The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 69: 14 September 2005

SNIPPETS

FREE SPEECH AMUSEMENTS

We reported the seizure of the BNP's newsletter a couple of days ago. There has been no audible protest from civil libertarians of any stripe. The mass media are fully aware of the circumstances, but is observing a discreet silence.

The one reference to this scandal comes in a social diary column by Hugo Rifkind in The Times. Mr Rifkind has seen a copy of the offending newsletter, and mocks the BNP for their coverage of the 7/7 atrocities. The BNP speaks of 'Fifty-six innocent people' being killed on 7 July, when in fact there were 52 victims - and four bombers.

The BNP fully deserve all the mockery they get. But it is still troubling that there is yet to be any serious consideration of the free speech implications of the seizure of their newsletter.

RICIN UPDATE

For anyone acquainted with the facts of the 'ricin' trial (see our briefing), Sir John Stevens' recollections of the case (as serialized in The Times, on page 8) are priceless. The former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police recalls that Scotland Yard was 'amazed and dismayed' by the acquittal of eight men charged with involvement in the 'ricin' case: 'The jury's verdict was very disappointing, but questioning such decisions, other than to learn lessons from them, is not productive.'

Lessons have been learned.

Five out of the eight acquitted men have been re-arrested and are being detained pending deportation to Algeria.

The deportation process may take years to be resolved (and if the men are deported, they face torture).

So, having failed to jail these men for years by convincing a jury of their guilt, the Government is jailing them for years by attempting to deport them to a torture state. No new evidence against them is even hinted at.

Having failed to intern the Belmarsh detainees by convincing the Law Lords of the legality of their detention, the Government is interning most of them now by attempting to deport them to torture states. (They were mostly taken on 11 August.)

And the Home Secretary conceded to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the same day that 'Prisons had also become "hot spots" for radicalising young Muslims.' (Times, page 6)

AFGHANISTAN - IRAQ

The Times reported today (page 22) that the Government is not planning to reduce British troop levels in Iraq to free up soldiers for a proposed extra British deployment to Afghanistan:

'Proposals to reduce the number of British troops serving in southern Iraq from 8,500 to 3,000 by early next year have been scrapped. John Reid, the Defence Secretary, has given a personal assurance to the Chief of Staff of the Iraqi Armed Forces that British troop levels will stay the same unless the security climate improves dramatically.'

'A policy document signed by Mr Reid and leaked to a newspaper in July had outlined an option for withdrawing more than 5,000 British troops from Iraq — starting next month — for a saving of £500 million. The timing of the proposed withdrawal appeared to be linked to the expected deployment next year of between 2,000 and 3,000 extra British troops to join the Nato force in Afghanistan. A British general is to take charge of the Nato headquarters in Afghanistan from May next year.'

'Yesterday, however, before leaving for Berlin for a Nato defence ministers’ meeting, Mr Reid indicated that imminent troop cuts in Iraq were no longer an option. He also denied that an increase in troops to Afghanistan would make it necessary to cut the force in Iraq. Some defence officials had suggested that withdrawals from Iraq would be unavoidable if British troops were to take on a bigger role in Afghanistan.'

'However, Mr Reid said that the Armed Forces would continue to carry out both missions for as long as was necessary. He said that the scale of the British commitment in Iraq would depend on conditions in the country.'

The Guardian adds (page 7):

'Britain will be deploying thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come, John Reid, the defence secretary, signalled yesterday. Britain would only get out of the two countries once they were in a position to stand on their own feet.'

'Speaking before a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Berlin, Mr Reid said Britain would set up a military base in April in Helmand province, in southern Afghanistan, the heartland of the opium poppy harvest and an area where the Taliban pose the most severe threat.'

'In May Britain would also deploy the headquarters of Nato's allied rapid reaction force, the ARCC, to Afghanistan. Mr Reid declined yesterday to say how many British troops would be involved but defence officials put the number at 4,000.'

'Britain now contributes around 900 troops to the 11,000-strong Isaf force [in Afghanistan].'

The US wants out of Afghanistan. The UK is increasing its presence enormously. A swap with US troops entering Iraq would have made sense but it is apparently not to be.

JNV welcomes feedback.