CentreRight

The obscenity of the Guantanamo Bay payouts

If you're a British soldier fighting against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, you can earn as little as £17,000 a year. If you train with the enemy and accuse the British state of torture without having to prove it, then you can become an overnight millionaire. This was precisely what happened last week when the government came to financial agreements with former detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Douglas Murray and I have written a piece for today's Wall Street Journal which lays out exactly what some of those the government paid out big to last week have openly admitted to (under no suggestion of duress). These men were not paragons of virtue that sections of the press would have you believe. For example:

• Moazzam Begg told the U.S. Combatant Status Review Board that he visited a camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in 1993 that was 'responsible for training Kashmiri refugees in small arms and mountain tactics,' and that he attended a training camp in Afghanistan in 1998. He also admits fighting in Bosnia. 
• The Tipton Three said they went to a Taliban training camp 'on many occasions to find out what was happening.' Their explanation for why this ended up with them firing AK-47s, was that 'you want to hold it. You want to see what it's like.'
• Binyam Mohamed, openly admitted to his legal representative at Guantanamo Bay that he left for Afghanistan in 2001 to receive 'paramilitary training', including in arms handling and explosives. Part of his training was from a senior al Qaida operative. Mohamed said that he intended to go on and fight in Chechnya.
• Richard Belmar also accepted that he travelled to Afghanistan to attend a military training camp in July 2001 to receive basic weapons, war tactics, and navigation training. Despite seeing Osama bin Laden there, Belmar claims it was not until near the end of his training that he realized he was at a terrorist camp. He says he thought it was 'just a military training camp for Muslims'.

Both Mohamed and Belmar acknowledge they were training at al-Qaeda's al Farouq camp, where at least seven of the 9/11 hijackers trained, along with John Walker Lindh (the U.S. citizen convicted in 2002 for joining the Taliban). In the U.S., attendance at the al Farouq camp was enough for a federal court to sentence six Yemeni Americans to prison. In Britain, it is enough to ensure a huge taxpayer funded cash bonanza.

The government said they had no choice but to pay the money. Yet their reasoning was unconvincing. There is some merit to the argument that MI5 and MI6 were not going to relish having to reveal secret intelligence if the case made it to court. But what is to stop the same thing happening in the future? If the state was willing to pay out this time, when it said it as not at fault, I am not sure what will stop further accusations of British complicity in torture now it's clear what a lucrative move it is.

The argument that the payments were necessary in order to 'clear the decks' for their inquiry into British intelligence agencies colluding in torture was nonsense. The Conservatives were the ones that set up the inquiry in the first place. It is simply a matter of priorities.

The fact that it was cheaper to settle out of court than fight the case was also rolled out as an excuse. While I think most of us would agree it's time that state spending was cut, this was a case where we should have spent some money and fought our corner. Of course it's easier to crumple in front of Islamist lawfare than to push back against it. But we don't elect leaders to do with is easy. We elect them to do what is right. And no matter the morality of Guantanamo Bay, training with the Taliban and then receiving huge financial reward for it is clearly not right.

Israel is a rogue state

This speech has been reproduced elsewhere, but is so terrific that it's worth doing so again. Gabriel Latner - a 19 year old student at Cambridge - was debating at the Cambridge Union recently for the motion 'Israel is a rogue state'. He was speaking alongside Lauren Booth, recent convert to Islam and journalist at the pro-Iranian theocracy Press TV. His arguments, however, may not exactly be what you suspect.

This is a war of ideals, and the other speakers here tonight are rightfully, idealists. I’m not. I’m a realist. I’m here to win. I have a single goal this evening – to have at least a plurality of you walk out of the ‘Aye’ door. I face a singular challenge – most, if not all, of you have already made up your minds.

This issue is too polarizing for the vast majority of you not to already have a set opinion. I’d be willing to bet that half of you strongly support the motion, and half of you strongly oppose it. I want to win, and we’re destined for a tie. I’m tempted to do what my fellow speakers are going to do – simply rehash every bad thing the Israeli government has ever done in an attempt to satisfy those of you who agree with them. And perhaps they’ll even guilt one of you rare undecided into voting for the proposition, or more accurately, against Israel. It would be so easy to twist the meaning and significance of international ‘laws’ to make Israel look like a criminal state. But that’s been done to death. It would be easier still to play to your sympathy, with personalised stories of Palestinian suffering. And they can give very eloquent speeches on those issues. But the truth is, that treating people badly, whether they’re your citizens or an occupied nation, does not make a state’ rogue’. If it did, Canada, the US, and Australia would all be rogue states based on how they treat their indigenous populations. Britain’s treatment of the Irish would easily qualify them to wear this sobriquet. These arguments, while emotionally satisfying, lack intellectual rigour.

