BAE/SFO/Deporting Terrorists/Democratic Decay

• Home
• Frank Gardner Security Correspondent BBC – Terror Risk
• Read the Memorandum of Understanding with Libya
• Read the official summary of the judgement of the SFO case

Comment at end

10th April, 2008

DEMOCRACY IN DECAY – OR VICE VERSA

The pressure groups – anti-arms trade etc – are leaping for joy saying it’s a great day for democracy.

RUBBISH. It’s exactly the opposite.

The word “democracy” contains within it two other words that are intertwined: “demo” & “decay”.

We often use the former. We demo at the whiff of many a cause, that’s our right. But we seldom question if the second word – “decay” – might be gnawing democracy away from the inside. Is it eating into our rights and our freedoms just as the demo part purports to support them? We never wonder if our actions might be actually causing our democracy to decay until all that is left is the demo.

SUB-HUMAN RIGHTS?

For example; yesterday terrorist criminals and suspects (Abu Qatada and 12 Libyans – can’t find a link right now – but here’s one we made earlier!) were allowed to go free and live amongst us by OUR courts. They could not be deported to their own lands, in case somebody hurt them. Human rights, for what some might consider sub-humans!

Interesting that I have, so far found it impossible to find BBC or newspaper reference to the Libyan case anywhere online. FOUND IT! Or the official summary of it.

Here is reference to the ruling at this blog:

In the second ruling, the three judges, headed by Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, admitted that it was agreed that two Libyans, identified only as AS and DD, were a threat to national security with links to al-Qaeda.

But Sir Anthony added that the UK would have serious concerns about the real risks faced by the men as extreme Islamist opponents of the Libyan regime and their alleged membership of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group.

Abu Qatada is to remain in a top security jail being while the Government appeals against the ruling, but a Home Office spokesman said the Government would not appeal against the judgment in the Libyans’ case.

“We have already taken steps to protect the public,” he said. It is believed that AS and DD, who were previously on bail from SIAC, have now been handed control orders.

Other steps – including further control orders – have been imposed on the other 10 Libyans, it is understood. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3713413.ece

The government had tried to get round the Human Rights issue of protecting the frankly undeserving from the likely violent retribution or punishment in their homelands. It had made memorandums of understanding allowing deportation to certain countries, Libya, Jordan and Lebanon. But the Courts in all their wisdom, dismissed those as worthless.

That is shameful.

It frankly goes against all natural justice that this should be permitted, and we all know it. Except, of course, the courts and the civil/human righters.

I have no doubt that judges will say that they are following the letter of the law and can do no more. Though there was a time when they used discretion. But if the government needs to strengthen the law it needs to do so NOW, before all of our rights are taken from us. Or, in the hands of the present prime minister, dithering while Britain burns, no more democracy is likely to be the eventual outcome.

And today there’s this -

OUR COURTS SAY – SFO unlawful in ending BAE probe

Watch short news video here.

The High Court has ruled that it was illegal to end the BAE probe. Not that another probe is on the cards. Not yet anyway. Here’s hoping the SFO appeals and wins on appeal as terrorists do, regularly.

Democracy in this country is many-pronged. We elect governments to make decisions on our behalf, and we, surely understand that there are occasions when the Prime Minister and/or the Executive wish or need to make decisions without recourse to parliament or the public. I know we are not a presidential system. The Prime Minister’s powers are limited. But I also know that HE and his government are the people most fully informed as to all the repercussions of decisions especially in the field of international security. And I DO know that the courts are there to serve the people and to make legal decisions in the spirit of the law as well as in the letter of the law, as it was enacted to serve the people. Good judgement is needed, and not retribution against seemingly over powerful politicians.

These laws are put in place BY the government and it would be useful to feel that the courts are on the same side as the government and people as regards the country’s interests. Facile remarks about “all being equal before the law” do the justice system and its advocates no favours.

I for one feel that the courts are, at least some of the time, on the side of those who are against our government. Another “enemy within” to add to the long list of liberal intellectuals, Guardian Cif commenters, newspaper editors and terrorism deniers?

Immediately, this report appeared on – yes, you can laugh – Conservative Centre Right. Entitled – “The Courts finally catch up with Tony Blair” – it seems to place NO responsibility on the Thatcher government for agreeing the Arms deal with the Suadis in the first place. Are the people who write such articles completely lacking in understanding of cause and effect?

Do these conservatives forget that it was THEIR government’s arms deal decision that Blair’s stance was in effect covering, as well as diplomacy, counter-terror sources and possibly jobs too?!

Read October 2006 article in The Guardian

It bothers me not one jot if there are several reasons for doing Arms deals with a foreign government, or for cancelling an inquiry into this 20 year old arms deal. No more than it bothers me if there were several reasons for going to war in Iraq, and it was sold to the public on one reason only.

