The second part makes the assumption that the (possible) inquiry into the conduct of ministers before and after the war will be a certainty, but there does seem to be prepatory work and agreements on the makeup of the inquiry by the parties.

Terrorism Bill

The tories and lib dems are slavishly repeating the mantra that the only thing of concern to civil liberties in the terrorism bill is the 90-day without trial issue. This narrowing of the debate successfully misdirects energies of those concerned, gives the illusion of a healthy parliament and will eventually reward the government with most if not all of what it wants. The 90-day thing would be really nice for them, but for that they are prepared to wait another day.

There are equally more dangerous and disturbing issues in the terrorism bill such as the broad definition on the incitement to terrorism. We understand the zealous use by Labour of existing and recent powers to beat down the anti-war protesters and other freedoms of speech. Isn't it likely that many anti-war outfits will go down under intense media speculation and/or police arrests or investigations using the 'indirect or other inducements' to terrorism to be criminalised in this bill, thus narrowing down the menu of possible anti-war groups to those controlled or influenced by the government such as the Muslim Association of Britain.

A strategy for the anti-war camp - time to take back the agenda

According to the Sunday Times, Sunday 6th November

[ http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/4478]

MPs from all the three main parties are set to call for an inquiry into the "conduct of ministers both before and after the war". This commons committee "comprising seven privy counsellors, would have the power to see all sensitive documents and call any British witnesses, including intelligence chiefs ".

Yet, in the midst of the tories and lib dems performing establishment duties by playing the 'opposition' and narrowing the debate on the new terrorism bill to just that of the 90-day internment issue, where they will claim anything less than 90-days is a victory, but where anything more than the already anti-human 14 days would be a defeat for civil liberties. We are suppose to believe that these establishment parties have suddenly turned on Blair in such a dramatic way after over two years since the beginning of the war and the start of his failures there and six months after the publishing of the Downing Street Memos that apparently form a basis for their decision.

Instead of us risking this turning into a sham where most individuals will be only slightly burnt by exposures or otherwise exonerated and to the frustrations of anit-war protests who rightly believe that these fiendish creatures should be put behind bars for a very long time. Or this merely being a limited hangout designed to propel Gordon Brown to the Prime Ministership and the recommendations coming along as minor tweaks to the 'system'. We should, once the momentum in Parliament is under way and the process of choosing the commissioners has started, us in the anti-war movement should pour out onto the streets and demand to have at least one of our own on the committee with equitable powers to "see all sensitive documents and call any British witnesses, including intelligence chiefs" and not be checked or kept in place by any other members. If the parties show petty and immature intransigence over this it will merely expose the shame process for what it really is and all such parties will be guilty of not listening to the public.

The timing is crucial, we should only pounce after the process has passed all the hurdles in parliament, for if we act too early we could bury the process. We should probably not go for any figureheads of the anti-war movement like Galloway or Tony Benn as they might be compromised, but instead maybe someone from CASI, Voices in the Wilderness or the like. And any agreements of confidentiality between our choice or choices and the parliament should be reasonable and made public.


The downing street memos

After the first downing street memo that hooked us - which many of us believed was pretty close to the truth about "fixing intelligence and facts around the policy" but nevertheless repeated the mantra that they was little in the way of after war plan - they released seven, less damaging, softer memos that seemed to portray a government genuinely believing in WMD in Iraq.

Are we naive enough to believe that they had no plan for after the war, other than the divide and conquer they have put into effect. If they had a visible plan it would have set up a positive agenda which they would of have to live up to and be measured by at home, which would doom their colonial plans to failure. No plan, no firm expectations.

But don't worry establishment, after all the eight memos were merely photocopies sent to your Sunday Times with the originals conveniently destroyed.