Terrorism

Time for a British Manley Commission?

If the government wants to stem the haemorrhaging of elite support for NATO’s Afghan mission, there is one major thing it can do at this stage: establish a British version of the Manley Commission. In Canada, ex-Deputy Prime Minister John Manley was asked by the Harper government to take a hard look at Canada’s role is Afghansistan, and lay out a clear plan. Its work effectively rebuilt Canadian support for the war effort. The Brown Government is simply not trusted to give an honest assessment of what is happening on the ground or give the military what it needs. The Defence Secretary is an unknown entity outside of Westminster (and

Damaging revelations make the CIA more risk averse

The latest revelations about the CIA’s prospective covert assassination program is yet another nail in the coffin of US intelligence and its willingness to take risks. Immediately after the World Trade Center attacks in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney called a meeting of intelligence chiefs to ask them what new powers they would like to fight terrorism. A whole laundry list was presented, including increased eavesdropping on Americans, the seizing of terrorists overseas and a torture program that evolved to include a number of foreign countries. Since those early days in the war on terrorism, the intelligence community has been rocked by a series of revelations that began with the

National security priorities: your say

Watch out: it’s security review season. The Brown government is about to issue a second version of its National Security Strategy. You can expect Pauline Neville-Jones to put out a revised version of the paper she did for the Tories a while ago. The Obama administration is set to launch a new “Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,” to be headed up by Deputy Secretary of State Jacob “Jack” Lew and Policy Planning chief Anne-Marie Slaughter. While NATO has just begun work on its Strategic Concept, and Russia recently updated its National Security Strategy. Oh, and the EU disseminated a new Security Strategy under the French EU Presidency, which also saw

Teaching Ten Year Olds To Find Terrorists

From the Departments of a) Modern Britain and b) Modern Childhood. The Lancashire Telegraph reports: Primary school pupils are to be shown a film about the dangers of terrorists as part of an organised safety day. More than 2,000 10 and 11-year-olds will see a short film, which urges them to tell the police, their parents or a teacher if they hear anyone expressing extremist views. The film has been made by school liaison officers and Eastern Division’s new Preventing Violent Extremism team, based at Blackburn. It uses cartoon animals to get across safety messages. A lion explains that terrorists can look like anyone, while a cat tells pupils that

Cheney vs Obama; Cheney vs The American Idea

The theatre of yesterday’s speeches from Barack Obama and Dick Cheney was irresistible. And phoney. That is, this was a pretty strange “duel” given that the matter was decided long ago and not just as recently as last November’s election. Or, to put it another way, Dick Cheney might have given a largely and substantively similar speech had John McCain been the 44th President of the United States. After all, McCain had also promised to close Guantanamo and confirm the prohibition on the use of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” Cheney says are so essential to preserving American security. There’s nothing too surprising about this: Condi Rice also wanted to close

Harry Reid: Pretend Stupid or Truly Stupid?

The great thing about Washington is its variety. Sometimes it’s the Republicans who infuriate you and sometimes it’s the Democrats whose bone-headed nitwittery is singularly depressing. Today it’s Harry Reid’s turn to annoy: “QUESTION: If the United States — if the United States thinks that these people should be held, why shouldn’t they be held in the United States? Why shouldn’t the U.S. take those risks, the attendant risk of holding them, since it’s the one that says they should be held? REID: I think there’s a general feeling, as I’ve already said, that the American people, and certainly the Senate, overwhelmingly doesn’t want terrorists to be released in the

Pakistan Edges Closer to the Abyss

Sometimes it’s the seemingly minor events – minor, that is, in the grand scheme of matters, not necessarily small or insignificant at the moment they occur – that can carry more weight than more obviously important or telling developments. Lord knows, there’s been no end of troubling news from Pakistan in recent years. But, silly as it may seem, there’s something especially terrible about today’s attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team which killed at least six policemen and injured five members of the Sri Lankan team. (See Cricinfo’s rolling updates for the latest news.) Political assassinations, for instance, are hardly unknown in Pakistan (or elsewhere on the subcontinent) and

In Praise of Stella Rimington

A statement of the obvious perhaps, but a welcome one nonetheless given that it’s hard to see how Stella Rimington, as a former head of MI5, can sensibly be caricatured as a weak-kneed, soft-on-terrorism simpleton: “Since I have retired I feel more at liberty to be against certain decisions of the Government, especially the attempt to pass laws which interfere with people’s privacy,” Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper. “It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we

The United States and the IRA

Responding to Stephen Walt’s hypothetical (What if Gaza were full of jews?), Megan McArdle compares the Israel lobby to the Irish-American lobby. Ross Douthat says, OK, but the IRA was still considered a terrorist organisation. Daniel Larison dives into the weeds of US attitudes towards Irish terrorism. He writes: The IRA was a genuine terrorist group, but it was listed as such by our government most of all because it was a sworn enemy of one of our closest allies. The record seems clear: terrorist groups that are useful to us or harmful to states we officially oppose are given a pass, while those that target us or our allies

Bombay Lessons

Bruce Schneier suspects we’ll probably learn the wrong ones. After all, as he points out, there’s very little you can do to stop 18 men with guns and grenades once they’ve begun their attack. I suspect John Robb would agree. Well-planned low-tech attacks that “leverage” a city’s own infrastructure are one of the nightmare scenarios. Yet since this kind of mission is more likely than not to end in the deaths of the terrorists themselves (cf the Chechen attack on a Moscow theatre) it remains, happily, an unpopular career choice. And for that one should be truly thankful. Imagine how easy it would be to cripple the railways, or, armed

Could You Go A Chicken Supper, Bobby Sands*?

