Downing Street Says » Anti Terror Legislation

Asked if the Anti Terror Bill was a good example for this country to help promote democracy in the Middle East, the PMOS said that democracy depended on many things. Part of what it depended on was if there was intelligence that someone was trying to destroy democracy by killing thousands of people, then there was the ability to defend democracy. There was no easy way to strike that balance, but if in a very few exceptional cases, the only way to do so was through the powers that have been outlined that remained accountable to Parliament, which was the fount of democracy in this country, then the Government believed that was justified in such rare occasions. The alternative was to place the security forces and the police in a situation in which they would not be able to defend democracy, and if there was an atrocity where thousands of people were killed, the Government did not believe that the public would understand why we did not act.

Put to him that the powers in the Middle East would look to these new powers as a reason why they should not reform, the PMOS said what was important was to recognise the very small number of cases in which these powers would be used. The fact that the Home Secretary was accountable to Parliament, and there was a judicial input and oversight into the use of the powers. All those safeguards were there. Equally what could not be dismissed was the choice between having these powers, difficult thought they may be, and protecting society, or not having the powers, and therefore running the risk of major terrorist incidents where thousands of people died. That was the choice that the Prime Minister believed the public rightly expected the Government to act upon.

Asked if there would be any more compromises on the details of the Bill, the PMOS repeated what he had said yesterday which was the Home Secretary believed he had stuck the right balance.

Put to him that the trial of the "second shoe bomber" proved that the current laws were not quite inadequate, the PMOS said no, what the trial showed was that in the cases where there was evidence, then people could act. If there was not evidence, but there was intelligence about a potential threat, then what happened? Did you not act, thus allowing someone to kill thousands of people, or was the intelligence available used. That was the core of the issue.

Put to him that given the importance the Prime Minister had attached to getting the Bill through, why had he not taken up the Conservative’s proposal to putting it on a temporary basis, the PMOS said he would not get involved in the party political aspect of it. The PMOS said, as he had done yesterday, that in the cases where we would have to derogate from the ECHR, there was already an annual review built into the legislation. The Home Secretary would have to return to Parliament to get the derogation renewed on an annual basis. Therefore, there already was a "Sunset clause" built in. The PMOS also pointed out that regarding the cases that did not need derogating, there was a process of three monthly reports to Parliament that were also already built in to the legislation. If, therefore, the proposal was one about having a review mechanism, then it was already in the legislation. If, however, the proposal was that we should in some way send a signal that we were not clear about whether the legislation was necessary or not, the Government believed that was the wrong message to send to both the terrorists as it showed we were not serious. It was also the wrong message to send to the police and security services as they wanted the certainty tat they would have powers, not just in the next few weeks and months, but in the medium term to deal with this problem.

Asked where the distinction was drawn between evidence and intelligence, the PMOS explained that evidence was material that was able to be examined in court. Intelligence was material that was not able to be revealed in court because of its nature, and because of the danger that in revealing it, the source of the material would be made clear.

Put to him that intelligence was evidence that the Government did not wish to be used, the PMOS said that it was not that we did not want it to be used, but rather the consequences of doing so would be to reveal the sources of that intelligence which would inevitably put the country’s security at risk.

Asked if that meant evidence that had been gathered by intelligence, or suppositions drawn, the PMOS replied that intelligence could be of different kinds. If it was intelligence about a potential threat that would result in people being killed, then it was material that had to be acted upon.

Asked if the dossier regarding the war on Iraq was intelligence or evidence, the PMOS said that what the intelligence was correct about was the intention of Saddam Hussein to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction once the sanctions were withdrawn.

5 Comments »

"Asked if the Anti Terror Bill was a good example for this country to help promote democracy in the Middle East, the PMOS said that democracy depended on many things. Part of what it depended on was if there was intelligence that someone was trying to destroy democracy by killing thousands of people, then there was the ability to defend democracy."

And of course the people in the Middle East will understand when the "intelligence" is wrong.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 4 Mar 2005 on 8:11 am | Link
"Asked if the dossier regarding the war on Iraq was intelligence or evidence, the PMOS said that what the intelligence was correct about was the intention of Saddam Hussein to continue to develop weapons of mass destruction once the sanctions were withdrawn"

…But in every other respect it was completely wrong… And even this weak justification was not the one used by the government; a rather disingenious demonstration by the PMOS that by moving a couple of words, the meaning of a whole sentence can change.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 4 Mar 2005 on 8:13 am | Link
The PMOS appears to have moved to a position where "intending to develop weapons of mass destruction" is a reason to be invaded.

So now we need to invade Israel, China, India, Iran and the 100 other countries who ‘intend’ developing WMD.

Invading a country because it intends to develop weapons that are as good as ours doesn’t seem to be anything other than a ‘preemptive strike’ as an act of war.

I believe such actions are illegal.

So where does that leave the PMOS and PM?
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 4 Mar 2005 on 3:04 pm | Link
Indeed. Intention is never the same as action or achievement.

And the PMOS does seem to have a very narrow grasp of English. His/her interpretations of such words as ‘evidence’, ‘intelligence’, ‘important’ etc are really rather feeble. Maybe we should set up a charitable fund for the remedial education of Official Spokespersons, or just for the supply of dictionaries to these poor souls.

One notes that the Government ‘intends’ to do a whole raft of things, including winning the next General Election. Well, let’s see……..
Comment by chuck unsworth — 5 Mar 2005 on 9:12 am | Link
This is all too theoretical. The fact is they’ve been detailing people illegally for two years now, not two weeks. Remember all those speeches about vast Terror networks through out the West? Nothing was there. It was practically all made up.

If, in two years, they can’t find *anything at all* on these guys that they are prepared to lay before the public, then it looks like they’re totally innocent, and should be released and compensated, and those who brought this upon them should be sacked.

H. Corpus, charges, evidence, and jury verdict in public is the *minimum* standard we demand of the state to prevent it from sliding into tyranny. This is the line that must not be crossed under any circumstance.

Or, to put it more clearly, the circumstance where this line can be crossed (or derogated) is a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation. In such a state of terror we would not be planning to hold elections.
Comment by Julian Todd — 5 Mar 2005 on 12:24 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, March 3, 2005

Anti Terror Legislation

5 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries