The Bewilderness

How many paramilitary jihadis?

It is always hard to suggest that those undergoing paramilitary training should be jailed, especially when their intentions are unclear. Not on this occasion:

Five London men were yesterday jailed under new anti-terrorist legislation for taking part in al-Qaida-style training camps in the New Forest and at paintballing sessions in the home counties. The sentences ranged between four years 11 months and three years five months. Their terrorist instructor, who dubbed himself "Osama bin London", and a preacher they recognised as their "amir", or leader, were convicted of soliciting to murder. Both will be sentenced next week.

Three of those jailed yesterday - Mohammed al-Figari, Kader Ahmed and Kibley da Costa - attended camps in Cumbria and a paintballing centre alongside most of those later convicted over the failed 21/7 attacks on the London transport system. The paintballing outing took place just over two weeks before the abortive bombing in 2005.

The poor wordplay of 'bin London' indicates the  loser  mentality that pervaded these brothers. They were not real material for the jihadi, just fodder for the bomb:

Five of the defendants had arrived as young children in this country, fleeing poverty in the West Indies or conflicts in Africa. Four were recent converts to Islam. All had failed to build the prosperous new lives to which their parents aspired.

Hamid, a reformed crack addict, was the pivotal figure, the prosecution said, turning young Muslims into jihad extremists.

Attending a place for the purpose of terrorism training carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Da Costa, who was also convicted of providing training, was sentenced to four years and 11 months in jail; Ahmed received three years and eight months in a young offenders' institution; Figari was imprisoned for four years and two months; Mutegombwa three years and five months in prison; and Kyraciou three years and five months in a young offenders' institution.

Those jailed were unable to meet the aspirations of their parents and took solace in the radical jihad that glued their collective. Now, they will just become drug dealers, after they leave jail as hardened criminals.

Real robot wars

You know that some issues are beginning to rise up the agenda when they appear in the Telegraph. The announcement that the US government is researching autonomous robot systems with the decision making power to kill comes with a warning:

Prof Noel Sharkey fears increased research by countries including America, Russia, China and Israel will lead to the use of battlefield robots that can decide when to kill within 10 years.

He will also predict that it is only a matter of time before robots become a standard terrorist weapon, replacing suicide bombers....

Prof Sharkey, best known as a judge in the BBC television series Robot Wars, said: "There's a massive drive towards developing autonomous robots for more complex missions. We are rapidly moving towards robots that can make the decision to apply lethal force, when to apply it and who to apply it to. I think maybe we're talking about a 10-year time frame.

"If one country develops autonomous robots, it is clear that other countries will follow suit."

Let us hope that Britain's own military research in this area does not involve 'catch up'.

Legalised banditry

The goevrnment is facing a large deficit and is turning to the timehonoured methods of its bandit ancestors. Jacqui Smith, that doughty destroyer of civil liberties, has decided to sequester the assets of suspects before they are found guilty. Another legal principle overturned in the search for cash. There is some opposition to this draconian extension of arbitrary government:

Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, will unveil proposals to strip so-called "Mr Bigs" of items such as cars, televisions and jewellery as part of the Government's 10-year anti-drugs strategy.

But a key plank of the strategy - the proposal to give police the power to seize assets before suspects are found guilty or even charged - has proved controversial.

David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "The first question is: what happens if no conviction is obtained? Will the taxpayer have to fund a massive lawsuit?"

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the civil rights group Liberty, said: "If the Government thinks that the British public - let alone British judges - will allow police to go into people's homes and seize their assets on mere suspicion when they haven't even been charged, then it has bitten off more than it can chew."

The Tories do not usually weigh into a debate unless this policy has been properly incorporated into the draft legislation or statutory instrument. When courts become a burden to the Home Office in their wish to remove people who they view as "Mr Bigs", you know that we are moving to a police state; the definition of which is the ability to wield powers without accountability. When the key motive for such powers is cash:

Ministers hope the new powers will enable the value of assets seized from criminals to reach £250 million a year by 2010 -double the figure for last year.

then this reaffirms that government is the biggest thief.

Time to go

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, has been attacked in the press for activities unbecoming to a man of his position. He has been reported to the Standards Commission. At a time when the reputation of the Houses of Parliament has sunk to a new low due to the actions of a few, the Speaker, who conducts investigations into corruption should be beyond reproach.

