Granted Asylum in Britain dies an al-Qaeda Martyr in Afghanistan!

Having just read (belatedly) the Telegraph Article about Mahmoud Abu Rideh a British al-Qaeda refugee killed in Afghanistan. I thought I would do some limited research on the Background of this man.

Background to Mahmoud Abu Rideh in Britain:
Mahmoud Abu Rideh was born in Jordan to Palestinian refugee parents. He came to the UK in January 1995 and claimed asylum, whilst living off benefits with his wife and five children. Initially His asylum claim was refused because his story was not credible but he appealed and was granted refugee status in November 1998!

In December 2001 he was detained under anti-terrorism laws after the then home secretary David Blunkett concluded he was "an active supporter of various international terrorist groups, including those with links to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network". The reasons for which are covered in the Telegraph Article and I quote:

The central allegation was that he had been involved in fund raising and distribution of funds for terrorist groups with links to al-Qaeda as well as procuring false documents and facilitation of the travel for volunteers to training camps in Afghanistan.

Although he was living on benefits, he was said to have raised around £100,000 in just two years, using the Arab Bank in Park Lane to funnel his money to al-Qaeda.

He also held an account at the Wimbledon branch of HSBC entitled “Islamic Services Bureau – Treasurer’s Account.”

He was said to be closely involved with senior extremists and associates of Osama bin Laden both in Britain and overseas.

He spent most of his time after his arrest at Broadmoor Secure Hospital (I think all Islamist Terrorists are mentally deranged, but the Law says otherwise). Surprisingly he was granted bail in January 2005, due to his deteriorating mental health (surely all the more reason for keeping him in a secure environment?).

This followed the overturning by the Law Lords of the Detention without Trial System for Terrorism Suspects (on the 16th December 2004) as this was against European human rights laws. The same day as Charles Clarke became Home Secretary. As the European Laws are binding on this Country a way had to be found that was acceptable to the unelected people who made these laws and so Control Orders were introduced. This almost exactly coincided with Mahmoud Abu Rideh's release on bail. Not surprisingly Mahmoud Abu Rideh became one of those subject to a Control Order.

In early 2007 Mahmoud Abu Rideh came before Mr Justice Beatson who on the 4th April 2007 ruled the order should be quashed, saying "its cumulative effects in my judgment deprive [Mr Rideh] of liberty, and the secretary of state has no power to make such an order". This judgement came as no surprise to Home Secretary John Reid (who would probably, if he had stayed in Office the best Home Secretary in living memory) as Mr Justice Beatson had made the same ruling in a previous case. However unlike most Home Secretaries who would have been 'extremely disappointed' by this judgement, John Reid immediately issued a new Control Order.

From this moment on there and increasing campaign to get the control order on Mahmoud Abu Rideh lifted.
When John Reid was sadly replaced by Jacqui Smith (who's lack of suitability for the post almost matched David Blunkett's) the campaign got seriously underway with Amnesty International (UK Branch) launching an appeal and PetionOnLine (they got 1078 Signatures).

By June 2009 he was working on generating his own publicity by appearing at the reception desk of the Guardian Newspaper. This resulted in the Guardian taking up the cause of this 'tragic figure' with his Walking Stick, worn clothes, visible evidence of self-harm and his tale of how his wife had finally left him with the five children to live with her parents in Jordan. The result was a 'heartbreaking article' and video: A day in the life of a terror suspect a man driven to despair due his loss of his freedom, his family and with suicide on his mind. Didn't actually mention his pre-British life working for a school in Afghanistan for Arab Speaking children, many of those fathers were some of the world’s most wanted men, or his later work with Islamic Services Bureau in Pakistan, run by Osama bin Laden’s mentor Abdullah Azzam. Or even his publicly known fund raising support of Terrorism whilst in the UK. But hey why spoil a good story!

On the 3rd July 2009 Amnesty International was able to trumpet that the Home Office, now under Alan Johnson had agreed to allow Mahmoud Abu Rideh to leave Britain (and Never Come back, although wasn't mention in the Amnesty release). So in September 2009 he left Britain but NOT off to Jordan to see the Wife and Children, no destination Syria and by whatever means eventually arriving in Afghanistan and then dying with a group of al-Qaeda Terrorists.

For 14 Years this man and his family lived in Britain at cost to the Taxpayer was a supporter of terrorism and when able was an active participant in raising funds for terrorist organisations and finally achieved what was probably his life's ambition of dying a terrorist. I hope whose who supported him like Mr Justice Beatson, the Guardian, Amnesty International and those who signed petitions are proud that they assisted him to achieve his goal of becoming a Martyr for a cause, that would, if it could, ensure that the very institutions and the people that supported him would be eliminated. In a world run by al-Qaeda, life in the 12th Century AD would appear utopian!

Some Questions for MP Mike Hancock: 1st why hire a Foreign National?

In the furore over whether Katia Zatuliveter is, or is not an agent of the SVR (KGB by any other name is still the KGB), some questions don't appear to have been asked.

