|
Fortress Britain
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad
“The public has to be more alert”, warned one “international terrorism expert” in
the Daily
Mail late last year, because Scotland “is set to become another Israel within five years”. “[A]nti-terror measures will soon become a common feature of life”, he assured the audience, and called for “routine arming of police officers” and increasing children’s “awareness of the dangers of terrorism” and for them to be “encouraged” to report anything “out of the ordinary”.
The oracle of doom was one Amnon Maor, identified as the head instructor of counter-terrorism for the IDF and Israeli border police.1 Maor
is working with security firm 360 Defence, based near Glasgow, which is “training Scottish police, military and civilians in security techniques”. This wouldn’t
be the first time the British police benefits form Israeli anti-terror expertise.
The police squad that carried out the extrajudicial execution of the young Brazilian
electrician Jean-Charles de Menezes in the London underground had received similar
training.
In the post-September 11 world, writes Naomi Klein, Israel has pitched its “uprooting, occupation and containment of the Palestinian people as a half-century head start in the ‘global war on terror’.”2 Britain
has since been furnished with its own unpopular occupation of Arab land – and the lessons from Israel are not lost on its architects. In disaster lies opportunity – and the only thing more useful than a thing to fear is fear itself. The give away line in Maor’s prescription above is his offer to increase children’s awareness of
the dangers of terrorism – absent the real thing, fear will suffice. The Prime Minister may not have many achievements to his name, but he can claim patents to ‘Fortress Britain’,
whose battlements sit on a foundation of fear.
The Power of Nightmares
In October 2001 it was revealed that
the Pentagon was consulting Hollywood writers and producers specialising in
spy thrillers and disaster flicks to imagine future attacks in order
to best prepare for them. Developments such as the colour-coded threat
alerts that change hue at the Department of Homeland Security’s caprice have alarmed even cold war hawks like Zbigniew Brzezinski. Lamenting the ‘culture of fear’ he
writes:
“Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic
politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue...
Such fear-mongering, reinforced by security entrepreneurs, the mass media and
the entertainment industry, generates its own momentum.”3
In Britain each of the New Labour government’s political missteps has been accompanied by similar fear-mongering. While a terrorist threat does exist, its magnitude is wildly exaggerated. The European Police Office (Europol) released its first report on terrorism last year which listed 498 terrorist attacks for Europe in 2006; only one was attributed to Muslims. The majority – 136 – were
carried out by the Basque separatist group ETA; only one of them deadly. When
it came to the arrests on terrorism related charges, however, a good half were
Muslims.4
It began with the ‘Ricin plot’: the highly publicised arrests, national hysteria and front page headlines. There was no Ricin, or a plot. It wouldn’t
be until 2005, well after Colin Powell had used it in his case to sell the
Iraq war to the UN, that the ban on reporting on the case was finally lifted
and the public apprised of the truth.5 The
February 2003 ‘terror alert’ had Blair scrambling tanks to Heathrow,
timed conveniently to coincide with the large scale demonstrations against
the coming war. Notable support in the media came from BBC propagandist Fred
Gardner, long suspected of ties to the intelligence services6 which
were themselves busy fanning the fire. Simon Jenkins, the conservative columnist
noted, “In 2002-03, before the Iraq war, the security service supplied the Cabinet Office with a weekly catalogue of ‘terror fears’ – anthrax, smallpox, sarin, dirty nuclear devices and a Christmas bombing campaign – to
soften public opinion for the war.”7
In June 2006, 250 heavily armed police men acting on ‘specific intelligence’ raided a home in Forest Gate arresting two young Muslims, shooting one in the process. The chemical weapons that they were alleged to have possessed were never found. Both were acquitted without charge. The police apologised. On August 10th, 2006, a day after then Home Secretary John Reid had hinted that new anti-terror measures were in order, the Deputy Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, Paul Stephenson, announced that the police had foiled a plot to commit “mass murder on an unimaginable scale”. Officials were soon conceding that the immediacy and scale of the threat may have been “exaggerated”; however, the scare succeeded in deflecting attention from Blair’s