More importantly, I just don’t think we can win with those arguments. It won’t change the numbers. Half of you will agree with them, half of you won’t. So I’m going to try something different, something a little unorthodox. I’m going to try and convince the die-hard Zionists and Israel supporters here tonight, to vote for the proposition. By the end of my speech – I will have presented 5 pro-Israel arguments that show Israel is, if not a ‘rogue state’ than at least ‘rogueish’.

Let me be clear. I will not be arguing that Israel is ‘bad’. I will not be arguing that it doesn’t deserve to exist. I won’t be arguing that it behaves worse than every other country. I will only be arguing that Israel is ‘rogue’.

The word ‘rogue’ has come to have exceptionally damning connotations. But the word itself is value-neutral. The OED defines rogue as ‘Aberrant, anomalous; misplaced, occurring (esp. in isolation) at an unexpected place or time ‘, while a dictionary from a far greater institution gives this definition ‘behaving in ways that are not expected or not normal, often in a destructive way ‘. These definitions, and others, centre on the idea of anomaly – the unexpected or uncommon. Using this definition, a rogue state is one that acts in an unexpected, uncommon or aberrant manner. A state that behaves exactly like Israel.

The first argument is statistical. The fact that Israel is a Jewish state alone makes it anomalous enough to be dubbed a rogue state: There are 195 countries in the world. Some are Christian, some Muslim, some are secular. Israel is the only country in the world that is Jewish. Or, to speak mathmo for a moment, the chance of any randomly chosen state being Jewish is 0.0051% . In comparison the chance of a UK lotto ticket winning at least £10 is 0.017% – more than twice as likely. Israel’s Jewishness is a statistical aberration.

The second argument concerns Israel’s humanitarianism, in particular,Israel’s response to a refugee crisis. Not the Palestinian refugee crisis – for I am sure that the other speakers will cover that – but the issue of Darfurian refugees. Everyone knows that what happened, and is still happening in Darfur, is genocide, whether or not the UN and the Arab League will call it such. [I actually hoped that Mr Massih would be able speak about this - he's actually somewhat of an expert on the Crisis in Darfur, in fact it's his expertise that has called him away to represent the former Dictator of Sudan while he is being investigated by the ICC.] There has been a mass exodus from Darfur as the oppressed seek safety. They have not had much luck. Many have gone north to Egypt – where they are treated despicably. The brave make a run through the desert in a bid to make it to Israel. Not only do they face the natural threats of the Sinai, they are also used for target practice by the Egyptian soldiers patrolling the border. Why would they take the risk? Because in Israel they are treated with compassion – they are treated as the refugees that they are – and perhaps Israel’s cultural memory of genocide is to blame. The Israeli government has even gone so far as to grant several hundred Darfurian refugees Citizenship. This alone sets Israel apart from the rest of the world.

But the real point of distinction is this: The IDF sends out soldiers and medics to patrol the Egyptian border. They are sent looking for refugees attempting to cross into Israel. Not to send them back into Egypt, but to save them from dehydration, heat exhaustion, and Egyptian bullets. Compare that to the US’s reaction to illegal immigration across their border with Mexico. The American government has arrested private individuals for giving water to border crossers who were dying of thirst – and here the Israeli government is sending out its soldiers to save illegal immigrants. To call that sort of behavior anomalous is an understatement.

My Third argument is that the Israeli government engages in an activity which the rest of the world shuns — it negotiates with terrorists. Forget the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, a man who died with blood all over his hands – they’re in the process of negotiating with terrorists as we speak. Yasser Abed Rabbo is one of the lead PLO negotiators that has been sent to the peace talks with Israel. Abed Rabbo also used to be a leader of the PFLP- an organisation of ‘freedom fighters’ that, under Abed Rabbo’s leadership, engaged in such freedom promoting activities as killing 22 Israeli high school students. And the Israeli government is sending delegates to sit at a table with this man, and talk about peace. And the world applauds. You would never see the Spanish government in peace talks with the leaders of the ETA – the British government would never negotiate with Thomas Murphy. And if President Obama were to sit down and talk about peace with Osama Bin Laden, the world would view this as insanity. But Israel can do the exact same thing – and earn international praise in the process. That is the dictionary definition of rogue – behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal.

Another part of dictionary definition is behaviour or activity ‘occuring at an unexpected place or time’. When you compare Israel to its regional neighbours, it becomes clear just how roguish Israel is. And here is the fourth argument: Israel has a better human rights record than any of its neighbours. At no point in history, has there ever been a liberal democratic state in the Middle East- except for Israel. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only one where the LGBT community enjoys even a small measure of equality. In Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, and Syria, homosexual conduct is punishable by flogging, imprisonment, or both. But homosexuals there get off pretty lightly compared to their counterparts in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, who are put to death. Israeli homosexuals can adopt, openly serve in the army, enter civil unions, and are protected by exceptionally strongly worded ant-discrimination legislation. Beats a death sentence. In fact, it beats America.