• The most important being: Why employ a foreign national as a research assistant?
• Were there no suitably qualified Citizens of the United Kingdom?
• If, as stated she was the best person for the Job, how was the Job advertised and how many applicants interviewed?
  
• Was her ability to speak Russian a consideration? Because there are a large number of Russian Speaking UK Citizens. But this may have been a consideration as Mr Hancock does it appear have more than passing affection for Russia (as a state) and has made numerous visits there. Although exactly how many is publicly difficult to know, as his Passport 'fell into the sea'. However this begs another question:
  
• Who paid for this unknown number of trips to Russia?

A little more on Mike Hancock MP
Also there are it appears concerns about Mr Hancock himself, not that he is a spy, but his more than somewhat 'rose coloured' view of Russia plus his unusually large number of detailed questions on Defence Matters. Well as he is MP for Portsmouth South and Portsmouth is a major Royal naval base this might be understandable! But majority of these were a series questions were about the Trident Flotilla which is not Portsmouth based and the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. He is also a denier of the Armenian Genocide and a 'friend' of the government of Azerbaijan. There are rumours he is womaniser and he is currently on Police Bail on suspicion of indecent assault (this will be heard in January 2011). He is also involved in supporting worthy causes notably: NSPCC, Captive Animals Protection Society and has been involved with MENCAP.

Links:
Mike Hancock CBE - Personal Website Which has a Heading: Standing up for Portsmouth.

Mike Hancock on Wikipedia

Should UK cyber defences include offensive operations to protect UK interests?

This question was posed in a tweet by @Warwick_Ashford, which was retweeted to me. He raised the question because of this article US Cyber Command calls for offensive powers in Computer Weekly.

The debate in the US over this request is not over National Interest, or National Security, but over the Legality of offensive operations and some Senior Advisors and Lawyers want to limit such operations to existing War Zones, such as Afghanistan.

I see this as somewhat 'out-dated thinking' Cyber-war can be waged without forces deployed in the field and a state, or indeed individuals can mount an attempted Cyber Attack without escalation to a Military Deployment. Perhaps the 'rules of cyber engagement' should be no 'First Strike' and that any offensive response against the perpetrators  of an attack should 'be measured' and except in exceptional cases Politically Approved by the Prime Minister, or in the case of the USA the president/ This would seem to me to be a reasonable base line posture to adopt for UK, USA, NATO Countries and indeed other Western Nations.

I would be interested in comments

The Parcel Bomb Attacks - Failure, or Win?

Despite the apparent sophistication of the Devices, the attack using Parcel Bombs Carried on Aircraft has, at least so far failed, or has it?

Even though detected, due the Media frenzy Worldwide a classic climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt (FUD) has been generated, this in it's self could be considered a win by those who planned/authorised the attacks. There is nothing new about Parcel Bombs and other than these were designed to explode in Flight, were a reversion to 'old school terrorism'. What has changed is the way the Media now 'spin' such stories.

When Intelligence and Security services foil a planned attack without publicity, the Terror Planners, may, or may not learn a useful lesson from the failure, but there is no getting away from the fact it was a failure.

But when as in this case, the plan fails, but does so under the spotlight of intense Media Interest (almost obsessive analysis of every aspect) then the failure can be turned in to a PR win. Actually killing people can rebound by hardening the resolve of the targeted Nation, or Culture, but not killing anyone whilst reinforcing the possibility of at anytime doing so, generates the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Also the Media demands action, leading to Politicians having to react publicly and immediately, which can in turn result in unfortunate statements being made and possibly counterproductive reactive action being ordered.

I find causalities from IEDs tragic, but the IRA were using remotely detonated roadside devices 30+ years ago, parcel/letter bombs have been used by many groups , again including the IRA, even bombs on Aircraft predate Lockerbie by decades. What has changed is the way the Media Report these events (actually report is often an incorrect term, express opinions that they may not be qualified to give, is too often the case). It is fair to say groups such as Al-Qaeda has learned that in many ways the Western Media, due to the way they react to events, useful in assisting in raising the climate of Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt.

It probably why, although individual Journalists and film units have been targeted, no attacks have been launched against News Media Studios and Headquarters.

A cynical update of the view: 'A capitalist is someone who sells you the rope with which you then hang him', could be rewritten as 'The Western News Media's way of reporting, assists in the destruction of their way of life'.

Link to an Article in Aircargo News 02nd November 2010: Bomb plot fails but terror still rules

The Man from MI5 Gives a Speech

In the Telegraph on the 17the Sept is the text of a speech given to the Worshipful Company of Security Professionals by Jonathan Evans head of MI5 in which he covers what the service sees as the current threats to British Homeland Security.

