director of Save the Children and sleeping disciple of the Moral Compass of Kirkcaldy, has criticised the government’s decision to direct aid funding to conflict resolution. He says: ‘What is the real driver of aid allocation? Is it poverty, is it need and the ability to use money effectively or is it the agenda of the National Security Council? We do need to have a balanced approach to aid allocation that reflects the principles of the 2002 International Development Act which stipulates that all aid should be for

The coalition outlines its national security concerns

What a curious creature this National Security Strategy is. For some reason, I expected something more than a 39-page document in the same mushy pea colour scheme as the coalition agreement. But that is what we’ve got – and it doesn’t really tell us much. The centrepiece of the document comes on page 27 (reproduced below), with a neat, three-tier guide to the security risks facing this country. At the highest priority level are atrocities such as “chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack by terrorists,” and “hostile attacks upon UK cyberspace”. Further down, there are mentions for “organised crime” and “disruption to oil or gas supplies,” among others. But, before

Fraser Nelson

What about the Home Office?

The less we hear from Theresa May, the more I worry about the Home Office budget. I’m hearing rumours of her taking a 30 percent cut, which I first dismissed as a piece of expectations management. But now I’m beginning to wonder. We know that defence is settled – about an 8 percent real-terms cut. The NHS, which absorbs a quarter of government spending, will have real-terms increases (something even the left-leaning IPPR doesn’t back). The schools budget has escaped relatively unscathed, we read. So what’s left? Again, there’s so much deliberate misinformation out there that I hesitate to give a rumour round-up. But here goes.   One major victim

Fox to the rescue

The best form of defence is attack. Liam Fox distracted conference from the various rows that have afflcited it by castigating Labour’s abysmal record on defence. He was helped enormously by the terrorist outrage in Sanaa, the Yemen – a cowardly atrocity that reinforces his observation that ‘the country’s finances are wrecked and the world is more dangerous than at any other time in recent memory.’ He recited the refrain that cuts are regrettable but necessary, before adding that, thanks to Labour, Britain has to fight on with less. Serving the interest on Labour’s debt costs the same as an extra four aircraft carriers, 10 destroyers, 50 C17 cargo planes

Andrew Mitchell: the answer to global terrorism

Al Shabaab and al Qeada are brothers in arms – Somalia is a hothouse for terror. Jonathan Evans, director general of MI5, has openly expressed his view that it is ‘just a matter of time’ until Somalia and the Yemen export terrorism to Britain’s streets. That striking statement contains one oversight: they do already. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, was trained in the Yemen and two of the 7/7 bombers were Somali. How to eradicate this threat? The legacies of Iraq and financial retrenchment have made armed intervention an absolute last resort. Counter-terrorism is essential, but well targeted aid is the easiest remedy for chaos. In a speech

Alex Massie

Faisal Abdul Rauf: Neoconservative?

I continue to be impressed by how thin the case against Faisal Abdul Rauf is. You’d have thought that by now the staunch defenders of liberty crazies would have found either a smoking gun or a ticking bomb. To be fair, Pamela Geller* certainly thinks she has found evidence that he’s just as bad as his critics would have us believe. Or maybe even – and this may make your (my!) weak dhimmi-flesh creep – worse… But, actually, all she has unearthed from a 2005 talk Rauf gave to, of all places, the Bob Hawke Prime Ministerial Centre, is evidence that Faisal Abdul Rauf could be considered a neoconservative. That

James Forsyth

The worrying opposition to the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

I’m a neo-conservative, a hawk in the war against Islamist extremism, which is why I’m so worried by the opposition to the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. A new poll shows that 61 percent of Americans oppose its construction and Howard Dean, the tribune of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, have joined many leading Republicans in arguing that the mosque should not be built there, several blocks from Ground Zero.   If the war on terror becomes a war on Islam, it is a war that we lose: George W. Bush may have had his faults but this

Alex Massie

The Terrorist Fetus Plot that Threatens America

Sure, if you were running a terrorist network you might think it worthwhile to smuggle pregnant women into the United States to ensure that their offspring, thanks to the 14th Amendment, could have American passports and be sent back to the US 20 years down the line to carry out their terrorist mission. But you might also think there are easier ways of recruiting… Fortunately, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) is on the case:

Progress in Afghanistan?

The Times (£) is reporting that ISAF has made a significant progress in pacifying the death circle around Sangin. The key, it seems, is driving a wedge between the tribal insurgents and religious insurgents foreign to Helmand: ‘British commanders believe that they are close to achieving a significant tribal uprising against the Taleban that could lead to the reintegration of hundreds of insurgents fighting around Sangin, the most dangerous place in Afghanistan. The number of violent incidents in Sangin has fallen by about 80 per cent in the past month. British commanders believe that this is partly the result of tribal leaders delivering on a promise to restrain tribal elements