Israel’s protection of its citizens’ civil liberties has earned international recognition. Freedom House is an NGO that releases an annual report on democracy and civil liberties in each of the 195 countries in the world. It ranks each country as ‘Free’ ‘Partly Free’ or ‘Not Free’. In the Middle East, Israel is the only country that has earned designation as a ‘free’ country. Not surprising given the level of freedom afforded to citizens in say, Lebanon- a country designated ‘partly free’, where there are laws against reporters criticizing not only the Lebanese government, but the Syrian regime as well. [I'm hoping Ms Booth will speak about this, given her experience working as a 'journalist' for Iran,] Iran is a country given the rating of ‘not free’, putting it alongside China, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Myanmar. In Iran, [as Ms Booth I hoped would have said in her speech], there is a special ‘Press Court’ which prosecutes journalists for such heinous offences as criticizing the ayatollah, reporting on stories damaging the ‘foundations of the Islamic republic’ , using ‘suspicious (i.e. western) sources’, or insulting islam. Iran is the world leader in terms of jailed journalists, with 39 reporters (that we know of) in prison as of 2009. They also kicked out almost every Western journalist during the 2009 election. [I don't know if Ms Booth was affected by that] I guess we can’t really expect more from a theocracy. Which is what most countries in the Middle East are. Theocracies and Autocracies. But Israel is the sole, the only, the rogue, democracy. Out of every country in the Middle East, only in Israel do anti-government protests and reporting go unquashed and uncensored.

I have one final argument – the last nail in the opposition’s coffin- and its sitting right across the aisle. Mr Ran Gidor’s presence here is the all evidence any of us should need to confidently call Israel a rogue state. For those of you who have never heard of him, Mr Gidor is a political counsellor attached to Israel’s embassy in London. He’s the guy the Israeli government sent to represent them to the UN. He knows what he’s doing. And he’s here tonight. And it’s incredible. Consider, for a moment, what his presence here means. The Israeli government has signed off,to allow one of their senior diplomatic representatives to participate in a debate on their very legitimacy. That’s remarkable. Do you think for a minute, that any other country would do the same? If the Yale University Debating Society were to have a debate where the motion was ‘This house believes Britain is a racist, totalitarian state that has done irrevocable harm to the peoples of the world’, that Britain would allow any of its officials to participate? No. Would China participate in a debate about the status of Taiwan? Never. And there is no chance in hell that an American government official would ever be permitted to argue in a debate concerning its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. But Israel has sent Mr Ran Gidor to argue tonight against [a 'journalist' come reality TV star, and myself,] a 19 year old law student who is entirely unqualified to speak on the issue at hand.

Every government in the world should be laughing at Israel right now- because it forgot rule number one. You never add credence to crackpots by engaging with them. It’s the same reason you won’t see Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins debate David Icke. But Israel is doing precisely that. Once again, behaving in a way that is unexpected, or not normal. Behaving like a rogue state.

That’s five arguments that have been directed at the supporters of Israel. But I have a minute or two left. And here’s an argument for all of you – Israel willfully and forcefully disregards international law. In 1981 Israel destroyed OSIRAK – Sadam Hussein’s nuclear bomb lab. Every government in the world knew that Hussein was building a bomb. And they did nothing. Except for Israel. Yes, in doing so they broke international law and custom. But they also saved us all from a nuclear Iraq. That rogue action should earn Israel a place of respect in the eyes of all freedom loving peoples. But it hasn’t. But tonight, while you listen to us prattle on, I want you to remember something; while you’re here, Khomeini’s Iran is working towards the Bomb. And if you’re honest with yourself, you know that Israel is the only country that can, and will, do something about it. Israel will, out of necessity act in a way that is the not the norm, and you’d better hope that they do it in a destructive manner. Any sane person would rather a rogue Israel than a Nuclear Iran. [Except Ms Booth]

10:10 video campaign now offline

It seems that the group behind the climate change video campaign I blogged about earlier - in which those reluctant to reduce their carbon emissions are murdered by those that are not - are beginning to get cold feet. It has been pulled from their official website (see here) and is now disappearing from YouTube at a rate of knots.

Good news though - the internet being what it is, the video is still available in all its glory here and here.

No pressure...but cut your carbon emissions or I'm going to blow you up

The climate change pressure group 10:10 has just launched a video campaign that is about as crass, tasteless and unfunny as it gets. The film is directed by Richard Curtis, who continues to undo all the good work done by Blackadder by exposing us to the horror of Tottenham's (otherwise imperious) captain Ledley King trying to act.

I'm used to being told by now that if I don't stop leaving my TV on standby then I'm responsible for hot weather, cold weather, poverty in Africa, genocide, wet weather, the recession, England not winning the World Cup, sunny weather and the assassination of JFK. However, I don't think anyone has ever before been quite as explicit as saying that if I don't cut my carbon emissions, someone who has done is going to kill me.