widely-denounced manoeuvres preventing a ceasefire in Lebanon. From Beirut,
an outraged Robert Fisk wrote:
“Stephenson’s job is to frighten the British people, not to stop the crimes that are the real reason for the British to be frightened ...I’m all for arresting criminals...But I don’t
think Paul Stephenson is. I think he huffs and he puffs but I do not think
he stands for law and order. He works for the Ministry of Fear which, by its
very nature, is not interested in motives or injustice.”8
In November 2006, the MI5 director general Eliza Manningham-Buller warned of
a violent threat from 1,600 suspects in 200 groups that could last “more than a generation”. Although she identified government policy towards Iraq as the main factor contributing to the rising radicalism, Blair endorsed the statement. He continued his scapegoating of Muslims with the periodic reiterations of the ‘Islamic threat’ to rationalize the fear, repression, lies and resentment brought in on the heels of the Iraq war. When Blair announced that “the rule of the game have changed”,
no one took it more seriously than the tabloid press; they demonstrated just
how toxic things could get when gloves come off with government sanction. Jonathan
Freedland of the Guardian confessed:
“I try to imagine how I would feel if this rainstorm of headlines substituted the word ‘Jew’ for ‘Muslim’ – I wouldn’t
just feel frightened. I would be looking for my passport.”
One can’t miss the Islamophobic nature of much of the hysteria when one compares the difference in the treatment of the cases of Robert Cottage and David Bolus Jackson of the BNP with that of Mohammed Atif Siddique. The case of the former two, arrested for the possession of rocket launchers, a “record haul of chemicals used in making home-made bombs”, extremist literature, and bomb-making information, barely got covered in national media; the latter, a 20 year old, received front page attention and eight years in prison for merely downloading extremist literature, and his attorney, Aamer Anwer, got charged with ‘contempt of court’ for calling the trial a “tragedy for justice”.
The new MI5 chief, Jonathan Evan, raised the fear factor a year on with the
warning that 15-year-olds were being “groomed” for terror and that there were up to 2,000 people involved in “terrorist-related activity”. Recalling Donald Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknown’s”, the man appointed by John Reid with Tony Blair’s approval, bizarrely added “there are as many again that we don’t yet know of”. Described variously as “lurid”, “inflammatory”, “highly ideological”, “playing Halloween”, it came on the eve of the Queen’s address calling for yet another terror bill. The institutional imperative of self-preservation may also have been at play: MI5 has already expanded by 50 % with eight new regional offices, and will have doubled in size by 2011. Eyebrows have been raised at these very public interventions by the heads of a clandestine service. Simon Jenkins noted that chiefs of the secret service have long feared that the absence of a public profile may diminish funding appropriation. “The answer of both MI5’s Evans and MI6’s
John Scarlett is to join the fear factory.”9
Taking Liberties
The assault on constitutional rights
that started in the US with Clinton’s ‘Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty’ law of 1996 was replicated in Britain with the ‘Terrorism Act 2000’. Section 41 of the Act granted police the right to detain terror suspects for up to one week without charge (criminal law on the other hand requires that suspects be charged within the first 24 hours of arrest, or be released). Section 44 granted police stop and search rights all across Britain – it has since been used against: Kevin Gillan and Pennie Quinto for protesting outside Europe’s
biggest arms fair in London; the 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang for heckling Jack
Straw at the Labour Conference; Sally Cameron for walking on a cycle-path in
Dundee; the 80-year-old John Catt for being caught on CCTV passing a demonstration
in Brighton; the 11-year-old Isabelle Ellis-Cockcroft for accompanying her
parents to an anti-nuclear protest; and a cricketer on his way to a match over
his possession of a bat.