Calls for his resignation have resulted in a circling of the wagons within Labour. Now two of the three party leaders have defended him: Brown for partisan reasons, Clegg for advantage or because he believes that the Speaker is a genuine victim of a witchhunt and that none of the situation is of Martin's making.

"As far as his work as speaker is concerned, I think most people know that Michael Martin has been and is a very very good speaker," Brown told Five News in an interview.

"He obviously brings a huge amount of experience from things that he's done earlier in his life to the job, and I think there's enormous respect for what he's achieved as speaker."...

Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg told BBC television Martin was being subjected to a "witch hunt".

The defence for the speaker comes down to an ad hominem attack upon his critics arguing that they are "snobs". Coffee House speculates that Clegg had a good motive to cross Martin and that the Liberal Democrats were best placed to campaign for his resignation. Instead, their leader turns out to be a small voice echoing New Labour. Best keep silent if you are unable to say something distinctive.

As for the accusations of snobbery, Quentin Letts, in the guise of Leo Amery, can have the last word in an excellent defence:

Almost whenever I write about him I am accused of English, public-school snobbery. Mr Martin's defenders point out that their man was a working-class Glaswegian from the metal-bashing trade.

It's true. I am English. I attended a public school. But the "Gorbals Mick" moniker was a piece of verbal cartooning - that's what parliamentary sketchwriters do - and would not have caught on had it not contained an essence of Mr Martin's true political identity.

His supporters seem to want us to overlook his serious failings simply because he came from a poor background. Would that not be a form of class discrimination in itself? He should be judged on his record - and on that, he has been found so lamentably wanting.

His predecessor, Betty Boothroyd, made arguably an even greater journey to reach the Commons Chair. She was a success. Mr Martin has been a terrible failure. End of sorry story.

Respect for our politicians is swilling at a low mark. The Commons needs urgently to recognise the public mood. It will not be able to do that until the worm-ridden, thick-barked form of this Speaker has been dug from his fastness and carted away to the local dump.

Israel's pillar of salt

Israel has decided that closer ties with the European Union are in order. The Jerusalem Post reports that Israel considers relations with the EU important enough to constitute a third pillar alongside its strategic relationship with the United States and a strong Israeli Defence Force. To this end, they have sent a proposal to Brussels for deepening ties:

So central has Europe become to Israel's well-being, diplomatic officials have told the Post, that the Foreign Ministry believes it is time to reassess the Jewish state's traditional reliance on "two pillars" for Israeli survival: a strong IDF and an unbreakable alliance with America. Given the growing importance of the European Union in world events, and in the Middle East particularly, the officials said, a third pillar has become necessary: deepening ties to Europe.

"Increasingly, Europe is involved in everything that touches us: trade, the Palestinians, Iran, UNIFIL in Lebanon," said a senior Israeli diplomatic source. "They are in the [Middle East] Quartet, and central in many other areas. Developing a strong relationship with Europe is becoming the third pillar safeguarding Israel's survival."

Israel has always had stronger relations with the EU than her Arabic neighbours due to shared commitments to democratic values and the rule of law. Yet, the EU has a poor record in defending Israel or backing her strategic interests. International troops or police may be provided such as UNIFIL in Lebanon or at the Rafah crossing, but they are unable to prevent Israel's enemies from acting.

Part of Israel's strategy to strengthen relations with Europe involves de-linking those ties from the vicissitudes of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Israeli-European ties have tended to fluctuate parallel to progress, or the lack thereof, in negotiations with the Palestinians.

"The Europeans are, in general, not pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli; they are pro-peace process. Progress with the Palestinians has meant better relations with Europe," the Israeli diplomatic source said.

De-coupling trade and economic ties from wider political concerns recognises the influence of EU law  and 'soft power', yet this is not important enough to act as a third pillar.

Good and bad innovation

We need more of these: the Manchester: Integrating Medicine and Innovative Technology, taking its inspiration from CIMIT in Boston. As we have to live with the NHS for the foreseeable future, the local initiative undertaken here to promote innovation is  to be applauded.

Sponsors such as these could be abolished quite easily though.

An evil calculus

Simon Jenkins is not an agreeable writer but he effectively pins down the blame for underequipped British forces upon the Labour government and 'thinks the unthinkable' in ways that should have espoused by the Tories. He cites Lewis Page's controversial book "Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs", yet ignores the recommendation for aircraft carriers as opposed to frigates. Everyone plays their own game.

