Blairite Lies About Fighting Terror
Blair and is supposed successor, Brown, insist that the only way Brits can defeat terror is to accept many new limitations on their own liberty. Readers will be shocked to find that they're lying.
They want 90-day imprisonment of terror suspects without charging them
Parliament just bounced this, limiting the period to 28 days, and Brown wants another vote, because:
...the independent reviewer of the terrorism laws, had said that he was satisfied there had been situations in which "significant conspiracies to commit terrorist acts" had gone unprosecuted because of the time limitations placed on the authorities after arrest.But the real problem is that Blair lets these people in - if he kept them out - easy on a small island - he wouldn't need to arrest them:
Londonistan is a pejorative sobriquet referring to the British capital of London, used since the 1990s by French counter-terrorism agents, as well as by the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, because of the number of exiled Islamist groups that established political headquarters in the city, from which they may seek to overthrow governments they consider oppressive heretical or plan terror attacks on other European countries.
The presence of active Islamists in London began to cause tensions with Middle Eastern, European and the United States governments, who view many of these groups as terrorists. After terrorist attacks by Algerian militants in France in 1995 the French government accused the British government of not doing enough to curtail their activities.
Foreign governments were particularly angered when the head of Al-Muhajiroun, Omar Bakri Muhammad, claimed he lived in the UK under a "covenant of security", whereby he was left alone by the authorities so long as he did not sanction attacks on British soil. The British government denied the claim. Some suspects of the 1995 attacks on Paris have fled to the United Kingdom; Rachid Ramda was eventually put into French custody on the 1 December 2005.
...in the wake of a failed second bombing attempt on the London Underground, some overseas governments and commentators were quick to blame Britain's tolerance of Islamism for the extremist attacks. "At the end of the day, Britain's attachment to tolerance has brought it nothing but death and desolation"
They want want new laws criminalizing "glorifying terrorism"
...Brown appealed to Labour rebels and the opposition parties not to vote down a new offence of glorifying terrorism...Existing laws criminalize threatening behavior, but Brit cops don't enforce them against Muslims. If Brown can't change police behavior, any new laws will be used exclusively against Brits protesting Muslim behavior - as the current laws have been.
They want (and just got) Brits to have ID cards
Brits reluctantly carried ID cards during WW2 & then "lost" them when it was won, disregarding government attempts to make them permanent. Blair and his team have reintroduced them, using creative justifications:
They'll do nothing to disrupt terrorists - foreign visitors won't carry ID cards, so they'll be able to slip in, set up the hit with locals, and slip out - as they did for the July 2005 bombings.
...they would disrupt terrorists and criminals travelling on stolen identities as well as helping to tackle identity fraud, which he claimed cost Britain £1.7 billion a year.
Criminals will forge cards, as they do now, and the £1.7 billion is claptrap:
To combat credit card fraud, every Point of Sale device (including PCs used for online shopping) would need a secure retinal and/or fingerprint scanner plus pattern recognition software.
The £1.7 billion included £395 million for "money laundering" even though a Home Office study concedes that this figure is only "illustrative".
The total also includes more than £500 million attributed to the misuse of credit cards, yet only £13 million of this is due to fraudulent applications.
Andy Burnham, the Home Office minister, said ID cards would help combat the problem. "One of the major breakthroughs that they will bring is the link with a personal biometric. . . a fingerprint or an eye scan," he said.
I'll show how ID cards will be hacked in a later post. But, even if they were secure, are retailers really going to make their customers peer into laser scanners and/or have their fingerprints taken, everytime they shop? Will online retailers refuse to do business with customers that don't buy biometric scanners? Of course not. So forget stopping credit card fraud.