The FCO’s dubious Prevent grants

A few weeks ago I wrote for Coffee House welcoming the Government’s decision to scrap Prevent grants administered by local authorities. In that article, I cautioned that scrapping something should actually mean scrapping it, not just moving resources around. Today, the TaxPayers’ Alliance has released research showing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) also distribute funds through Prevent. Again, money has gone to projects of questionable value in the fight against extremism, violent or non-violent.   One of the more dubious projects was a “mobile cinema for justice”. What’s worse is that it was administered by an American charity called the International Research and Exchanges Board. Why is that

Alex Massie

Ground Zero Mosque: Another Moment of Truth for the Open Society

A good number of readers  – or those readers who left comments* – didn’t much care for my post on the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”. Revolting [and] symptomatic of the imbecilic scramble to dhimmitude widespread in liberal circles… The Muslim colonists push and the gutless West meekly gives way, as usual… It will be seen in the world for the symbol of what it really is; a victory for resurgent Islam and a defeat for the Christian West…Hopefully this symbol of Islamic supremacism will be strangled at birth. You get the idea. There’s a cultural war wrapped inside a psychodrama here. Or perhaps it’s the other way round. This sense

Zardari drops a rhetorical bombshell

David Cameron isn’t the only world leader who can lob rhetorical hand-grenades about the struggle in Afghanistan, you know. Speaking ahead of his visit to the UK, Pakistan’s President Zardari has said that the “international community … is in the process of losing the war against the Taliban.” Adding that, “And that is, above all, because we have lost the battle for hearts and minds.” Given his pivotal, front-seat role in proceedings, it’s got to go down as one of the most significant statements on the war so far. Is this intended as a riposte to Cameron’s remark about Pakistan and terrorism? I’m not sure. In the same interview, Zardari

The past few weeks have made the struggle in Afghanistan even more difficult

Domestically speaking, it has been an encouraging week from the coalition. Internationally speaking, less so. And today we see the first real rush of fallout from David Cameron’s appearance on the world stage, as the Pakistani intelligence agency cancels a visit to London, “in reaction to the comments made by the British Prime Minister against Pakistan.” It’s not the kind of development that we should exaggerate –after all, it still looks likely that President Zardari will visit Cameron next week, even if officials in Pakistan have been wavering on that front. But we shouldn’t underestimate it either. The main reason to worry is, largely, one of personality. The Times runs

WikiLeaks rightly suffers a backlash

Is it just me, or is there something deeply unsettling about Julian Assange’s comments in the Times today? After the paper revealed yesterday that the leaked Afghan War files could easily put informants’ lives at risk, the WikiLeaks founder sets about defending his decision to publish them – and he does so in dangerously complacent terms. Take his opening proclamation, where he says: “No one has been harmed, but should anyone come to harm of course that would be a matter of deep regret — our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm them. That said, if we were forced into a position of publishing all of the archives

Cameron lambasts Pakistan whilst on Indian trade mission. Bad move

Oh for the days of inactive prime ministers. After yesterday’s hot-headedness about Gaza, comes an even more deliberately pointed statement. Cameron said: ‘[Pakistan] should not be allowed to promote the export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.’ I agree, providing of course it is established that the Pakistani state is fomenting terror and the Wikileaks revelations do not give that impression. That said, the Pakistan government is responsible for all of its agents, and they should curb S-Wing’s collusion with the Taliban and its affiliates in Waziristan. Cameron and Obama are right to press the Pakistani authorities. But a goodwill tour

Cameron’s provocative language over Gaza serves to obscure the issue

And there’s me thinking that David Cameron’s overtures to Turkey were newsworthy enough, when he drops this into his speech in Ankara: “Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp. But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it’s Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.” In a wider sense, this

The SNP was responsible, all the way

A little odd, and certainly inconvenient, that al-Megrahi still lives and breathes. Then again, Scotland’s a notoriously unhealthy place and a bit of desert air probably did him some good. Ensconced in Washington, David Cameron will have taken some flak for the Lockerbie bomber’s compassionate release, for which he has the perfect riposte: terrible business, but nothing to do with me. His second line of defence is constitutionally watertight: the decision was Holyrood’s alone. The Lockerbie Papers suggest that al-Megrahi’s inclusion in a Prisoner Transfer Agreement was a precondition of any deal between the UK and Libyan governments, as Saif al-Islam Gadaffi maintains. That PTA overrode Scottish jurisdiction; the SNP

James Forsyth

A help or a hindrance?

The Washington Post today publishes the first part of its series on the intelligence bureaucracy that has grown up in the United States since 9/11. The Post has been working on this report for two years and what it reveals is not pretty. There are more than 1,200 government organisations working in this area and, predictably, they don’t talk to each other. There are 51 federal organisations and military commands studying terrorist financing alone, with all the predictable problems of overlap.    Retired Army Lt Gen John R. Vines who conducted an assessment of the Pentagon’s most sensitive programme sums up the problem neatly: “I’m not aware of any agency

Prevent, a well intentioned but divisive scheme, is scrapped 

Earlier this week, the government announced that they are to abolish the Prevent Violent Extremism (PVE) grants. Prevent is part of the broader ‘Contest’ programme which was established after the London bombings of 2005. The idea behind Prevent is to address the root causes of extremism by encouraging community cohesion, thereby stopping people from being influenced by violent extremists. But in September last year we published research that showed exactly how local authorities spent the money given to them by central government. It was a ground breaking study: Paul Goodman – in his previous role as a MP for Wycombe – asked the Department for Communities and Local Government for