Jenkins brings  interesting factoids to the table. He was a member of the  lay committee on the Strategic Defence Review in 1997 to 1998 which preserved existing procurement projects on the Eurofighter and the Astute class of frigates so that Labour appeared tough on defence. The reduction in funds for the infantry has had devastating consequences:

That army, undermanned and ill equipped, is now engaged in the government’s service in Iraq and Afghanistan. When a British soldier deploys to the front, his or her family receives a letter from the defence secretary promising that he has taken “all measures possible to ensure that the equipment issued to the UK armed forces is both right for the job and right for them”.

This is simply not true. To take one example, a recent article in the Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps pointed out that British troops were taking longer to get to a field hospital than it took the Americans in Vietnam. Two hours’ delay in Iraq has become seven hours in Helmand. This often fatal delay is almost entirely due to the lack of helicopters, caused by a shortage not of money but of ministry competence.

The British scuttle in Iraq and current difficulties in Afghanistan can be attributed to equipment failure and the unwillingness of a craven government to fund the army properly or cut other procurement programmes. Procurement is pork first and strategy last. Better that a soldier dies than a voter is laid off, in the miserable and evil calculus of New Labour.

Basra's militia heaven

My contention that the British government disgraced us as a country by its conduct in Basra is proving more prophetic by the day. Blair stated that he would control the southern portion of Iraq and introduce security, stability and democracy to the peoples yearning to be free. The contemporary state of Basra after the withdrawal of British troops meets none of these tests.

The city s run by a corrupt slew of militias, gangsters and political parties with roots in the tribal kinship strata of the Shi'as. The militias are corrupt and view the spoils of government and oil as prizes for themselves and their families. Opponents are best slaughtered if they stand in the way  or wish to cut down the power of the gangsters.

Two dozen Shiite political parties and their respective militias compete, often violently, over control of the oil sector, seaport profits, smuggling operations across the nearby Iranian border and political authority over Iraq’s economic nerve center. So while the sectarian tension that has marred life elsewhere is missing here, the strife itself is not.

The political economy of the militias will change as a few gain dominance. Perhaps the Mahdi Army will assert its authority and unify the city under a theocratic envelope. This will not be the thriving metropolis that Blair hoped to establish nextdoor to Kuwait and spells an end to devolved democratic structures in Iraq.

Meanwhile, more British troops are wounded by the militia's terrorist activities on the outskirts of Basra. The British army relies upon the Iraqi security forces to find the perpetrators. De facto, militia terrorists can strike at the British with as much impunity as a yob here in Blighty. The Iraqi army is fighting the Mahdi army within Basra itself according to some sources as it asserts territorial control.

In practice, the Iraqi army will need to act as the biggest bully in the yard, cleanse the local police and hang a few of the politicians for corruption. Any militiaman who disagrees dies. Once you make an example of a few in blood, the rest will self-regulate.

NATO error? Serb terror?

Kosovo is nothing without NATO. That is the verdict after two days of 'independence'. If the West were not there, Serbia could march in and take whatever steps it desired to curb what it views as a rebellious province. Instead, one becomes a long-term sore requiring western protction while the Serbs transform into a Russian client at a dangerous time, and undertake the quick road back to revisionism in the Balkans.

The unilateral declaration of independence has resulted in rioting and an attack on the US embassy. Most of the rioters appear to have been drunk. Serb veterans have also attacked another border crossing. There is no evidence that such attacks are co-ordinated by the state, as police or the army stand by and allow nationalist elements to let out their frustrations.

We can note, with some gratification, that the elections took place before rather than after the declaration, reducing the inflaming effect on the electorate.

All must be banned..prizes for experts

Oh dear, another idiot. See what happens when freedom lies outside a target. What does the expert recommend?

The goal of stopping deaths on the roads has been set by a number of countries including Norway, Australia and Sweden, where the programme has been called “Vision Zero”.

But Norwegian safety expert Rune Elvik said for it to happen, policy makers should consider the radical step of banning motorbikes.

“If they are serious about these lofty road safety ambitions that have been announced then I think such a discussion is needed,” he said in an interview with Motor Cycle News.

“Motorcycling would definitely not be allowed.”

Mr Elvik, research chief at the Norwegian Institute of Transport Economics, said motorcycles are incompatible with the target of eliminating road deaths.

If freedom were valued, experts would define this an obstacle to road safety and it definitely would not be allowed. Oh yes...