• The revival of Terrorist Activity in the Province of Northern Island.
  Extract: A persistent rise in terrorist activity and ambition in Northern Ireland over the last three years.
  Perhaps we were giving insufficient weight to the pattern of history over the last hundred years which shows that whenever the main body of Irish republicanism has reached a political accommodation and rejoined constitutional politics, a hardliner rejectionist group would fragment off and continue with the so called "armed struggle".
  
• The Al Qaida and its affiliates and those inspired by its ideology.
  Extract: To sum up the Al Qaida related threat. The country continues to face a real threat from Al Qaida-related terrorism. That threat is diverse in both geography and levels of skill involved but it is persistent and dangerous and trying to control it involves a continual invisible struggle. Counter-terrorist capabilities have improved in recent years but there remains a serious risk of a lethal attack taking place. I see no reason to believe that the position will significantly improve in the immediate future.
  
  
• The espionage threat - Both Traditional and Cyber.
  Extract: Espionage did not start with the Cold War and it did not end with it either. Both traditional and cyber espionage continue to pose a threat to British interests, with the commercial sector very much in the front line along with more traditional diplomatic and defence interests. Using cyberspace, especially the Internet, as a vector for espionage has lowered the barriers to entry and has also made attribution of attacks more difficult, reducing the political risks of spying.
  

I felt one of the most important messages delivered in the speech was contained within the part dealing with the Al Qaida threat:

It is interesting to note in this context that in the last ten years what might be called a "zero tolerance” attitude to terrorist risk in Great Britain has become more widespread. While it has always been the case that the authorities have made every effort to prevent terrorist attacks, it used to be accepted as part of everyday life that sometimes the terrorists would get lucky and there would be an attack. In recent years we appear increasingly to have imported from the American media the assumption that terrorism is 100% preventable and any incident that is not prevented is seen as a culpable government failure. This is a nonsensical way to consider terrorist risk and only plays into the hands of the terrorists themselves. Risk can be managed and reduced but it cannot realistically be abolished and if we delude ourselves that it can we are setting ourselves up for a nasty disappointment.

These extracts and the final quote, I hope will encourage you to read the transcript of the entire speech: Jonathan Evans' terrorism speech

Britain's New Aircraft Carriers

Having read Defence review: 'Carriers give politicians options – not dead ends' an Article by Duncan Redford in the Telegraph, I am going to add my 'totally unqualified to comment' 10 pennyworth!

• A modern well equipped Warship forms a defensive bubble around itself and if the armament includes Cruise Missiles can provide considerable offensive capability, but that offensive capability lacks flexibility.
  A Carrier Group projects Power and provides the ability to give a flexible response to situations. Its very presence in theatre of operations gives pause to potential opponents as it is not just a threat, but an entire range of threat levels and this may give diplomacy the time needed to come to a peaceful resolution.
  Conversely the well equipped Warship will be seen as a single type of threat and possibly harden resolve not to back down.
• A Carrier Group provides a floating sovereign base and is therefore not subject to regional politics and as it is not located within a 'Host Nation' Air Base it is therefore not subject to local insurgency attacks.
• In the MoD Report one of the Threats Identified is to British Overseas Territories. The Falklands War may have happened a long time ago, but without the Carriers it would almost certainly not have been won.
• In the constantly evolving geopolitics, there is an ever increasing need for the ability to project power without necessarily having to use it. A Carrier Group provides a non-nuclear deterrent and an operational flexibility that in many circumstances would not otherwise be available.

Recent Related Posts:
Britain's Future Threats 14th September 2010
Defence of Britain 14th September 2010

External Links:
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - Royal Navy Site

Delegation to make its case for aircraft carrier contract Scotsman 15 Sep 2010

Britain's Future Threats

Following my previous post: Defence of Britain, I read Thomas Harding's article: Strategic Defence and Security Review: four future scenarios and how they might play out in the Telegraph, which mentioned and in turn led me to read the Ministry of Defence Document: The Future Character of Conflict. Neither the Article, nor the Document make comfortable reading.

In the Article Harding look at 4 Possible Scenarios all an increasing number of years away: Iran 2016, 2018 Pakistan, Uganda 2023 and Baltic States 2023. To each of these he gives an opinion as to probability and Britain's readiness to deal with the situation. I do not doubt he has given considerable thought before selecting these possibilities as the ones to be published and he obviously has access to sources unavailable to me, but for the first two Iran and Pakistan, I feel the timeline may be shorter than he proposes.

The MoD Report is actually a much more sober and in many ways sombre text, less about scenarios but types of threat and why they might occur. This is understandable as this is an official document. In summary the report details:
Global trends that indicate increasing instability and growing opportunity for confrontation and conflict.
State failure, extremists, increased competition for resources and the changing global balance of power will dictate why, where and how conflict occurs.
The study concludes that the character of conflict will continue to evolve. Though it is impossible to accurately predict the exact character of the future conflict, in many future operations the armed forces are likely to face a range of simultaneous threats and adversaries in an anarchic and extended operating area.