In the United States, September 11 occasioned the most robust assault yet on
civil liberties in the form of Bush’s ‘USA Patriot Act’ leading eminent constitutional law professor Sanford Levinson to describe Carl Schmitt, the leading authority on Nazi legal philosophy, as “the true éminence grise of the Bush administration” to the extent that the Administration (advised by Dick Cheney’s lawyer, David Addington) espoused a view of presidential authority “that is all too close to the power that Schmitt was willing to accord his own Führer”.10 The
respected lawyer Gareth Pierce noted equally worrying tendencies in the UK:
“Blair bulldozed through Parliament a new brand of internment. This allowed for the indefinite detention without trial of foreign nationals, the ‘evidence’ to be heard in secret with the detainee’s
lawyer not permitted to see the evidence against him and an auxiliary lawyer
appointed by the attorney general who, having seen it, was not allowed to see
the detainee. The most useful device of the executive is its ability to claim
that secrecy is necessary for national security.”11
The ‘Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001’ succeeded in ramming through measures that had been rejected in the 2000 Act. The ‘Criminal Justice Act 2003’ doubled the period of detention without charge to 14 days. Although the government suffered a significant setback when the Law Lords swept aside the indefinite detention ruling since it broke European human rights legislation (described by the Law Lords as “draconian” and “anathema” to the rule of law, it was seen by Lord Hoffmann as a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism). Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, immediately made clear his intention to undermine it. The government obliged by subsequently passing the ‘Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005’ which
gave the Home Secretary the right to use Control Orders and opt out of human
rights laws.12
In the wake of the terrorist attacks in London on July 7, the government upped
the ante with the ‘Terrorism Act 2006’, which doubled – yet again – the
detention period to 28 days, a period far longer than any other state in the
western world. The bill marked the first parliamentary defeat for Tony Blair,
whose original proposal was for 90 days detention without charge.
Blair’s determination to deflect attention from the failures of his scandal-ridden government by turning the war on terror into a permanent undeclared state of emergency appeared finally to have hit a wall. However, despite a noticeably prudent start, Brown’s multiplying political problems soon had him reaching for Blairite nostrums. He renewed the case for doubling the period of detention without charge (subsequently reduced to 42 days). This despite the fact that the newly appointed Home Secretary Jacqui Smith had conceded that circumstances had not yet arisen where it had been necessary “to go beyond 28 days”.
Seumas Milne reported in The Guardian that,
“it’s widely acknowledged in Westminster that a key motivation for this latest assault on long-established rights and freedoms is Brown’s determination to wrong-foot the Tories tactically and portray them as soft on terror”.
The deleterious effects of a creeping surveillance state cannot be discounted.
While the public may have little enthusiasm for an ID card scheme after discs
containing personal details of 25 million individuals were lost by the government,
Brown remains adamant. Given the government’s record for handling personal data, proposals for a universal register of citizen’s DNA samples is very worrying. So are Tony Blair’s
remarks about identifying problem children who may grow up to pose a menace
to society by intervening before they were born.13 A
new plan under the government’s e-borders scheme would require each person entering or leaving UK to answer 53 questions including “credit card details, holiday contact numbers, travel plans, email addresses, car numbers and even any previous missed flights”. Taken when a ticket is bought, the information, it was reported, “will
be shared among police, customs, immigration and the security services for
at least 24 hours before a journey is due to take place.”
When popular shows bear names like ‘Big Brother’, the appurtenances of mass surveillance society, such as the 4.2 million CCTV cameras, become an acceptable, even desired, part of the scenery. Privacy International rates Britain as an “endemic surveillance society” and,
according to Timothy Garton Ash, the British state collects more data on its
citizens than did the Stasi in East Germany. The more than 3,000 new criminal
offences introduced under the Labour government have also turned privatized
prisons into a growth industry. Today Britain has a higher incarceration rate
than China, Burma or Saudi Arabia.
While the terrorist threat today has nowhere near the intensity of the IRA
campaign, police are using military aircraft such as the Britten-Norman Islander
used previously only in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Reaper robot
drones of the type being used in Afghanistan will also be in operation during
the Olympics.