The head of MI5 talks control orders

Jonathan Evans delivered a speech yesterday which spelt out his support for control orders, the anti-terrorism legislation which allows the state to monitor terror suspects via electronic tag, curfew, a ban on overseas travel, and a variety of other measures. There is currently a review of terrorism legislation under way, so Evans' intervention is welcome one. Control orders are currently the best option we have, something I highlight in a Centre for Social Cohesion report on the issue, released last week.

It appears that the ground is shifting on this debate.The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were both quick to lambast the legislation when out of power, though the reality of government appears to have tempered this. Whitehall mandarins are now leaking to the Daily Telegraph that control orders "are likely to be retained in some form". Anonymous Tory ministers, talking to the Independent, also hint at a change in the Conservative position, saying they were "unaware of the gravity of the security situation while in opposition". This is hard to believe, considering how widely known the scale of the terrorist threat facing the UK is. More likely, control orders were being opportunistically used by the Conservatives as a stick to hit Labour with when in opposition and to make the party appear strong on civil liberties.

However, there is a real uncertainty over what the Liberal Democrat response will be on all of this. The likes of Chris Huhne were very explicit in their dislike of control orders, and his party has called for the system to be disbanded. It will be interesting to see how the Lib Dems plan on balancing national security, election promises and their principles on civil liberties without further disenchanting their core voters and badly damaging the Coalition.

9/11 Troofery in London

Nothing ruins my day quite like coming into contact with that breed of especially stupid person who thinks that 9/11 was an 'inside' job. Walking around Broadway Market in east London this weekend, I saw a poster which reminded me that such people have a like-minded community with whom they can share their delusions.

The poster advertised the 9/11 'truth' events taking place all over London this week, hosted by an organisation called Truth Rising, to coincide with the nine year anniversary of 9/11. So, if you are that way inclined, you can go to a 'party' where you dress up as your favourite neocon, watch 'Loose Change' (a fictional movie pretending to be a documentary that is a fave with conspiracy theorists) and then be entertained by spoken word 'legend', MC Angel, and someone who calls himself Planetman.

Alternatively, if Brazilian music interspersed with 'truth' films about 9/11 is more your bag, you are catered for at Notting Hill Arts Club. Earlier in the day, you could get together with Stop the War Hounslow, WeAreChange London and London Truth Action for a demonstration outside the BBC to 'pressurise' them into reporting the truth about 9/11.

We've all been unfortunate enough to meet the types that go to such events. The sort of person who thinks that President Bush and co were devious enough to:

• Mastermind the destruction of the Twin Towers (using explosives/remote controlled planes/holograms of planes, delete as appropriate);
• Pin it on al-Qaeda (the dozens of protestations of al-Qaeda that, yes, they really did do it was another cunning sleight of hand by the Bush administration);
• Find new and exciting ways to restrict civil liberties (it was truly astonishing how you could find absolutely no dissent or criticism of Bush in the news, on the street, in music, film, or art during his entire time in the White House);
• Lie about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (to further the interests of Halliburton/the military industrial complex/Israel/world Jewry/the neoconservatives/other people we don't like)

They seemingly weren't devious enough to take the next logical step and then fabricate WMDs in Iraq once they had invaded, in order to complete the illusion. Still, they pulled off most of their grand masterplan, and had managed to keep it secret from the entire world - until, of course, a few bright sparks on the internet got wind of the plans.

I suppose we should be used to such lunatics by now. But I do think we should manage to maintain our sense of anger and moral outrage at those who - when confronted with totalitarianism, wickedness and mass murder - choose to blame anybody but those actually responsible.

Robin Simcox: Gordon Brown's immigration incompetence

Does anyone else remember the following quote from Gordon Brown in the first televised debate back in April?

Net inward migration will continue to fall under our policies.

From the figures released yesterday by the government's Office for National Statistics:

Estimated net long-term migration to the UK in the year to December 2009 was 196,000. This compares with the final estimate of 163,000 in the year to December 2008

I know Brown was not afraid to get, shall we say, 'creative' with his statistics, but I don't think even he could claim that 196,000 is lower than 163,000.

In the next sentence, from the same debate:

40,000 less students, I suspect, this year, because of our tightening of visa controls.

Can you guess what's coming? From the ONS yesterday:

There were 362,015 visas issued for the purposes of study including Tier 4 (students), up 35 per cent on the year to June 2009.

Rarely in British history can we have had a Prime Minster quite so incompetent.

Cousin marriage is an issue all politicians should want to tackle

For those Conservative Home readers who did not get chance to see this week's Dispatches, it is well worth 45 minutes of your time (it can be viewed here).