I am not qualified to comment on the analysis and conclusions of the MOD Report, but as a result of reading it, I do feel that the chances of Britain's Armed Services being involved (whether HMG, or the Public wish it) in further conflicts within the next few years is inevitable. In addition attacks, whether by hacking penetration or direct action against the infrastructure of Computer Network Operations (CNO), or as I think of it Cyber War, will be an increasing factor in conflicts. Now that is a sobering and sombre thought.

Defence of Britain

In recent times I have not specifically covered Defence as regards policy, or politics, in the hope that Richard North would cover these areas in his Defence of the Realm Blog but as Richard is strangely quiet in that Blog (although he does touch on defence in the EU Referendum blog), I thought I would at least bring the following two articles in the Telegraph to your attention:
Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain faces impossible choices in an uncertain world 13th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review is being conducted against a backdrop of bitter arguments between the Services and the threat of cuts of up to 20 per cent, yet it is meant to define Britain’s place in the world and our foreign policy and defence priorities for decades to come, says Professor Michael Clarke.

What is effectively a follow up article: General Sir Richard Dannatt on the Strategic Defence and Security Review: Britain is at stake 14th Sep 2010
The Strategic Defence and Security Review puts the Services under the
spotlight. Planners now have the job of predicting what future enemies we
might face; yet 10 years ago, no one foresaw the demands of Afghanistan, says General Sir Richard Dannatt.

Both articles are thought provoking and I recommend they are read in date order. Some will not agree with the conclusions, or perhaps even the tone of these articles, but both are written by those who's knowledge and experience means they are qualified to cover the subject, unlike so many of today's commentators: Professor Michael Clarke is Director of the Royal United Services Institute and General Sir Richard Dannatt was Chief of the General Staff from 2006 to
2009.

How Dare the EU Block Abu Hamza US extradition

The European Court of Human Rights has ordered a halt to the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri and three other men.

Excuse Me...Whilst I loathe the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the USA and UK because of its imbalance, this Treaty was entered into by the Elected Government of the Sovereign United Kingdom. I don't remember voting, for, or against this law being subordinate to bunch of European Judges.

Abu Hamza, jailed in the UK for soliciting to murder and racial hatred, and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US. Their cases will be delayed for further submissions to the Strasbourg court. Meanwhile the men will remain in Custody in the UK.

Once again the 2003 Extradition Treaty is actually being used for the purpose the British thought it was supposed to serve.

The US is seeking to extradite Abu Hamza, the former head of Finsbury Park mosque in north London, since 2004, saying that he had attempted to set up a terrorism training camp in Oregon. The three other men facing extradition are Babar Ahmad, Syed Ahsan and Haroon Rashid Aswat. Mr Ahmad and Mr Ahsan were allegedly involved in raising funds for extremists. Mr Aswat is accused in relation to the alleged terror camp.

In all these cases the request is reasonable as these men will have their 'Day in a US Court'. But despite the fact they have not even faced trial in the USA, the EU Judges feel that these men have a reasonable argument in that:
They face a very long sentence in a "supermax" prison in Colorado and these very long sentences and the conditions of the prison, ADX Florence, would breach their human rights.

So everthing is being delayed whilst these Legal Eagles see more detailed arguments on
the prison conditions and the effect of the length of sentences. The UK government must submit further arguments to the court by 2 September about why it should be allowed to extradite the four. Sorry No - Two British courts have already approved the extraditions and that is that - The EU Court should keep out of this.

Now I might have a smidgen of sympathy if they were going to serve their sentence in Ikeja Jail, Nigeria, or were going to enjoy the pleasure of serving time in an Algerian Prison (but then again probably not).

But my real ire is that the British Government is being told what to do by a group of Judges who obviously live in a world completely Separate from the real one and more concerned with the rights of those, who given the chance would impose laws that would trample over everyone's Human Rights!

Our 'beloved' Home Secretary Theresa May said: ""We note that the European Court of Human Rights has decided that all the applications are partly admissible. We await the court's
judgement on the case. In the meantime these individuals will remain in custody."
Gosh Theresa you are a real wimp aren't you. Tell them we will extradite and that is that!

Treaties can be torn up, and it is time the EU Human Rights Treaty was!
However the 2003 Extradition Treaty also needs to be urgently renegotiated, but that has been covered several times in the blog!

Abid Naseer - Extradite Him - Part 1

Back in May Abid Naseer won his appeal against deportation from the UK back to Pakistan despite the Judge noting that he: "posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom". But despite this, he was NOT deported because of Human Rights Issues (See: Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!).

However it appears that this Terrorist is not just a threat to the United Kingdom, but has also been involved in Plots against the United States and therefore the US Justice Department issued a Warrant for his arrest in relation to the failed plot to bomb the New York subway and requested his extradition under the 2003 Treaty US-UK Treaty (Nice to see it being used properly).

So Abid Naseer was arrested and taken to London for a late night court appearance on the 7th July and remanded in Custody until 14 July to allow Mr Naseer to consult lawyers over a possible bail application. The actual Extradition hearing will not take place until 8 September, when a judge will decide if Mr Naseer, 24, can be extradited. After this Home Secretary Theresa May will have the final say.