Reign of the Terrorologist
Riding the back of the raft of anti-terror
legislations are the terrorologists and the ‘security’ entrepreneurs; and they have found green pastures in Fortress Britain. With governments unwilling to address political causes, the trend is increasingly one of framing the subject in cultural terms: ‘they hate our way of life’, ‘they hate our freedoms’ etc. This clears the way for the terrorologist to step in and sell a toxic brew of cultural stereotypes and pop psychology packaged in pseudo-academic jargon. In his study of the trade, James Petras detects the following “eerily predictable patterns”:
“They use a common language to describe their subjects and their environment;
they are extremely ideological under a thin veneer of scientific jargon; they
possess a keen sense of selective observation; they always pretend to possess
a psychological understanding though few if any have dealt close up with their
subjects in any clinical sense except perhaps under conditions of incarceration
and interrogation.
Their style...slippery with euphemisms when it comes to dealing with the violence
of their partisan states... Psychobabble provides a ‘legitimate’ sounding
channel for... assuming a state of civilized superiority in the face of their
dehumanized subjects. Indeed, the dehumanization process is central to the
whole terrorist-political-academic enterprise...”14
One consequence of earning an elevated place in official demonology is that
the bar for those passing judgement drops radically. When it comes to Islam,
Muslims and their alleged links to terrorism, any shoddy indictment will pass
muster. Doom-laden sensationalism makes for good copy; it makes no demands
on rigour and scepticism, and a stable of ‘experts’ is readily at
hand to amplify fear. The degree to which this has penetrated public discourse
was demonstrated by the Big
Issue – a publication generally about as provocative as a phonebook – with a front page story on ‘cyber terror’ and ‘online vigilantes’. Trotting out a stable of ‘terror experts’ the story served as a platform for several tendentious claims (“There are no longer clear boundaries between real-world cells and ‘amateurs’ assisting terror plots via their computers”; “al-Qaeda is equal in the media war”). Rather than question why a dubious source such as Evan Kohlmann – the man used as a ‘expert witness’ in the Atif Siddique trial, who “has no expertise beyond …an
internship at a dubious think-tank”15 – should be consulted by Scotland Yard, the story served as a puff piece for three Israel lobby hacks. Rita Katz has served in the Israeli military; Aaron Weisburd runs Internet Haganah (Hebrew name for the paramilitary that later became the IDF) a project of the Society for Internet Research that works with the Mossad-linked Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center; and both Katz and Kohlmann are protégés of Steve Emerson whose own expertise includes having seen “the hallmarks of Middle Eastern terror” in
the Oklahoma bombing (actually carried out by Timothy McVeigh, a decorated
white Christian war-hero).
The trade of the terrorologist is not new: incubated in the Reagan administration’s earlier ‘war on terror’, its proponents had been exposed and elegantly debunked by Edward Hermann. September 11 ushered in a new breed – ubiquitous, ideological, and relentless. Some, such as Rohan Gunaratna of the St. Andrews-based Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (CSTPV), reinvented themselves over night as ‘experts on al-Qaeda’. Gunaratna’s
book Inside
Al Qaeda became an instant best-seller, even though before the date his
expertise was limited to South Asian groups, such as the Tamil Tigers. In the
book he claimed he was the “principal investigator of the United Nations’ Terrorism Prevention Branch”.
However, after a Sunday
Age investigation, he admitted that no such position existed. Intelligence
services have been generally dismissive of his claims. However, despite all
this, he keeps making appearances as an ‘expert witness’ at
various UK prosecutions and in media reports.
CSTPV itself bears some scrutiny. Established by an alumni of the RAND Corporation
(a US think-tank which played a key role during the Cold War; satirized as
the ‘Bland Corporation’ in Dr.