The subject was the often disastrous consequences of first cousin marriage. The statistics are shocking - children of first cousins are over ten times more likely to be born with recessive genetic disorders, and a third of children born in this country with such genetic disorders are British Pakistani. Yet despite this, cousin marriage is on the rise. Over 50% of British Pakistanis marry their first cousin, with 75% of ethnic Pakistanis doing so in Bradford.

This is clearly a hugely sensitive subject. However, it was disheartening to see 16 MPs in constituencies where this is a problem refuse to appear on the show. This was apparently out of a fear that taking a stand on this issue would lose votes, cause offence, or lead to accusations of racism. Ann Cryer, former Labour MP for Keighley and who has long campaigned on these issues, did appear - yet not a single representative asked from the current House thought it an issue worth discussing. How depressing an indictment that is on our elected officials.

First cousin marriage is exactly the sort of problem that politicians of substance should want to resolve - something of public importance that offers a clear possibility of affecting worthwhile change. Furthermore, there is no reason why topics such as this should be the preserve of  Labour. This is both a public health and a moral issue - so it should be a Conservative issue as well. It would be encouraging to see someone within the party take it problem on.

Tony Blair is worthy of his liberty medal

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with Alex Deane and, perhaps, a lot of people who read this site. I could think of fewer people more worthy of the award Tony Blair received from the National Constitutional Center.

It seems manifestly unfair to discuss Blair's contributions to freedom without mentioning foreign policy. By being so instrumental in overthrowing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, Blair has given millions freedom from oppression, dictatorship and mob rule. This is a freedom that remains fragile, yet it would have been impossible to achieve without Blair's unwavering commitment in democracy promotion abroad. A functioning education system, women's rights, greater government accountability, democracy - these were all concepts unthinkable in Afghanistan before the US and British led invasion. Iraq's superior infrastructure means that it perhaps has an even greater chance of becoming a fully fledged, functioning democracy. Afghans and Iraqis deserved an opportunity to fight for their liberty. Blair helped to deliver it.

It was these liberal interventionist principles - expanded upon in his 1999 speech in Chicago - that had led to his previous interventions in both Sierra Leone and Kosovo. On both occasions his instincts were dead on the money. In Sierra Leone, especially, Blair is seen as a hero.

In contrast, the record of Conservative governments in recent times on this area has been shameful. The Major government not only refused to overthrow Hussein after the original Gulf War, it also sat back and refused to support the domestic uprising against the dictator - an uprising that was mercilessly crushed. Major also did nothing to stop the Srebrenica massacre - in which over 8000 were killed - and the genocidal Slobodan Milosevic. And - it is unfortunate but I think necessary to point out - even Thatcher opposed German reunification, one of the most inspiring examples of human freedom overcoming tyranny imaginable.

I, like many, disagreed with vast amounts of Blair's policies during his time as PM. However, his commitment to spreading the benefits that democracy brings should be a source of pride - not ridicule or shame. Sorry Con Home readers - but Tony Blair is a friend of liberty.

Does the government have a control orders policy?

Lord Carlile delivered a sensible speech last night which again made the case for control orders, as well as an enhanced ability to deport foreign terror suspects. The Conservatives and Lib Dems have already been forced to issue control orders against al-Qaeda operatives Abid Nasser and Faraz Khan, despite being highly critical of them when out of government.

Lord Carlile is spot on. As long as the European Court of Human Rights prevents us from deporting terror suspects, and we remain unwilling to ignore the Court's direction (as Italy has done on numerous occasions on this issue), we are reliant on control orders to safeguard national security. This is something I outline in a forthcoming Centre for Social Cohesion report, and have discussed in this week's Weekly Standard.

However, the system is not ideal, and two facts have emerged recently which should make the new government pause for thought. First of all, of the 12 individuals still under control order, 10 are now British citizens. It is worth remembering that control orders were introduced primarily for foreign terror suspects that could not be deported (specifically those detained without trial at Belmarsh prison). The government should be clear that the home grown threat is such that control orders are required for British citizens as well.

Secondly, in Lord Carlile's speech, he says that “Getting rid of control orders would be too dangerous in four or five cases. In those cases there is robust intelligence of serious terrorist intent and it would be dangerous to have them uncontrolled and on the streets.”

But if getting rid of control orders is only too dangerous in "four or five cases", does that mean they can be got rid of in the other seven or eight that are still in force? I presume that this is not what Lord Carlile means - and having seen a lot of the control order documentation used in court, I think he understates the problem. The vast majority of those under control order are clearly extremely dangerous.

No amount of political posturing or internal reviews by the new government is going to change this, so if it is going to make good on its pledge to scrap control orders, it needs to have an extremely effective alternative lined up. Allowing intercept evidence is not the answer - government reviews have shown time and time again that it would not make a bit of difference to current control order cases - and we have already shown that we are going to remain in thrall to the European Court of Human Rights. So what is the answer? I'm sure I'm not the only one doubtful the government actually has one.