My views are naively simple:

1. He should have been deported back in May, his Human Rights are much less  important than the Human Rights of United Kingdom Citizens
2. Whilst I loathe the 2003 US-UK Treaty on Extradition for is imbalance, on this occasion it is being used for the correct purpose and he should be extradited by this Weekend, not dragging the process out to September.

I have a feeling this might 'run and run' hence Part 1 in the title:

External Links:
BBC: Terror suspect Abid Naseer held on US warrant
Independent: Terror suspect Abid Naseer arrested over US warrant
Telegraph: Terror Suspect Who Couldnt be Deported is Arrested.

Internal Links:
Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!
May 2010

UK-US Extradition Treaty & Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists
August 2006

Judge Determines Man is a Security Threat, but will NOT deport Him!

At a Special Immigration court Mr Justice Mitting's judgement on  the first of two Pakistani Citizens: Abid Naseer appealing against Deportation concluded:
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," and added "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

Abid Naseer

So there we are this man is deemed a Danger to the Citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore should be deported immediately. But NO, the Judge then determined that it was impossible to return the men ( the second man being: Ahmad Faraz Khan)  to Pakistan - Actually it's very easy, police officers escort them to the Airport and travel with them on a Plane and then hand them over to the Authorities. But of course the safety of Abid Nasser and Ahmad Faraz Khan is much more important than the safety of United Kingdom Citizens as the Judge decided that "There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance" - by the Pakistani Authorities. Which is interesting as three other Pakistani Citizens Arrested with Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan have returned to Pakistan of their own free will!

Ahmad Faraz Khan

Of course the new Home Secretary will be appealing against this decision? NO she is NOT; instead she said she was 'disappointed'.
Well Theresa May I am disappointed in you as already you have failed in your duty to protect Public Safety by not even trying to get this ruling  reversed, NOT a good start!

For more details see:
BBC: - 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation
Guardian:  - Pakistani students arrested in anti-terror raids can stay in UK
Telegraph: - Pakistani students arrested in terror raids win deportation battle

Biometric Passports & ID Cards are Necessary

The new UK Coalition Government is determined to scrap both the New Generation of Biometric Passports and ID Cards and therefore the National Identity Register.

Whilst this is not news, I had hoped once the new Government was in power there would be a realisation that whilst the Labour Government's handling of the planning and initial implementation was 'poor' to say the least, these projects were beginning to progress towards being not only a much needed addition to our Border and Internal Security, but also would have the potential to be useful across all Government Departments and even, in the case of ID Cards have the potential to be useful to citizens in everyday life both as a way of proving identity and when , as is inevitable dealing with Government both Local and National.

But of course getting rid of them is going to be simple as both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were against them and therefore getting them cancelled will be easily passed by Parliament.

Of course wasting all the public money already spent on a £5.4 Billion project is not going to even cause them a smidgen of concern.

But hey, let's not let National Security, or the other benefits of this project get in
the way of populist politics.

Guido Fawkes an Article: Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Whilst the Guido Fawkes Blog is largely read by Politicians, Lawyers and City Movers & Shakers, (not always with enjoyment - Hazel Blears in a speech described it as the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes), some of his articles should receive a wider audience. The following is an entire post made on the 6th January 2010:

Start Guido Fawkes Post:

Mad Mullah Gets More Than Frontline Soldier

Here is another evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wants to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett.  He claims £25,740 in benefits to subsidise his hate preaching.  Guido questions how he can be seeking work when he spends all his time rabble rousing in broadcast studios and on demonstrations.  In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s taliban allies in Afghanistan, takes home £17,004 for risking his life.  If that private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets.

Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers?  Is Choudary really actively seeking work?  The evidence suggests he has other priorities – so stop his benefits…

END of Guido Fawkes Post

Online petition against HM Government use of Flawed browser

After reading the following please sign the E-Petition
The German and French governments have started to encourage people to upgrade away from the browser Internet Explorer 6 (IE6).

IE6 has some security flaws that leave users vulnerable. These two governments have let their populations know that an upgrade will keep them safer online. We should follow them.

When the UK government does this, most of Europe will follow. That will create some pressure on the US to do so too.

Most creative and software development companies are forced by government department clients to build websites for IE6 when most of the industry has moved on.

Companies insist that they need IE6 support because government departments use it and won't be able to see their sites or services without it.

Upgrading would be a massive task for government, but if the public is encouraged to lead the way and the government follows, that would create the momentum needed.

IE6 'end of life' was extended to 2014 by governments and business not ready (or willing) to upgrade. This cycle should be broken and innovation and security given their proper place.

To sign click: E-Petition

The Extradite Gary McKinnon Saga Continues

My views on the Gary McKinnon Case and the Extradition Treaty were detailed on the 01st August 2009 in this post.
Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty
Even the Home Secretary after reversing his decision to not to review the case (U-Turns being one of the few things British Ministers seem good at), has found that there are NO valid reasons to stop the extradition.