Strangelove, it was an enthusiastic supporter of the arms race), the Centre
has links to the government and intelligence agencies. Shaping discourse on
terrorism through its two influential academic journals, Studies
in Conflict and Terrorism, and Terrorism and Political Violence,
CSTPV emphasises terror directed against states, while mostly ignoring violence
by states, excluding however those not allied to the West (‘Hell is other people’, Sartre might say). Reports by the Centre have been used by the government to rationalise permanent anti-terror legislation. The RAND-CSTPV nexus also has stakes in the Iraq conflict through its links to mercenary firms operating in the country. However, despite the conflicts of interest, the Centre’s
embedded expertise remains much in demand.16
CSTPV’s output may be ideological; but it still retains a degree of sophistication. With the low demands on rigour, joining the fray now are some actors less restrained. In early 2006 it was revealed that authorities at several universities, including my own, were co-operating with Special Branch as a result of a recently published study by the right wing Social Affairs Unit. Conducted by Anthony Glees, the Director of Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, the study claimed to find evidence of Islamist, animal liberation and British National Party recruitment on UK campuses. The evidence comprised of the fact that people who have been arrested under anti-Terrorism legislation attended universities at some point. It castigated Universities for teaching students “theoretical tools for understanding the world”, such as Marxism, which could lead to further radicalization when students moved “from campus to Mosque”. Policy Exchange, another dubious neoconservative outfit, shouldered its way into the debate with an Islamophobic report on extremist literature being promoted through various Mosques which, to the BBC’s
credit, was publicly debunked by a Newsnight investigation. This, however,
did not deter Policy Exchange members from using the report to lobby the EU.
Hero and Horse
On November 18, 1822, the Observer reported
that nearly “a million bushels of human and inhuman bones” had been imported in the previous year from Europe into the port of Hull. Battlefields swept alike of the “bones of the hero and the horse which he rode” delivered their haul to Yorkshire bone grinders who reduced them to granulary state. “In
this condition they are sold to the farmers to manure their lands.”17 Two
centuries on, the gap between the ‘support our troops’ rhetoric and
reality has yet to be bridged.
An internal report into the state of the British Military obtained by The
Independenton May 11 reveals that soldiers are living in such poverty
that they can’t even afford food, with many living on emergency food voucher schemes set up by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). “Commanders are attempting to tackle the problem through ‘Hungry Soldier’ schemes, under which destitute soldiers are given loans to enable them to eat” the
paper reported. With its proclivity for market solutions, the tradition of
soldiers getting three square meals a day for free has been replaced with a
controversial Pay as You Dine (PAYD) regime, which charges soldiers not on
active duty for their meals, leading many into debt.
Likewise, slightly more than a year back on March 11, 2007, the Observer had
revealed the shocking picture of neglect and poor treatment of wounded soldiers
returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. It reported, for example, that “the youngest British soldier wounded in Iraq, Jamie Cooper, was forced to spend a night lying in his own faeces after staff at Birmingham’s Selly Oak Hospital allowed his colostomy bag to overflow. On another occasion his medical air mattress was allowed to deflate, leaving him in ‘considerable pain’ overnight despite an alarm going off.” Another complaint alleged that one soldier “suffered more than 14 hours in agony without pain relief because no relevant staff were on duty”.
(This, of course, is as much a reflection of the chronic lack of surplus within
the health system as it is of the wider militarised draw on public resources.)
The MoD has already revealed a serious shortage of medical staff in the armed
forces:
“There was a 50% shortfall in the number of surgeons required by the army,
an 80% shortfall of radiologists and a 46% shortfall of anaesthetists.”18
Soldiers in the field haven’t fared any better: for example, both Reg Keys and Rose Gentle lost sons in Iraq due to the lack of proper equipment. Iraq has taken its toll on an overstretched military. Due to “continuing high level of operational commitment” an MoD report has revealed, “more than 1 in 10 soldiers were not getting the rest between operations they needed.” The report also referred to a “continuing difficult environment for army recruitment and retention”.
With a high number of officers and other ranks going over voluntarily with
another 2,000 awaiting approval of their applications to quit, the armed forces
as a whole are nearly 7,000 under strength, the report revealed.19
The crisis has caused the military to redouble its recruitment efforts with
visits to Scottish schools up by more than 180% in the last three years, The
Heraldrevealed. The news comes only weeks after the National Union of
Teachers voted to block future military careers’ presentations “to pupils as young as 14” in England and Wales. “Despite the outlay of almost £500m, in 2006-07 the field army – the frontline operational part of UK ground forces – missed its ‘gains to strength’ (GTS)
recruitment goal by 12%. In 2007-08, it achieved only 63% of its target.”20 (In
the US, the military has been reduced to enlisting former convicts and the
mentally ill.) The degree of desperation is also evident in the recent advertising
campaign for military recruitment: the military experience is presented as
a sanitized adventure, an adrenaline-soaked escape from ennui. High-minded
calls of duty and honour have been replaced with ones such as “for the travel, for the action, for the adventure”; “for the fun, for the friendship, for the Friday nights”.
