MI5 warns that bombers may be on way back

[struggle4progress]

MI5 warns that bombers may be on way back
David Leppard

SENIOR MPs and members of the police and security forces have been told to increase their level of personal security after MI5 issued a warning of a heightened threat of a bombing or assassination by the IRA.

MI5’s joint terrorism analysis centre has circulated a warning raising its assessment of the risk of an IRA attack to “significant” — just one level below the threat from Al-Qaeda. The warning means the risk of an IRA attack against London or other targets is the highest since the 1997 ceasefire.

The move reflects the spy service’s latest assessment of the fallout from the £26.5m Belfast bank robbery in December, in which the IRA has been implicated. New intelligence also indicates the IRA is updating its list of potential targets on the mainland. ..snip..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1502756,00.html

What's up? Perhaps this sounds familiar:

..snip.. Ministers know that there is a great deal at stake – far more than the Government's political fortunes. Hanging over them is what the intelligence services assess as a strong likelihood that Islamic terrorists will attempt to attack Britain before the forthcoming election. They fear that if men such as the nine terror suspects being held in Belmarsh – alleged to be among the most dangerous in the country but whose detention has been ruled by the Law Lords as improper – are freed, then such an attack will become inevitable. ..snip..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/27/nterr127.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/02/27/ixhome.html

Elections and terrorist threats! It's Blair's effort to strip away Magna Carta protections, an effort that may be facing some problems.

Lords 'will defeat terror Bill'
By Andy McSmith, Political Editor
27 February 2005

The Home Secretary has been warned that he faces defeat in the House of Lords next week over his plan to give himself the power to put British citizens under house arrest.

Leading peers are outraged that a measure brought in to deal with potential suicide bombers can apply equally to animal rights extremists, Irish republicans, or anyone considered liable to resort to political violence. Charles Clarke has also been warned that the Government's majority could be "very thin" when it is voted on by MPs for the second time, tomorrow. Last week, more than 30 Labour MPs voted against the Bill. A larger number is said to be ready to back a move by Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, to take the power to issue "control orders" away from the Home Secretary and give it to judges.

Senior Labour sources said that Mr Clarke is keen to make sure the legislation is passed before the powers that keep the seven Belmarsh detainees locked up run out in March.

But Tony Blair is said to be willing to see it defeated and turned into an election issue; implying that Michael Howard's opposition means that he is "soft" on terrorism. .. snip ..

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=615229

Bliar & co are promising compromise.

Clarke aide hints at anti-terror bill concessions

..snip.. Yesterday, the prime minister denied claims that he is "railroading" the controversial plans for house arrest through Parliament and insisted he was trying to protect the country from terrorist attack.

Tony Blair also indicated that he might be able to compromise on opposition demands to give judges a greater role in regard to the 'control orders' that would see terrorism suspects confined to their houses or banned from using telephones and the internet.

Despite opposition from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and a number of Labour backbenchers, press reports suggest that Labour ministers are confident of passing the proposed laws through the House of Commons without much difficulty. ..snip..

http://www.politics.co.uk/domestic-policy/clarke-aide-hints-at-anti-terror-bill-concessions-$7892946.htm

For example, there could be an expanded role for judges in the special orders.

Judges to rule on terror orders

Martin Bright and Jason Burke
Sunday February 27, 2005
The Observer

The Home Secretary will have to apply to a judge within 24 hours of issuing 'control orders' to limit the movement of terror suspects under proposals being considered by Charles Clarke. The government is set for a climbdown over its Prevention of Terrorism Bill by allowing a judge to be involved at a far earlier stage in the decision.

Clarke is studying a proposal outlined by the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten, which would leave the Home Secretary with the power to issue an order in an emergency, but oblige him to apply to a high court judge within 24 hours to ratify the decision. A full order would follow within days, after further authorisation by a judge.

The proposed orders would impose a sliding tariff of restrictions on suspects, from tagging to full house arrest.

Ministers will warn of an increased threat from British Muslims to justify applying the powers to UK citizens as well as foreigners, The Observer has discovered. ..snip..

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1426548,00.html

Residents of the USA should follow this story closely.

British liberty is under threat

Sunday February 27, 2005
The Observer

Terrorism directed at innocent civilians is an affront against every norm of every society. Certainly, we need laws that deal determinedly with terrorist networks and can track down and imprison terrorists, and British law rightly gives our security and intelligence services powerful instruments with which to discharge this vital responsibility. They can arrest and question suspects on the basis of intelligence information. They can put their networks under surveillance, tap phones, and examine every detail of the lives of suspected terrorists and their contacts. Suspects can be detained for up to 14 days and, once evidence has been secured, they can be brought before a court to secure further detention under a wide array of potential charges.

Where to strike the balance between the need for a tough framework to protect citizens from terrorist attack and the need to respect individual justice has always been hotly contested territory. But an inviolable principle has always been that no British citizen should be denied liberty without the promise of the evidence against him or her ultimately being tested in court.

In one of the toughest ever anti-terrorist measures taken in Britain, the former Home Secretary held foreign terrorist suspects in Belmarsh without trial or knowledge of the evidence against them. He was rightly condemned by the Law Lords. Tomorrow, the government will try to wriggle free from this hook. David Blunkett's successor, Charles Clarke, will attempt to reframe the law with 'control orders' and give himself the power to order the indefinite house arrest of any British citizen suspected of terrorism on the advice of the intelligence services. There will be no need for the evidence ever to subjected to the scrutiny of a trial. ..snip..

What is now needed, following the judgment of the Law Lords, is adoption of the principle that any form of detention must be followed by the requirement of a trial. Monday's vote is crucial - for civil liberties and for the rule of law. Labour is on the wrong side of this argument and has to be opposed.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,1426489,00.html

[applegrove]

1. Translation: Karl Rove Wants you to vote for Blair n/t

[struggle4progress]

2. It's funny, ya know: I got exactly the same impression. eom

[depakid]

3. And the militant fundies think they're going to get a toehold?

HA!

Not. The British have been frying bigger fish than those pathetic little whingers for centuries.

[Nostradamus]

4. Only Bush and Blair are allowed to use gangsta tactics

Predictable election bombast...