As a reminder on what this is all about:
Gary McKinnon hacked into 97 Computers belonging to:
United States Defense Department, US Navy, US Army, US Air Force, and NASA in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks. In the process of causing (by latest figures) $700,000USD of Damage, and stole 1,000 passwords from high-security computer networks.

He has admitted he did indeed commit these crimes, but only because he was looking for information on U.F.O.’s. Hmm, if this was indeed his only agenda, why did he leave the following message on one of the Pentagon computers he hacked:
“U.S. foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism. I will continue to disrupt at the highest possible level.”

The Lawyers acting for the US in the Extradition Case have described Mr McKinnon as:
The most prolific and damaging computer hacker in the history of the United States military.
Well I would change the wording to:
The most prolific and damaging, non-state supported computer hacker in the history of the United States military, that has been caught so far.
But then these are only Lawyers and what do they know about Cyber-Espionage being carried out against all Western Countries Military and Industry.
But despite this caveat, the crimes committed mean Gary McKinnon was carrying out acts of Cyber-Terrorism against the USA.

But hold on, a Professor watching a Television Interview  being given by McKinnon after extradition proceedings had started, began to suspect that he was suffering from Asperger syndrome, and subsequently he was indeed diagnosed as a sufferer of this disorder in August 2008 (three years into the Extradition proceedings). Asperger Syndrome is viewed as being within the Autism Spectrum of Disorders and is the cause of much discussion amongst researchers and indeed sufferers whether it is a difference (i.e within the spectrum of normal behaviour), rather than a disability that must be treated or cured.

As covered in my earlier post, Gary McKinnon does seem to fit some of the Asperger Profile, but surely this should have been diagnosed in Childhood when the symptoms are more pronounced rather than in his early 40's. Also within Asperger, like any of the disorders within the Autism Spectrum, there are huge variations between individuals.
If Asperger's is a valid defence, then there is no reason why this would not be considered as valid in a US Court as in a UK one?
Alternatively now that it is known that in Gary McKinnon case Asperger's is so serious that his obsessive behaviour meant that he went out and attacked the systems of a British Ally, then why hasn't he been sectioned under the Mental Health Acts and currently in a secure facility and (as there is nor real treatment) confined there for the rest of his life?

A lot of People from the British Autism Society to a bunch of Cross-party MP's and 'Celebrities' have jumped on the Save Gary McKinnon bandwagon. At least in the case of the British Autism Society, I have some sympathy with their stance as for the rest, well..

The only Person for whom I have both sympathy and respect in this case is Gary McKinnon's Mother, Janis Sharp who has mounted one of the most impressive campaigns in support of her son that I have ever known. Having said that, I believe her campaign should fail and that Gary McKinnon's case be heard in an American Court on the eight counts of computer fraud, that the extradition request is connected with.

But this does NOT in any way change my views on the 2003 Extradition Treaty. It is one of a small number of issues where I agree with Shami Chakrabarti (I respect and admire the Lady, just don't often agree with her) that this Extradition Law is in need of urgent reform. I would go further, in the next parliament the Treaty should be revoked and whilst renegotiated replaced by Extradition on a case by case basis.
See:UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists Posted on 13th August 2006 .
After all one of the reasons it is so imbalanced is the concern that members of the IRA living in the US would not be given a fair trail if extradited to Britain and one of the concerns of the British Supporters of Gary Mckinnon is that he won't get a fair trial in the USA, I trust US Justice the same as I trust British Justice, I view both with considerable reservations, but they both attempt to give defendants a fair trial - My Objection to the NatWest Three being extradited, was their case clearly fell within British Jurisdiction and due the intense anger over Enron, there was a possibility of trial bias. But the reason that I support Gary McKinnon's Extradition is treaty, or not, this case falls within US Jurisdiction and there is NOT the same US Domestic angst.

Are Your Communications Habits Being Monitored?

A News Item in Silicon.com: - One in 78: The chances your comms are being monitored forms a teaser to a much more detailed news report from ZDNet UK: Public targeted by 1,500 monitoring bids per day. So quoting from the ZDNet article: Police, local councils and other UK public authorities made more than half-a-million requests to see citizens' communications data in 2008, according to a watchdog report.

I am neither shocked, nor surprised at the total, but was surprised and actually quite annoyed, that local councils appear to be a major player in wanting to see our communications records. As far as I am concerned, the Police, Security Services, Borders Agency and HM Revenue and Customs should be the only organisations with the authority to request this information.