The MoD caused much consternation among the National Union of Teachers when
it distributed materials on the Iraq war for use in schools. The ministry was
accused of “misleading propaganda” which “unethically” targeted recruitment materials at schools in disadvantaged areas. One worksheet described the purpose of the UK mission in Iraq as “helping the Iraqis to rebuild their country after the conflict and years of neglect”. Touting “achievements” in “security and reconstruction” it failed to mention the US-led invasion, its legality, Iraqi civilian deaths or the absence of WMDs. This is not the MoD’s only advance on the classroom. Another example is the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) outreach programme, which sends DSTL scientists to talk to university and school students to encourage them to think about a career at the lab. According to Frances Saunders, the chief executive, DSTL sponsors “year-in-industry students, and are working with the MoD to develop school lesson texts to get people interested in the science behind defence.” Although
DSTL already has strong links with universities including Southampton, Imperial,
Oxford and Cambridge, Saunders plans to broaden this network.
Not since Suez has the military suffered a greater loss of prestige. RAF airmen
in Cambridgeshire were recently advised against wearing uniforms in public
in order to avoid being “verbally abused” for their participation
in Afghanistan and Iraq. With the demoralizing effect of ill-conceived interventions
abroad, the struggle for politicians is then of rehabilitating the myth of
the military, rather that the military itself. What interests policy makers
is not so much the military, but the cult of military. Plans are also
underway to introduce US-style citizenship ceremonies for children and a new
public holiday to celebrate ‘Britishness’ by 2012, as part of “wide-ranging
proposals to strengthen British citizenship.”
In sharp contrast to the decrepit military stands the fortunes of the private
military industry. The preference of recent governments for market solutions
has facilitated the transfer of most military R&D to the private sector,
with giants like QinetiQ and BAe Systems securing plum deals. When the Defence
Evaluation and Research Agency (Dera) was split in two in 2001, QinetiQ, a British
company with links to the US-based Carlyle group, absorbed the majority of its
activities. Along with a raft of other lucrative PFIs, the private military industry
is set to benefit from the largest to date, involving at least £14 billion of taxpayers’ money, for a privatised Military ‘Academy’ at
St Athan in the Vale of Glamorgan to train all-service personnel and private ‘security services’. The corporate bonanza in Iraq has had Private Military Contractors – mercenaries – reaping windfalls profits for investors with stakes in the businesses, such as Frederick Forsyth and former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind (of Aegis and ArmorGroup respectively). The lure of salaries, at times reaching as high as £1,000
a day, may be one reason why the military is losing so many of its men to the
mercenary business.21
While the defence establishment has long complained of funding shortages for
the forces, the R&D budget remains secure. The MoD, it was reported, has promised not to raid the R&D budget to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, this injunction doesn’t apply in the reverse, as it has been revealed that the Conflict Prevention Fund set aside for clearing landmines and removing arms from conflict zones was being raided to pay BAe Systems to subsidise the £5m-£10m servicing cost of six Tornado jets in Iraq. The measure was needed because the MoD has closed its own state-of-the-art facility for servicing Tornado jets presented as a way of saving £500m
over 10 years.22
Sensing opportunity as the war on terror grinds on, its neoconservative architects
have swooped in from across the Atlantic to establish a presence in Britain.
With ties to the arms industry and the neoconservative wing of the Israel lobby,
the Henry Jackson Society seems to be assuming the role that the Committee
on Present Danger played in the United States. Its Israel-centric worldview,
as exhibited by its roster of speakers, predisposes it towards perpetual conflict.