Exciting fast food wars update: faithful reader MT alerts me to something I should have known myself. Not only is the British embassy in Tehran located on Bobby Sands Street, there is a Bobby Sands burger joint in hip and happening Tehran too. Andrew McKie has also considered the ideological implications – nay, temptations – of the chip shop wars. As he suggests: “Fish supper, chicken supper. A theological and geopolitical minefield. This calls for a book, really.” Quite so. *Explanatory note: During Bobby Sands’ hunger strike fans at Glasgow Rangers and Heart of Midlothian, among, I think, other clubs, would sing, to the tune of “She’s Coming Round the

MPs to Media: You’re On Notice

This week’s (latest) head-in-hands, what-the-hell-is-going-on? moment comes courtesy of the Intelligence and Security Committee at Westminster. The Independent reports that: Britain’s security agencies and police would be given unprecedented and legally binding powers to ban the media from reporting matters of national security, under proposals being discussed in Whitehall. The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security. The committee also wants to censor reporting of police operations that are

The Last Throes

It’s over. How so? Because campaigns that have a chance of winning don’t perform stunts like this: Please join our campaign for a conference call at 11:30 a.m. EDT, with former CIA Director Jim Woolsey and McCain-Palin Senior Foreign Policy Adviser Randy Scheunemann to discuss recent news stories about which candidate terrorists would like to see in the White House in 2009. [Hat-tip: Marc Ambinder] UPDATE: Dave Weigel, bless him, has more.

Behind the Security Theatre Curtain

Airport security? A complete joke. This has been apparent for some time, of course, but all the “security theatre” nonsense at least makes it seem as though something is being done. And that is the important thing, isn’t it? The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has a good piece demonstrating just how pointless the mania for “security” is. No chance of a return to sanity of course. That would mean the terrorists are winning. Anyway, Goldberg successfully passes through the security checkpoints using a fake boarding pass: We were in the clear. But what did we prove? “We proved that the ID triangle is hopeless,” Schneier said. The ID triangle: before a

42 Days: Gone But Not Dead

Peers reject the notion that it’s fine to lock people up for six weeks without even telling them why and how does the Home Secretary respond? Well, yet again, by impugning the motives of those opposed to granting the state these extraordinary powers: “I deeply regret that some have been prepared to ignore the terrorist threat, for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision.” And so the Labour party adopts the bullying thuggery that characterises much of the modern Republican party’s approach to security issues. Power corrupts, of course and Jacqui Smith should be ashamed of herself. Curiously, those ignoring the terrorist threat included not one but two former

Alex Massie

42 Days: Jacqui Smith

Here’s video of Jacqui Smith’s contemptible performance in the Commons last night. Basically, she says that if you don’t support giving the police carte blanche then you’re on the terrorists’ side. At the very least, if you dare to question the government you don’t care about security. And of course all you yoghurt-munching civil liberties pansies also don’t care about the liberty of “not being blown up”. Seriously. As I say, contemptible. Note too the bald-faced lies she tells. Apparently every security expert supports the government’s proposals. Not so. Former policemen and, as I say, two former heads of MI5 opposed the government last night. So too, one should note,

They Haven’t Gone Away You Know

The issue of whether the state can lock-you up indefinitely  for up to 42 days without even the courtesy of telling you why is back. Happily, the House of Lords seems certain to reject the government’s plans, sending them back to the Commons where, again hopefully, they will finally die. Here’s Labour MP Tom Harris, however, explaining that if you opposed giving the state these powers you’re a “civil liberties” (feel the sneer with which he writes these words!) nutcase and if there’s another terrorist attack on Britain, it will be your fault… It’s no secret that, along with the great, wise majority of our nation, I support a radical

Bureaucracy Creep

Apparently the US government’s “terrorist watch-list” now runs to more than a million names. How useful can it be then? Let’s see, shall we? The Justice Department’s former top criminal prosecutor says the government’s terror watch list likely has caused thousands of innocent Americans to be questioned, searched or otherwise hassled. Former Assistant Attorney General Jim Robinson would know: he’s one of them. Robinson joined another mistaken-identity American and the American Civil Liberties Union on Monday to urge eliminating the list that’s supposed to identify suspected terrorists. “It’s a pain in the neck, and significantly interferes with my travel arrangements,” said Robinson, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division

Bob Geldof: My Sort of Wanker!

Heaven knows, Bob Geldof is a bore these days. But one of the splendid, indeed agreeable, elements of David Davis’s civil liberties campaign is that it forces one to question some of one’s own prejudices. It compels us to think again and remember that allies can be found in unlikely places. Thus it was that Geldof went to Haltemprice and Howden today to campaign for Davis and deliver a speech in which he said: So what great existential threat does this country now face that did not face our forefathers of the past 1000 years. What is so grave the emergency now that neither civil war nor world war nor

McCain lobbies for place in Brown cabinet…

Meanwhile, in America habeas corpus is also in the news, prompting an excellent column from George Will today: McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, “quote ‘First Amendment rights.’ ” Now he dismissively speaks of “so-called, quote ‘habeas corpus suits.’ ” He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as “the great writ of liberty.” True that.