Requesting Communications data, which by using the provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act , authorities can ask service providers for data such as which individual has communicated with whom, and when and where this communication took place and that is totally different from actively monitoring someone's communications.
From the moment I made my second post in this Blog, I assumed that due some of the Words and Phrases used, it would attract the interest of automated monitoring software (in this case no different from the way a search engine would gather information) and that providing the authorities were having a slow day, they might first request my Communications Data and then if things were really quiet, they might be granted a request to actively monitor my communications. Does this remote possibility upset me: NO, actually I would feel sympathy for any operative tasked with doing the monitoring, as being bored to tears listening/reading my communications, was almost certainly not what they hoped their job would entail.

Whilst I am more than peeved by Local Councils being involved in find out peoples communications data, my angst is nothing compared to extreme annoyance of the Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary Chris Huhne: Who criticized the Government for allowing that volume of communication data gathering. Amongst the other things he went on to say, the following provided some ironic amusement:
"The government forgets that George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, and not a blueprint," said Huhne. "We are still a long way from living under the Stasi, but it beggars belief that is necessary to spy on one in every 78 adults."
Thoughts:
I wonder how many were repeat requests for the same person? - I suspect a large number.
How many requests led to a request to actively monitor communications in real time for a period of time (which is spying)? - I suspect a tiny percentage.
How many active monitoring requests led to a full investigation? - My guess is very few!
How many investigations led to prosecution? - Knowing, would satisfy my curiosity, but suspect less than 10%
Because, Local Council involvement aside, I don't have a problem with this, I am almost certainly once again out of step, at least with the 'chattering classes'. Well I can live with that!

Finally, back to Chris Huhne and George Orwell's 1984: This book was indeed a warning, about control of the population by taking away any sense of personal responsibility and accountability. This being accomplished through the enactment and then enforcement of laws that governed a citizen's every moment of their life and making every utterance either politically correct or illegal. In Orwell's world, even a simple domestic request becomes a major bureaucratic exercise.
Now for me this does have a familiar ring. Welcome to the 'Nanny State' resulting in a 'You Cannot do that Britain'. Now that is something I find very worrying!

Extradite Gary McKinnon, no problem. But now let's fix the Extradition Treaty

The Idle Man has followed the Gary McKinnon Hacker Case with some interest, but with little sympathy for Mr McKinnon. After all he is not being accused of some minor misdemeanour, but of hacking into the computer systems of the United States Army, Navy and Air Force, plus the United States Department of Defence and NASA, as well as sabotaging vital American military systems after the terror attacks of September 11 2001. In addition McKinnon is alleged to have caused Criminal Damage by his actions, which have been calculated to total $750,000 USD for remedial action and repair. Any Government would, based on these allegations go to any lengths for extradition and subsequent prosecution.

In the UK a large number of high profile people and much of the media are stating that the current extradition treaty should NOT apply in this case as it was designed to counter terrorism. From the viewpoint of any Government, the allegations against Gary McKinnon are effectively charges of Terrorism, although prefixed with cyber. But make no mistake Cyber Terrorism may not have the instant, spectacular media impact of a Bomb Attack but if it is successful, it can easily be just as dangerous to society.

Apparently Mr McKinnon has been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome which even the medical profession cannot spell consistently and whilst McKinnon appears to in part fit the Asperger profile, in other areas it appears from the background to the case he does not (social interaction does not appear to have been impaired and he has even been part of the Hackers Panel at InfoSecurity Europe). What makes Asperger syndrome even more interesting is that there is now discussion as to whether this is a disability that must be treated, or a just a 'difference' that falls with the spectrum of normal Human behaviour. So using the Asperger defence always seemed more than a little disingenuous.

So as far as I am concerned the McKinnon Allegations do fall within the original purpose and spirit of the Extradition Treaty and whilst my view counts for nothing, it has been supported in Law up to and including the Law Lords and the European Court of Human Rights, which have rejected his appeal against extradition.

What I find ironic is that this fast-track Treaty has occupied the Legal Profession for three years! When for once it was actually being used for the purpose for which, at least the British thought it was designed. Of course because of the implicit imbalance to the treaty, if an American Hacker had done the same to the MoD, MI5, or SIS Systems, Britain would NOT under the treaty have able to extradite them.

Now the obstacles to Gary McKinnon being extradited, there will be a jury trial under the American Justice System. So Gary McKinnon will have his 'day in court'(although I suspect this will actually be weeks in Court). There are four possible outcomes:

1. He will be found guilty of all charges and if this is the case a very long sentence is appropriate.
2. He will be found guilty of some of the charges and if is the case the sentence should appropriate to those he is found guilty of.
3. His Lawyers will successfully use the Asperger defence, but hopefully this will still mean he will be institutionalised for a period for assessment to ensure he is not going to repeat his actions.
4. He is found not guilty of all charges - Extremely Unlikely!
   