Gary McKinnon should convert to radical Islam

The European Court of Human Rights is an essential check on executive excess, but today it has perverted justice. It has halted Abu Hamza’s extradition to the US, where he was to be tried for colluding with al Qaeda. Its view was that Hamza would likely be subject to inhumane and degrading incarceration. In other words, the ECHR has decided that the US prison system is not compatible with the standards agreed by signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. Fine. Except, of course, it has not. There is a pernicious double standard at work here. Gary McKinnon, the aspergers sufferer who hacked into the Pentagon’s computer systems, is

Hague is an administrative revolutionary, not the second Canning

For a man of such rhetorical talents, William Hague’s foreign policy speech was strikingly bland. His eloquence escaped him and he sounded like David Miliband – earnest, conscientious and often unintelligible. The similarity didn’t end there. Hague was very pleased with his observation that a multi-lateral world requires bi-lateral relationships; but even David Miliband had grasped that – who could forget his stable shin-dig in India? Hague’s speech was dominated by the expression ‘network world’ and he said that Britain’s diplomacy must address new strategic needs. In fact, Hague said very little that was new. Britain’s relationship with America would remain close; European alliances would rest on co-operation not coercion;

Alex Massie

Al-Qaeda Does Vogue

If this weren’t posted by Marc Ambinder I’d think it must be a parody. It certainly has the feel of a Jihadi edition of The Onion. It is, however, supposed to be al-Qaeda’s first English-language, glossy propaganda magazine. Obviously Inspire is the title you’d choose too and, frankly, who can resist the appeal of a feature headlined Make a Bomb In the Kitchen of Your Mom.[UPDATE: Ambinder considers the possibility that it’s a parody here.] Ambinder says the US is a little worried by AQ’s publishing ambitions, not least because they’re aimed at native English-speakers. And perhaps they’re right Nevertheless, this sort of caper also makes AQ seem somewhat ridiculous

Alex Massie

Obama’s Pragmatism Part 2: Civil Liberties Division

In Washington at the weekend, I spent some time talking to a friend who works on privacy and civil liberties concerns. He’d been a little worried, professionally that is, that the Obama administration might reduce his workload and disappointed, personally that is, that it has not. Far from it in fact. Today’s example is a demonstration of how innocent US citizens are, thanks to the No-Fly list, essentially consigned to exile: For six weeks, Mr. [Yahya] Wehelie has been in limbo in the Egyptian capital. He and his parents say he has no radical views, despises al-Qaeda and merely wants to get home to complete his education and get a

James Forsyth

Cameron is dignified in trying circumstances

As David says, the conclusions of the Saville Inquiry make for grim reading. One person with close links to the services who served in Northern Ireland just told me, ‘it is far worse than we expected.’ In the House, David Cameron’s statement on it was heard in subdued silence. It would be remiss not to say that David Cameron dealt with this situation as well as anyone could. There was no equivalent to Jonathan Powell’s disgraceful statement that ‘the war against Irish terrorism was not our war’. He pointed out the context of the event and the fact that it was very much the exception rather than the rule of

Lord Saville eviscerates the British army

David Cameron has just told the House of Commons: ‘There is no doubt, there is no equivalence. The events of the 20th January were in no way justified…You do not honour the British army by excusing the unjustifiable.’ He apologised for the atrocity and the Wigery report. According to Lord Saville, there was no conspiracy or pre-meditation, but soldiers of Support Company 1 Para entered Bogside in Derry and opened fire without provocation from the victims or nationalist paramilitaries – though Martin McGuiness ‘was present, probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun’. Lord Saville concludes that the testimony of many soldiers was false. Cameron did not rule out independent criminal

A day that re-opens old wounds

Building on a peace process of compromises, Tony Blair called the Bloody Sunday inquiry to placate nationalists in Northern Ireland. But I wonder if he ever intended its findings to be published? The Saville Report was only ever going to re-open old wounds. With the greatest respect to Lord Saville, who is a distinguished lawyer, this report cannot dispense justice. Establishing the facts is impossible 30 years after the tragedy, and the punishment can only be collective. Yet the political dictates of peace mean that the British army must be blackened. The soldiers who beat both sets of paramilitaries to the negotiating table will be branded as criminals. Whatever their impulse,

Pakistan: friend or foe?

One of the biggest obstacles for NATO in Afghanistan has been the role of Pakistan and its intelligence apparatus in supporting the Taliban insurgency. Officially, the Pakistani government deny backing the Taliban insurgency, but even Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, have said they suspect Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence service of being engaged in anti-NATO activities. Now, a new report by the Harvard-based analyst and former head of OXFAM in Kabul, Matt Waldman, takes the accusations to a new level. ‘The relationship, in fact, goes far beyond contact and coexistence, with some assistance provided by elements within,