The support for a militarized ethnocracy is not the natural inclination of
a liberal-democratic Britain; it can only be sustained in a context where Israel
can be seen aligned with Britain in an overarching conflict against a common
enemy. So it is that the Israel lobby has contrived to pass its enemies off
as those of the ‘West’. HJS appears well placed to sustain this state of conflict should the Tories get in as its supporters include two of David Cameron’s
key advisers. It is a dangerous confluence of interests.
Fortress Britain in the end is as much a consequence of ill-conceived alliances
as it is a response to the neoliberal order’s need for distraction from its inherent contradictions. While not nearly as unscrupulous as his predecessor, Gordon Brown’s growing travails may lead him to seek the politician’s time-honoured remedy: to scare the hell out of the population. One only hopes that Fortress Britain is the apogee of what Tony Blair had set in motion with his promise to stand “shoulder to shoulder” with George W. Bush in his so-called ‘war on terror’,
because things could always be worse.
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is a member of Spinwatch.org. His commentaries on arts, politics and culture appear on Fanonite.org.
Notes
1. Might he be the same Amnon Maor of the squad of
six Israeli border policemen who back in 1994 were sentenced to six months
in prison with one year suspended sentences and a fine of NIS 1,000 each, for
brutally assaulting an Arab in a supermarket whose cart had accidentally knocked
one? “The six also arrested a passerby who witnessed the beating, and had asked them to stop and to show identification”,
the Jerusalem
Post reported. The Judge castigated them for abuse of authority and violating “all norms of acceptable behaviour”.
(Jerusalem
Post, 8 December 1994)
2. Naomi Klein, ‘How war was turned into a brand’, The
Guardian, 16 June 2007
3. Zbigniew Brzezinski, ‘Terrorized by “War on Terror”’, Washington
Post, March 25, 2007
4. European Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2007; David Miller, ‘The statistical invisibility of Islamist “terrorism” in Europe’, Spinwatch,
23 May 2007
5. Duncan Campbell, ‘The ricin ring that never was’, The
Guardian, 14 April 2005
6. Gardner admits that the MI6 tried to recruit him while he was stationed
in Cairo, however, he insists he turned them down. See David Rowan, ‘Interview: Frank Gardner’, Evening
Standard, 15 June 2005
7. Simon Jenkins, ‘These fear factory speeches are utterly self-defeating’, The
Guardian, 7 November 2007
8. Robert Fisk, ‘If You Want the Roots or Terror, Try Here’, The
Independent, 12 August 2006
9. Seumas Milne, ‘A pointless attack on liberty that fuels the terror threat’, The
Guardian, 8 November 2007
10. Sanford Levinson, ‘Torture in Iraq & the rule of law in America’, Daedalus,
Summer 2004
11. Gareth Peirce, ‘Was it like this for the Irish?’, London
Review of Books, 10 April 2008
12. See ibid. for a description of the true onerous nature of the
control orders, especially for detainees with families.
13. Henry Porter, ‘The way the police treat us verges on the criminal’, The
Observer, 29 October 2006
14. James Petras, ‘Anatomy of the “Terror Expert”’, Counterpunch.org,
7-8 August 2004
15. Jim Crace, ‘Just how expert are the expert witnesses?’, The
Guardian, 13 May 2008
16. J. Burnett and Dave Whyte, ‘Embedded expertise and the “War on Terror”’, Journal
for Crime, Conflict and the Media, 2005, 1(4): 1-18.
17. Quoted in the incisive study of the social consequences of conflict, War
Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, by veteran correspondent Chris Hedges.
18. Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady, ‘Soldiers need loans to eat, report reveals’, The
Independent, 11 May 2008; Ned Temko and Mark Townsend, ‘Scandal of treatment for wounded Iraq veterans’, The
Observer, 11 March 2007
19. Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘Under-strength and under strain as experienced soldiers queue to quit’, The
Guardian, 23 November 2007
20. Ian Bruce, ‘Army visits to Scottish schools soar by 180% in three years’, The
Herald, 12 May 2008
21. ‘Corporate Mercenaries’, War on Want, 30 October 2006
22. David Hencke, ‘MoD plans raid on landmine removal fund to keep Tornados flying in Iraq’, The
Guardian, 10 March 2008
|