British anti-terror bill faces tough fight

While British Prime Minister Tony Blair hosts Mideast peace talks, his government's controversial anti-terror legislation is being met with fierce debate.

The Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which includes provisions allowing for the house arrest of suspected terrorists, passed the House of Commons Monday night, "but not before a rebellion among Labour backbenchers saw Tony Blair's majority slump to just 14 votes," reports The Independent.

Despite the introduction of concessions designed to placate critics of the proposed house arrest of terror suspects, sixty-two backbenchers, including former Cabinet ministers Robin Cook, Frank Dobson, Clare Short, and Chris Smith joined Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in an attempt to defy the Government's plans. A series of cross-party amendments which attempted to ensure that judges take decisions to impose all proposed 'control orders' was defeated by just 253 votes to 267 after an impassioned six-hour debate.

The Guardian called the rebellion " a significant blow to [the Blair government's] authority."

The bill "will now face stiff opposition in the House of Lords where Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers have the muscle to defeat the Government," according to The Independent.

02/28/05 IAEA looks at Iran's nuclear past 02/25/05 Canada shuns missile defense 02/24/04 Is EU choosing China over US?

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more.

In a bid to garner support for the bill in the House of Commons, Home Secretary Charles Clarke made what Agence France Presse calls " an embarrassing U-turn" by announcing that so-called "control orders" under the draft law would now have to be imposed by a judge, rather than himself.

As the BBC reports, "the bill proposes ' control orders', which as well as house arrest could mean curfews, tagging or bans on telephone and internet use."

According to the Guardian:

Mr. Clarke's planned amendment, backed by four lesser concessions, failed to appease outraged MPs because they still do not go far enough in protecting civil liberties and because the changes will be tabled in the House of Lords after the Commons has passed the measure. Critics protested that parliament was being treated with contempt.

The Guardian points out that Clarke had cited Monday's guilty plea by the would-be British " shoe bomber", Saajid Badat, to justify his bill.

The Times of London reports that Mr. Badat's guilty plea to conspiracy to destroy, damage, or endanger an aircraft was "hailed as a major success by counter-terrorist detectives and left many Muslim leaders shocked."

Police say that the conviction is not only important in showing that the huge resources put into fighting terrorism get results but may also help to convince the Muslim community that there is a genuine threat in Britain.

After all, as The Telegraph reports, "Badat was a young, respectable Briton who turned from a football-loving, high-achieving A-level student into someone willing to blow up an airliner."

Nothing fitted the profile of a terrorist and his case epitomizes what most disturbs the security forces about the increase in "home-grown" Muslim extremist terrorists. The Muslim community in Gloucester remembers him as a "walking angel", a softly spoken, respectful man who left grammar school with four A-levels.

Blair also attempted to lend justification for the push for new anti-terror powers by telling BBC that there were "several hundred" terrorists actively plotting within the country. Blair said the police and intelligence services were saying: "You have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts - and being able, being sure enough of the proof, to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt."

Clarke decided not to mention that claim in his arguments until challenged by the former Tory cabinet minister, Peter Lilley, reports The Guardian.

Was Mr. Clarke right to predict that only a 'small number of people' might be subject to house arrest or otherwise restricted by control orders or was Mr. Blair right? Mr. Lilley asked.

Mr. Clarke glossed over potential embarrassment by arguing that most suspects can be prosecuted in the normal way.

The proposed amendment to the bill will be debated by the House of Lords on Wednesday and Thursday, reports BBC.

"No bill goes through Parliament without detailed consideration being made, but I believe that what I announced [Monday] will be sufficient to secure the agreement of the House of Lords," Clarke told BBC "I have no desire to make further so-called concessions on the bill."

Also...
• Winds of change stir in Mideast, but their direction is unclear ( The Los Angeles Times)
• Q&A: Syria and Lebanon ( The Council on Foreign Relations)
• US cites array of rights abuses by the Iraqi government in 2004 ( The New York Times)
• Imprisoned terrorists still advocating terror ( MSNBC)
• Rights groups to sue Rumsfeld over abuse ( Reuters)
• French reporter in video appeal ( BBC)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Matthew Clark.