Whilst I have every sympathy with McKinnon's Mother attempts to stop her son being extradited (and indeed have much more sympathy for her tireless efforts than I have for her Son), I find it embarrassing and distasteful that 40 British Members of Parliament have, after the Legal Processes have been exhausted have jumped on the McKinnon bandwagon by writing to the US President. Their protest is NOT about whether after a Trial he is found guilty and the punishment is too harsh, but the fact that he should NOT stand trial at all. If these allegations are true and this man attacked an ally and compromised their national security then it is only right that the USA should have the right to try him for these Crimes. True he is being extradited under a flawed and imbalanced treaty, but these MPs efforts would be better served by NOT using the case for self-serving publicity, but working hard to get the provisions of the Treaty fixed, so that there is no imbalance and it limited to the purposes that the British Government believed it would be applied! In the case of McKinnon, the treaty (flawed though it is) has been correctly applied.

The Idle Man, is as so often the case, is apparently out of step with Media and Political Opinion (what the general public thinks, matters not one jot - After all the e-Petition to the Prime Minister to stop the extradition, only managed to obtain 876 Signatures before it closed, not exactly an outpouring of support). So be it, but I consider what Gary McKinnon is alleged to have done, constitutes extremely serious crimes against an ally of this country and he should stand trial for those crimes in the country against which he launched his attacks, But that does not in any way alter my view that the current extradition treaty should be suspended until the provisions of the treaty between UK and USA apply equally to both Countries. This should not stop the Gary McKinnon Extradition because the Legal Processes were finally taken to the European Court of Human Rights and the extradition was upheld (quite rightly).

In the interests of Balance here are three of External Websites that show support for Gary McKinnon's attempts to avoid Extradition and Trial in the USA:
Free Gary McKinnon - or at least give him a fair trial in the United Kingdom - Blog
Daily Mail Articles in Support of Gary McKinnon
London TV Net

About that Extradition Treaty:
Posts in this Blog:
UK-US Extradition Treaty and Certain American Politicians Support for Terrorists - 13th August 2003
The NatWest Three - 29th November 2007

External Sites:
Extradition Act of 2003 - The UK Statute Law Database
The Extradition Act 2003 - Wikipedia Entry
StateWatch News Online – Special Report on the ‘New US_UK Extradition Treaty - 2003
MPs Impotently Huffing and Puffing in Parliament - Hansard via They Work for You - 15th July 2009

News Update:
Alan Johnson: I can’t stop extradition - Times Online 2nd August 2009:
In this article the Home Secretary states he cannot stop the extradition as he would be breaking the Law. However once again Gary McKinnon is described as young (he is 43, which means he should be described as of middle age), Vulnerable (so vulnerable he can sit on the InfoSecurity Hackers panel and give a number of media interviews) and Misguided (He certainly is, he got so overconfident whilst hacking into US Defence Computers and those of NASA that he misguidedly got careless and therefore got caught).

I would rather the Home Secretary concentrated on making his Department 'fit for purpose' and ensuring that illegals are deported, dangerous prisoners stay in jail and sorting out the totally mismanaged National ID Card Scheme, than writing articles for the Sunday Times.

Attack in Sri Lankan Cricket Team -Six Police Die in the line of Duty

There has been a lot of criticism over the measures taken by Pakistan to secure the safety of the Sri Lankan Cricket Team.

Well six Policemen Died in the Line of Duty as part of that security failure!

Ambushed and Outgunned the Police did not really stand much chance, but their deaths along with the quick actions of the Driver of the Team Coach saved the Cricketers lives.

Already their deaths and those of the two civilians also killed are footnotes in todays stories in the media. But the Idle Man hopes that the Lahore Police Force buried their dead with Honour and Ceremony due to those who died in the line of duty and will help their families through this time of their grief and into the future.

Moving on to the overall security arrangements, well much better qualified people than I, have stated these were less than adequate, and therefore must have been privy to these arrangements prior to the attack. If this is so, did they raise these concerns before the attack?

Sorry I am being ironic, the people commenting of the security arrangements in the media wouldn't have been briefed and as usual are being wise after the event.

The primary failure as in all highly successful terrorist attacks is in Intelligence. If you don't have prior knowledge of at least the general plan then you cannot quantify the action needed to either arrest those planning to take part, or provide the correct security needed to thwart the attack if it occurs.

That does not mean there were not failures in security on the ground. Mention has been made that the Team Coach took the same route each day. The small scale map of the area I have seen, seems to indicate that the Liberty Roundabout, scene of the attack was going to be part of any route to the ground. Commonsense dictates that if this is a 'choke point' on the route it is where security needs to be at its highest. But the level of security like any insurance is based on risk assessment, which brings us back to the failure in Intelligence.

Every successful Terrorist attack is a failure in Intelligence and Security. But to paraphrase an IRA Terrorist 'you can stop us 9 times out 10, but we only need that one success'.

I am extremely pleased that the casualties to the Sri Lankan Sportsmen and the Officials were limited to minor wounds and also laud the efforts of the Coach Driver to save himself and his passengers.

But my sympathies lie with the families of the two civilians and six policemen who died and the Men and Women of the Lahore police force who lost six colleagues, but today have to carry on policing the city.

External Links:
BBC - How the attack on cricketers happened