MOST OF US ARE FRANKLY TOO STUPID AND POLITICALLY NAIVE, TO UNDERSTAND MORE THAN ONE THING AT A TIME.

But at least some of the commenters on Conservative Right haven’t completely parted with their common sense:

“With the courts rolling on the Belmarsh detainees to say we can’t deport them, can’t detain them, can’t restrict their movements with control orders, other than in the mildest form, with the result many of them absconded, and can do nothing about Qatada, the Judiciary aren’t just an impartial implementer of Laws, but a down right liability to the interests and safety of British people.”

So, to all Conservatives- remember that it was your great Prime Minister and Michael Heseltine who made the Arms Deal in the 1980s. The Conservatives. The party and government who must have known as well as anyone that there are western ways of doing business and Saudi ways. It is the naive, like today’s Conservative Centre Right writer who think that Britain is, or was in the 1980s, in a position to impose OUR ways on the Saudis. Theirs is a very different political and business world.

Perhaps if the probe is re-opened and bribery and/or corruption accusations move from Tony Blair to Mark Thatcher these Tories will screw their brains back on. We can’t expect much from the Innocents – Lib Dems.

In my humble opinion this decision by the High Court should be a warning that we have diluted our democracy too far if a Prime Minister (such as the one who introduced Freedom of Information laws) is never to be allowed discretion. His accusers say he buckled to Saudi threats and stopped the probe. Sin of sins. Well, if he did, I repeat IF he did, there might in realpolitik, be a time and a place for buckling!

In the meantime let’s hope the present government can continue to do what they consider is right for our country. We certainly did not elect the pressure groups who took the SFO to court over this. No pressure group knows as much as a prime minister on dangers and threats and how best to handle them. They are by definition one issue wonders. And that’s all.

THEIR REACTION?

The Campaign Against Arms Deals had argued that the SFO’s decision to drop the probe was illegal under the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) Anti-Bribery Convention.

“We are delighted.” said CAAT’s Symon Hill after the decision.

“It has been clear from the start that the dropping of the investigation was about neither national security nor jobs. It was due to the influence of BAE and Saudi princes over the UK government.”

Susan Hawley of the Corner House said: “This is a great day for British justice. The judges have stood up for the right of independent prosecutors not to be subjected to political pressure.”

Following the judgement, BAE said: “The case was between two campaign groups and the director of the SFO. It concerned the legality of a decision made by the director of the SFO.

“BAE Systems played no part in that decision.”

For its part, the Serious Fraud Office said it had no further comment, but was “carefully” considering the implications of the judgement.

Hopefully they will appeal.

HISTORY

‘Serious Damage’

In December 2006, the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, announced that the SFO was suspending its inquiry.

Lord Goldsmith said its continuation would have caused “serious damage” to UK-Saudi relations and, in turn, threatened national security.

Saudi Arabia is reported to have threatened to cancel a further deal with BAE to supply it with Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft and withdraw diplomatic co-operation unless the SFO investigation was stopped.

BAE argued it would “jeopardise” the multi-billion pound Typhoon deal and “seriously affect” relations with the Saudi kingdom.

The OECD said last month that it was launching its own investigation into the decision to drop the SFO inquiry.

The judges in London did not rule that the case would be reopened, but have said they would listen to further arguments.

---

Timeline – BAE Corruption Probe

The Guardian pats itself on the back (We’re watching you, The Guardian. And we are NOT all impressed.)

Roger Alton – new Editor at the Indie. So perhaps there is SOME hope for the Independent. I just might start reading it again.

9th April, 2008 – Libya frees 90 terrorist suspects

KHALED AL-DEEB – TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) — Libyan authorities released 90 members of a group with suspected links to al-Qaida after they renounced violence, a government-backed group said. Those released from a Tripoli jail on Tuesday were members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which purportedly has links to the terror network.

They were serving prison terms ranging from 10 years to life after being convicted of belonging to a banned organization and carrying out illegal activities. Most had already served between six to eight years.

The group has long been accused in Libya of plotting to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader Moammar Gadhafi.

The release was mediated by the Gadhafi International Foundation for Charity Associations, an organization funded by the government and chaired by Seif al-Islam, the eldest son of the Libyan leader.

“All the released have denounced violence,” said foundation director Saleh Abdul-Salam. “The foundation will help them in finding work and integrating better into society.”

---

---

Tags: 1. Tony Blair, arms deal, attorney general, bae, Campaign Against Arms Deals, conservatives, Corner House, Independent, legal decision, Libya, lord goldsmith, Observer, prime minister, Roger Alton, saudi arabia, sfo, the Guardian