Jacqui Smith

Tom Griffin (London, OK):The Guardian brings us news of some important developments in the case of Binyam Mohammed this evening:

It emerged tonight that lawyers acting for Smith have sent the attorney general, Baroness Scotland, evidence about MI5 and CIA involvement in the case, which was heard behind closed doors in high court hearings. In a letter seen by the Guardian, they have asked Scotland - as an independent law officer - to investigate "possible criminal wrongdoing". The move could lead to a criminal prosecution.

The evidence was suppressed following gagging orders demanded by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and the US authorities. The action by Smith, the minister responsible for MI5 activities, is believed to be unprecedented.

A detailed account of the case, 'Human Cargo' (pdf), which includes a harrowing description of Mohamed's CIA sponsored torture in Morocco, is available from Reprieve. 

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Simon Jenkins uses his valedictory column in today's Sunday Times to blast MPs for not standing up for liberty against an authoritarian Home Office.

Some highlights:

Since 9/11 there has sprung into being a war-on-terror version of the “military-industrial complex”, against which Eisenhower warned Americans as the cold war developed in the 1950s. The complex roams seminars and think tanks with blood-curdling accounts of what Osama Bin Laden is planning. Visitors need go no further than the biennial defence sales exhibition in London’s Docklands to see Eisenhower’s monsters on parade. They feed on the politics of fear, a leitmotif of this government. The entire nation is regarded as under suspicion....

 A feature of this campaign is its sheer mendacity. Smith last week promised that her surveillance regime would cover only details of electronic communication, not contents. This is incredible. It reminds me of the old Home Office lie that all phone taps “require the home secretary’s personal authority”. Smith’s apparatchiks want to read the lot...

Clare Coatman (London, oD): Jacqui Smith's speech on counter-terrorism, which she gave to the ippr on Wednesday, has attracted a fiercely critical response from both the media and the opposition parties (you can read the speech in full here). Chris Huhne described the plans for a central database of all mobile phone and internet traffic as "Orwellian" and Dominic Grieve made a strong case that there is no justification for "such an exponential increase in the powers of the state."

Along with OK's Guy Aitchison, I sat in the audience for the speech which was held in the luxurious offices of the law firm Clifford Chance high up in Canary Wharf. Smith started off with a brief history of terrorism in the UK which she described as having two phases. "Phase one" terrorism purportedly spanned the 70's and 80's and was characterised by clearly focused objectives in specific geographical locations; attacks by non-nationals and the lack of a public narrative or use of religious language. "Phase two" terrorism, or 'new terrorism,' is characterised by domestic recruitment; a public narrative; a well defined ideology often expressed in religious language; the willingness to use WMDs to inflict mass casualties and the use of sophisticated technologies.

Henry Porter (London, writer): It is the triumphant vindictiveness of Jacqui Smith's speech today which leaves such a bad taste. That and the candid admission that new Labour has long given up being tough on the causes of crime and is instead prepared to let the Sun's editorial line dictate social and policing policy.

Guy Aitchison (Bristol, OK):

EU Treaty: In an article in today's Times William Hague develops what Anthony predicted would become a major Tory line of attack on the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty: "Mr Brown talks endlessly of a new era of openness and accountability. He says he will consult and listen more. Yet he now proposes as his first big decision as Prime Minister to break a solemn manifesto promise and deny the British people their say over who governs Britain and how it is governed."

Guy Aitchison (Bristol, OK): Those who hoped that Jacqui Smith's calm and measured response to the failed terrorist attacks in Glasgow and London signalled the beginning of a less authoritarian approach from the Home Office are advised to read the interview with her in this week's New Statesman. It is not encouraging. Martin Bright and John Kampfner conclude that "on extension of the 28-day period of detention without charge, on identity cards, on penal policy and on immigration, she is, if anything, more convinced about the authoritarian approach than the tough guys who came before." Smith, we learn, "baulks" at the idea of being called a "liberal" and chooses David Blunkett, her old boss at the DfES, as her role model. On the 28 days, she says that she has "been persuaded that at some time in the future we will need to be in a position where, in very rare situations, we may need to go beyond 28 days." And on ID cards: "There will be an ID card. From 2009 we will be introducing ID cards for UK citizens. From 2008 we will introduce what will effectively be an ID card for those who have been in the UK for more than six months." She couldn't be much clearer. We hope to report from No2ID.

Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): I just heard Jacqui Smith's statement to the House on the recent terrorist attacks. Beyond a bald statement of the facts, it was interesting for what it omitted. There was no rhetoric about changing the 'rules of the game' (for which read 'standards of due process') or the need for the judiciary to 'get it'. Indeed there was no immediate claim that if only we could deport people to human rights abusing regimes the terrorist threat could be minimised. Rather than participants in a 'war', terrorists were described as 'criminals' - denying them the status of heroic combatants. This is not to say that none of this nonsense will resurface later, but it is a good start.