Blair loses key terror vote
Almost 50 members of his own party refuse to back 90-day detention period.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered his first major defeat in eight years Wednesday when his government lost a key security vote: a measure to extend the time a terror suspect can be held from 14 days to 90 days. The final vote was 322 to 291, which meant that 49 members of Mr. Blair's own party
voted against the proposal, and 14 abstained. The
Financial Times reports that the defeat was "bigger than government whips had feared and
more resounding than his critics on the opposition benches and in his own party had expected."
Earlier this week, the government
won a vote on another security measure that included a new offense of encouraging terrorism, known as the "glorification" of terrorism clause, by only one vote, 300-299. Most observers also expected this vote to be that close as well - Blair even called home two of his ministers who were abroad for the vote, thinking it would be much closer than it turned out.
After the defeat of Blair's latest security effort Wednesday, the
Washington Post reports that parliament
did vote to double the time suspects can be held, from 14 to 28 days. The bill also includes provisions to toughen penalties for terrorist-related activities and widen government powers to ban organizations deemed to support terrorism.
CNN reports that there still
might be challenges to the 28-day period and to the new crime of the glorification of terrorism. The
BBC reports that the new terrorism law must pass the House of Lords, "where
other controversial aspects, such as the "glorification" or indirect incitement of terrorism, are likely to face stiff opposition."
The
Guardian reports that Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, took the
blame for the loss. He said Wednesday's defeat was a "one-off" and said he had misjudged the mood of the House of Commons.
He insisted the PM had not pushed him to press the case for 90 days' detention without charge against his will – but he reserved some venom for Labour's "serial rebels" who were "hell-bent" on trying to defeat the government ... Speaking on GMTV, Mr Clarke said: "Yesterday was a combination of serial rebels, the opposition voting without respect for the issues, and a number of individuals profoundly worried about the civil liberties issue, voting that way."
The
Daily Mail of London writes, however, in an editorial that Clarke was willing to negotiate a compromise with opposition parties, for a period longer than 28 days, but not as long as 90. But
Blair insisted on putting the 90-day measure in front of MPs for a vote, knowing that after the July 7 bombings in London, "there isn't an MP [in parliament] who doesn't understand that suicide bombers pose an unprecedented threat."
But is the answer really 90 days' detention without charge, a power sought by no other democracy in the world? The police may say so. But this paper for one doesn't have total faith in many chief constables, not least the Met's Sir Ian Blair, who on other occasions has shown a lamentable lack of judgment.
Mr. Blair may say so too. But patriotic Parliamentarians, with convictions just as deep as his, are convinced that such an extreme measure would inflict immeasurable damage on our way of life. Given the Prime Minister's grubby tactics, his lies on weapons of mass destruction and his record of dodgy dossiers trying to 'prove' cases, they had no reason to trust him.
Boris Johnson, a Conservative MP and the editor of
The Spectator, wrote in the
Daily Telegraph that he was glad that the terrorism measure was defeated because it was "a bad measure, ill-thought-out, and had
nothing to do with security, and everything to do with party politics." Mr. Johnson also said the government's and police's own statistics didn't back the need for a 90-day period.
Indeed, the figures show that of the 357 people arrested under the latest Prevention of Terrorism Act, only 11 were held for the full 14 days, and of these all were charged. If the numbers are so tiny, why do we need this programme of incarceration? No one could object to the minutest surveillance of such characters. Let us by all means bug them and watch them for 24 hours a day.
But if we have enough evidence to incarcerate someone for three months, then we should have enough evidence to put them on trial. That we have extended detention to 28 days is bad enough, but it was the best compromise available.
The Associated Press reports that Blair
remained defiant after the vote. He said he would not resign, and insisted lawmakers had been wrong to put the civil liberties of a small number of terrorists ahead of the "fundamental civil liberty of this country to protection from terrorism."
Update on Tuesday's "
Did the US military use chemical weapons in Iraq?
"
On Tuesday, the Italian state-run cable news channel RAI broadcast a documentary on the first anniversary of the battle to retake Fallujah from Iraqi insurgents. The program alleged that the US military used chemical weapons, in particular white phosphorus during a November '04 bombardment of the city. According to the Italian news website AKI, the RAI documentary charges that "the US forces did not use phosphorus in the legitimate way - to highlight enemy positions - but dropped the substance indiscriminately on the city, and on a massive scale."
The US military denies "the use of chemical weapons at any time in Iraq, which includes the ongoing Fallujah operation." The US military admitted to using the weapon to illuminate battlefields in Iraq, and says it did so in Fallujah, but insists it did not use it in civilian areas. Washington is not a signatory of an international treaty restricting white phosphorus devices.
But an article in the March/April edition of
Field Artillery, which is is published at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, contradicts the military's claim that it only used white phosphorus as a way to illuminate the battlefield, and in fact used it as a weapon. The article, entiled "The Fight for Fallujah," and written by Capt. James T.Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, who took part in the Fallujah operation, contains a section that specifically refers to
the use of the chemical as a weapon.
b. White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [155-mm high explosives M107 ammunition rounds]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.
GlobalSecurity.org, an international security organization,
describes the chemical this way:
White Phosphorus (WP), known as Willy Pete, is used for signaling, screening, and incendiary purposes. WP is a colorless to yellow wax-like substance with a pungent, garlic-like smell. White phosphorus, a pyrophoric material (ie, spontaneously flammable), creates a smoke screen. A side benefit of white phosphorus is that white phosphorus smoke is toxic and readily penetrates protective mask filters. Phosphorus smokes are generated by a variety of munitions. Some of these munitions such as the MA25 (155-mm round) may, on explosion, distribute particles of incompletely oxidized white phosphorus.
White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects .
Also...
•
Ken Wiwa: 'Committed to remembering' (
BBC)
•
The 'Nation' at War (
Washington Post)
•
US Tells North Korea to shut down reactor (
Voice of America)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed