THE HIGH PRICE OF NOT ACTING LIKE GEORGE BUSH'S AMERICA:

Bound by the law (KATE FOSTER, 8/22/04, The Scotsman)

IT WAS a dramatic police swoop that ended in a spectacular anticlimax. Costing £1.5m and tying up dozens of officers for months, the arrest of nine Algerians in Scotland sparked a nationwide terror alert and fears of an al-Qaeda Hogmanay bomb plot.

One year later, however, the men were cleared of terror charges. Human rights lawyers accused police of racist motives and the men, all Muslims, continued to seek asylum in Britain.

To any observer, the entire affair could seem at best misguided and at worst a stunt to allay public fears about possible attacks in Britain by Islamic fundamentalists.

But in the eight months since the charges were dropped, a worrying picture has gradually emerged that suggests police felt hamstrung by current criminal laws.

Already, the police have indicated they were unhappy at the way the investigation, which was led by Det Supt Bert Swanston, one of Scotland’s most senior detectives, ended. They have maintained that the evidence gathered raised strong suspicions.

Now sources have given Scotland on Sunday the most detailed picture yet of what they suspected: that the men were acting as a support cell that merged into the Edinburgh community.

And, worryingly, the police sources claim their hands were tied by "archaic" laws that could prevent them fully investigating terrorists in the future. [...]

The Home Office itself is concerned about its counter-terrorism powers and David Blunkett is planning to extend anti-terror legislation in the coming months. But there are concerns about how this will work.

He appears determined to keep the power to detain suspected international terrorists without trial. A total of 12 foreign nationals, including several at Belmarsh prison in south-east London, have been held under the power, rushed in shortly after the 11 September attacks in 2001.

Other proposals being examined by Blunkett include relaxing the ban on evidence gathered by police through bugging, creating an offence of ‘acts preparatory to terrorism’ to convict people on the edge of terrorist networks and staging pre-emptive trials of terror suspects in secret before state-selected judges and with vetted defence lawyers.

Consultation on proposed new anti-terrorism laws ends this month, with Blunkett due to present his conclusions in October or November. However he faces a major backlash with many of his cabinet colleagues fiercely opposed to the plans.

Do they really need their own 9-11 before they get serious?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 22, 2004 8:47 AM