A member of al-Qaeda? Come on in...the more the merrier

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has just passed one of those legal rulings which now occur so often that you become numb to it.

From the BBC:

The alleged leader of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb targets in north-west England has won his appeal against deportation.

A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

Mr Naseer, 23, was one of 10 Pakistani students arrested last April as part of a massive counter-terrorism operation in Liverpool and Manchester.

That which must not be named

I have posted before about the very British stance that the Obama administration is currently taking to its counter-terrorism policy. More evidence of this was provided last week, when Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

Referring to the three major terrorist attacks attempted in the US in the past year - the Fort Hood shooting, the Detroit bombing and now the Times Square bombing - Republican Congressman Lamar Smith asks Holder whether 'radical Islam' may just have been one of the contributing factors to these attacks. This seems like a reasonably straight forward question to answer. Radical Islam is, you would guess, quite hard to whitewash out of the Islamism-inspired terrorism that is so common these days. 

However, US government policy is to now remove all references to Islam when discussing terrorism. It is one of those British policies that our American allies seem to have unfortunately taken to with some relish. With an almost heroic disconnect from reality, Holder can not bring himself to accept that all those terrorists who say they are acting in the name of Islam are actually terrorists acting in the name of Islam.

It's a painful watch - a bit like trying to persuade a terrified Hogswarts student to say 'Lord Voldemort'. But - as in the Harry Potter series - if you are too afraid to name the enemy, chances are you won't have the will or know-how to defeat it either.

Radical Islam on university campuses

For anyone looking for some non-election related news, I must point you towards two especially shocking short videos.

The first comes from the University of California San Diego, and records a chilling exchange between David Horowitz, founder and the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and a young Muslim student. That this kind of mindset exists anywhere - let alone a university campus - is about as depressing and as frightening as it gets.

The next piece of footage is of an assault - and subsequent celebration of this assault - on the artist Lars Vilks, at a university in Sweden. Vilks has received death threats and a great deal of censorship for producing artwork which portrayed Mohammed (the picture of which can be viewed here).

As I have posted before, and as previous studies have shown, this type of attitude is not uncommon on British campuses. Labour stuck their head in the sand on this issue for years. Let's hope the new government does not.

An unwelcome intervention from the European Court of Justice

You don't normally have to look far to find a European court willing to weaken British anti-terrorism legislation. The European Court of Human Rights has been doing a pretty handy job for a while now, and the European Court of Justice has today happily stepped in to perform a similar function. 

It has ruled that family members of terrorist suspects should be allowed to claim full social security benefits, including disability, living allowance, income support, and child, housing and council tax. The British government had attempted to ensure that this was not the case, mindful of the fact that there was probably a pretty reasonable chance that the benefits claimed by, for example, the wife of a terrorist suspect may just have found their way to the terrorist suspect himself. 

The European Court of Justice has overturned this, as they have decided that 'it is hard to imagine how those funds could be turned into means that could be used to support terrorist activities'. Perhaps they underestimate how much this government allows the unemployed to claim.

Many of those affected by this ruling will be the foreign national terror suspects that the government has been consistently thwarted in attempting to deport by various courts. We are used to being told that al-Qaeda ideologues and terrorist suspects cannot be removed from the UK if there is the chance they will be mistreated in their country of origin. Yet now we are being told that not only can we not deport them, the taxpayer must also ensure they remain living a life of relative financial comfort.

For years, we have been paying terrorist suspects to live in the UK. When this kind of decadence goes unaddressed, no-one can be surprised that public finances are in the state that they are. 

Cameron reiterates promise to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir

David Cameron talks to Martin Bright in this week's Jewish Chronicle about how a Conservative government would deal with certain issues relating to extremism in the UK.

His comments are a mixed bag. It was encouraging to see Cameron talk about addressing Islamist radicalisation flourishing on campus, although his comments were frustratingly light on substantive policy. He was also badly briefed. Cameron mentioned that under the Conservatives, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader, and Ibrahim el-Moussaoui, Hizbollah's media relations officer, would both be banned from the country. Admirable sentiments; the only problem being that Labour already banned Qaradawi from entering the UK in 2008, and did the same to Moussaoui a year later.

What I found most interesting was that Cameron again insisted, this close to the election, that revolutionary Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir will be banned by a Conservative government. This has been repeated so many times now, not only by Cameron but also by Chris Grayling and Pauline Neville-Jones, that I find it hard to believe it will be quietly dropped should the Conservatives win power.

As I have written previously, the legal grounds for banning Hizb are extremely shaky indeed. While they provide the ideological basis for terrorist acts, there is no evidence that the group has direct links to terrorism. Russia is the only European country to have banned the group outright. In Germany it is illegal to conduct any activity in the group's name, although membership of the group remains legal. However the ban that is in effect there relates specifically to Hizb's antisemitism, and is something unique to the German constitution. The Public Order Act of 1986 already protects Jewish communities from racial hatred here in the UK.

