Archive for the 'War on Terror' Category

Page 2 of 5

Dead Russian spy to be buried as a Muslim

Published on 4 December 2006 in Islam, London and War on Terror. 1 Comment

Alexander Litvinenko, the former Russian intelligence agent poisoned in London, is to be buried according to Muslim tradition after converting to Islam on his deathbed.The spy’s father, Walter Litvinenko, said in an interview published today that his son – who was born an Orthodox Christian but had close links to Islamist rebels in Chechnya – made the request as he lay dying in University College Hospital.”He said ’I want to be buried according to Muslim tradition’,” Mr Litvinenko told Moscow’s Kommersant daily.

Dead Russian spy to be buried as a Muslim – Britain – Times Online

Blimey! Anyone know when/where the janaza will be?

technorati tags:, , , , , ,

Blogged with Flock

UPDATE: Saracen is upset that I didn’t pingback to his earlier post on this matter [Saracen.nu]. I’m afraid that whilst I do subscribe to his blog I don’t just sit here all day reading it – and it was not via his blog that I came across the Times article. Anyway, he should now get the pingback that he so craves.

No safeguards against mistakes when evidence is “secret”

Published on 12 October 2006 in Civil Liberties and War on Terror. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , .

This morning Radio 4 reported the worrying news that two, separate sittings of the Special Immigration Appeals Commissions (SIAC) heard cases based on mutually contradictory, secret evidence supplied by MI5. SAIC is the controversial court, which makes decisions on expulsion of foreign nationals, on the grounds of national security, from the UK. It is controversial because hearings and rulings are mostly held in secret. Even the defendants often don’t know the evidence, or even, charges against them – special legal representatives are appointed who are required not to divulge the secret evidence even to the person they are attempting to defend.

Under the secretive arrangements it would normally be impossible for a defendant’s legal representatives to discover such a flaw in the prosecution case. The matter only came to light because, by co-incidence, the same barrister was representing the two men concerned. The judge in the second case was none-too impressed, the BBC reports:

In a ruling produced in May, but only now made public, the judge accepted the mistake was not deliberate.
But Mr Justice Newman went on to say the “administration of justice is put at risk” if such failures occur.

The judge accepted that MI5 had a mistake. Since he’s the only independent person to know the details we have to accept his judgement. What concerns me, however, is what the judge could have said but didn’t (or at least it if he did, it’s been kept secret): In a standard high court case all the necessary information would be in the public domain, acting as a safeguard against such “failures” in the “administration of justice”. What are the safeguards when the court case is held in secret and the defendants never find out what they were actually accused of? None, as far as I can see.

Of course intelligence sources need protecting, but we need to also recognise that intelligence is not scientific. “Intelligence” is usually subjective, often based on hunches and rumours. We rely on our intelligence agents to have sufficient knowledge and experience of their domain to make good judgements about which leads to follow. Yet the nature of the business is such that mistakes and failures, such as Forest Gate, are inevitable. We therefore need safeguards to assure justice. I’m afraid the only safeguard I can think of is the right, enshrined under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, to a public hearing.

Incidentally the BBC report gives no details on what actually become of the two defendants, Abu Doha and “MK”. Presumably that’s still secret.

Jew thrown off airline

Published on 9 September 2006 in Snippets, Society and War on Terror. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

A reminder that xenophobia knows no bounds. Following the recent spate of “Muslim-looking” asians being thrown off planes, Saracen.nu is reporting that a Jewish man was thrown off a plane for praying – unbelievable! Bigotry and ignorance must be stopped, for all our sakes.

(0)

Foreign Policy, Muslim leaders and that letter

Published on 5 September 2006 in Islam and War on Terror. 4 Comments Tags: , , , , .

A few weeks ago there was a bit of a brouhaha over prominent Muslim politicians’ letter to the Prime Minister (rightly) bemoaning British foreign policy and clumsily linking it to the threat of terrorism against the UK today. The political and media response was entirely predictable, and correct in the central point (i.e. that foreign policy should not be surrendered to terrorists). At the time I did feel a desire to write an article giving them a wrap on the knuckles for being so politically naïve, though managed to restrain myself. Nevertheless, I did say to myself that I would write an analytical piece about it, in the fullness of time [sic].

under|progress has, however, beaten me to it, with a very well argued essay, Policy, profiling, poverty. A very well recommended read for everyone. Here’s a snippet:

For too many people the explanation of terrorism in Britain stops at this point about foreign policy. That is, the foreign policy is a shambles and therefore we can expect some kind of response from would-be defenders of the people who suffer from Blair’s delusions of grandeur. But the argument fails, or is higly limited, on several points. It does not offer a ‘root cause’ explanation. As far as I am aware, no Iraqi or Afghan has decided to attack Britain for its role in the two invasions and subsequent occupations (instead some living Britain have made there way to Iraq to fight). Only, by and large, British-born, English-speaking Muslims. The simplest refutation of the foreign policy argument is that, despite anger Blair’s foreign objectives, there are Muslims who do not engage in such acts of violence. Is their anger or concern any less than those who take to bombing tubes and buses? Further, such an explanation is actually an insult to Muslims who don’t feel the need to engage in such acts or find such actions against their religio-moral principles. This explanation says Muslims are unable to rationally deal with the situation and that their only response is bound to be a violent one. This is, plainly speaking, rubbish.

Quite right! (Even if he failed to spell check it before hitting publish! :-) )

Whoever he is, he’s going on the blogroll.