Should Cameron win power, how he plans to go about making good on this promise can be added to the list of significant challenges he is going to face.

Brennan gets it wrong at NYU

John Brennan, the deputy national security adviser and top counterterrorism aide to President Obama, has come under increasing fire recently over the government's handling of Umar Abdulmutallab. Republican critics have complained that the Detroit bomber was read his Miranda rights too quickly, meaning vital intelligence could not be extracted from him, and called for him to be treated as an enemy combatant and therefore subejct to military tribunal. Both Brennan and the White House said Republicans were 'playing politics', with Brennan claiming that 'unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda' (as opposed to the founded fear-mongering that Brennan would presumably approve of).

Brennan's counterterrorism talk at New York University law school last weekend was an attempt to  further rebuff his critics. Instead, he managed to get several things quite spectacularly wrong. I am far more concerned about US national security at the end of this speech than at the beginning of it.

More on Islamist funding of UK universities

The University of Durham last year entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Iranian government’s Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. The cosy arrangement saw the two promise to publish joint books, hold joint conferences, undertake joint research and exchange students and members of staff. In return, the Iranian government paid Durham £10,000. Worth the price of aligning yourself with probably the most obnoxious government in the world?

Increasingly, it appears not. As part of this memorandum of understanding, a seminar on ‘The Relationship between Culture and Politics in Post-Islamic-Revolution Iran’ was held last month at the university – a seminar which coincided with the execution of Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, arrested after last June’s Iranian ‘election’. Students protested at the awfulness of their university’s actions, and two academics withdrew from the event. Dr Colin Turner, co-director of Durham's Centre for Iranian Studies, was left with an event which he admitted was ‘monopolised by pro-regime speakers’. In the audience were Durham’s mayor and the university’s vice-chancellor.

Responding to the pro-democracy protests, Dr Turner gave us an early front-runner for stupidest comment of the year:

‘These same people who denigrate us have absolutely no problem in accepting scholarships from the British government – which has turned the slaughter of innocent teenagers in Iraq and Afghanistan into an art form. Before they accuse us of receiving what they term 'blood money' from our Iranian funders, maybe they should look a little more closely at the source of their own funding.’

Miss me yet?

This billboard of George Bush has appeared on the I-35 in Wyoming, Minnesota. Apologies for the blurriness (a clearer picture is available here), but apparently it's genuine and was rented out by a "group of small business owners and individuals who just felt like Washington was against them."

So...do you?

 

Mohammed Atif Siddique and 'racism'

In September 2007, Mohammed Atif Siddique was jailed for eight years for various terror offences. The most serious of these charges – possession of an article for a purpose connected to terrorism – was quashed last week. The appeals judge, Lord Osborne, called the original verdict a ‘miscarriage of justice’, which is inevitably the headline that most of the press ran on. The impression given was that the British state was once again unfairly demonising its Muslim population.

What was missed in most of the reporting was that Lord Osborne was only referring to the main charge as a miscarriage of justice. Siddique’s convictions for providing instruction for the purposes of terrorism, circulating a terrorist publication and breach of the peace still stood. Looking through the court documents, it is clear that Siddique is an unapologetic admirer of al-Qaeda and its ideology. He amassed huge stocks of jihadist material and would regularly discuss his desire to become a suicide bomber. That he could be used as an example of how ‘discriminatory’ the British state is somewhat rankles, to say the least. However the really depressing information to come out of the court documentation is how the Glasgow college Siddique attended utterly failed to deal with his increasingly extreme behaviour:

The 'war for oil' fallacy

With Tony Blair due to give evidence to the Iraq inquiry tomorrow, the Stop the War Coalition are sending out emails encouraging their supporters to be protesting outside the inquiry venue by 8 am. When Blair leaves, the mob bravely aim 'to express as forcefully as possible our call for him to be arrested'.

In advance of the wearisome 'blood for oil' protests that will inevitably follow, I'd like to point Conservative Home readers towards the following from Alexander Hitchens and Shiraz Maher's excellent blog over at Standpoint. Hitchens quotes from last month's Reuters article, which covered the Iraqi Oil Ministry's auction of its oil to outside bidders:

The Oil Ministry on Saturday ended its second bidding round after awarding seven of the oilfields offered for development, adding to deals from a first auction in June that could together take Iraq up to a capacity to pump 12 million barrels per day.

[...]Russia's Lukoil on Saturday clinched a deal to develop Iraq's supergiant West Qurna Phase Two oilfield after having failed to convince Iraq to bypass the auction and revive an old Saddam Hussein-era deal for the field.

Guardian exclusive: 0% of US citizens face political persecution

The Guardian has made more petty attempts at moral equivalence today by running a ‘story’ in which they get overly excited about the fact that between 2004 and 2008, 45 Americans tried to claim political asylum in the UK in order to avoid ‘persecution’ in the US.

The article complains that ‘They hail from the land of the free, the home of the brave, a place where it is said anyone can prosper regardless of colour, creed or religion. But dozens of Americans have tried in recent years to gain asylum in the UK’. These 45 applicants attempted to claim they have a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ if returned to the US. A further 15 applications came from Canada. All 60 applications were turned down by the Home Office.

I guess we’ll never know if the 45 who applied survived the final years of Bush’s reign of terror. But we do know that of 132,640 asylum applications to the UK between 2004-2008, US citizens make up 0.03% Furthermore, all of these asylum claims were turned down. So of 132,640 applications, the Home Office decided that exactly 0% of them would face persecution if they were returned to the US. That’s what the Guardian deemed worthy of a story.

Freedom of speech at SOAS

For those who are yet to see it, footage from a recent event entitled 'The Case for Sanctions and Boycott' (against Israel) at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) makes for a pretty astonishing watch.

At the Q & A of the event, a Jewish member of the audience attempts to highlight the fact that one of the speakers, Bongani Masuku, was found guilty by the South African Human Rights commission of making comments of an 'extreme nature that advocate and imply that the Jewish and Israeli community are to be despised, scorned, ridiculed and thus subjecting them to ill-treatment on the basis of their religious affiliation'.

Spinning Balls

On the back of one David Cameron error, the Government has done its very best to create the impression that there’s nothing to see here with regards to the recent revelations surrounding the funding of schools linked to Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT).

Cameron got a single detail wrong at PMQs. The money for these schools does not come from ‘Pathfinder’ PVE funds but, as the CSC report upon which Cameron based his questions states, from the 'Free Entitlement' and 'Pathfinder' educational funds. This slight mis-step by Cameron has been used by Ed Balls to quite disgracefully divert attention that government money is still going from his department to HT schools.

The Government also tried to make an issue of the DCSF registration number issue. The fact is that Michael Gove wrote to Ed Balls on 18th November asking Balls to provide him with the DCSF registration number and the Ofsted inspection report for the ISF as neither was available on the Ofsted website. Balls only provided the information yesterday after it was raised in PMQs. This is a pretty blatant diversionary attempt by the Government to get away from the core issue.

The Conservatives may need to rethink their policy on Hizb ut-Tahrir

David Cameron used Centre for Social Cohesion research to give the Prime Minister a pretty effective going over at PMQs today on the government's confused and ineffective policies on countering Islamic extremism.

The basis for Cameron's line of questioning was the CSC's recent report into Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). HT are a revolutionary party devoted to creating an Islamic caliphate which, once established, would be prepared to commit the mass murder of civilians. The report exposed that the Islamic Shakhsiyah Foundation (ISF), a charity run by HT members that manages two primary schools and a nursery in London, has received over £113,000 in government grants.

When confronted with the facts, Gordon Brown seemed suitably embarrassed; as anyone would be upon discovering that their government was funding the ideology it was meant to be combatting.  However what was also interesting about today's PMQs was that it brought the 'to ban or not to ban' issue front and centre once again. Cameron and Chris Grayling have both publicly promised to ban HT - then again, so did Tony Blair, with zero success. Brown claimed today that 'in the case of Hizb ut-Tahrir, we have investigated and looked at it. It is not a proscribed organisation and if the right hon. Gentleman has new evidence that should make us proscribe it, we shall look at it again.'     

An Iranian education

The merits of Columbia University hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007 have always been somewhat dubious. So it is interesting that it has now emerged that the university was paid $100,000 by the Alavi Foundation, an alleged Iranian front group, two months before agreeing to host the dictator.

The Alavi Foundation - an organisation based in the United States which declares itself 'devoted to the promotion and support of Islamic culture and Persian language, literature and civilization' - is accused by the US government of funnelling money to Iranian spies based in Europe and Islamic schools backed by the Iranian government. Federal prosecutors are currently attempting to seize up to $650m in assets from the foundation, with Adam Kaufmann, investigations chief at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, saying that they have 'found evidence that the government of Iran really controlled everything about the foundation'. Alavi also regularly donated to Harvard, Portland State and Rutgers. The latter received $351,600 from the foundation between 2005-2007 to fund its Persian Studies Program.

The concept that top US universities are being funded by an Iranian front is troubling enough. However the possibility that Iranian money is influencing academia is not only restricted to America, but is a problem in the UK as well.

The Iranian government announced last year that it was in talks with 'several British universities' in order to fund Islamic studies programmes which would 'train and educate experts on Islam'. It barely needs pointing out that the Iranian government's understandings of Islam have not been working out too well for those being forced to live under it.