Other clauses outlaw the "encouragement" and "glorification" of terrorism and acts "preparatory" to terrorism. These have been universally criticised by human rights groups as vague and uncertain, not dependent on clear intent, and liable to be triggered irrespective of actual impact.
The power of proscription will be extended to non-violent organisations - condemned by Liberty as "an anathema in a democracy".
And peace protestors will be caught by new powers that will turn those who trespass on nuclear facilities into "terrorists".
This bill, the 4th in five years, is in the context of a previous broadening of the definition of "terrorism" making it a woolly catch-all concept that could include almost any militant political activity. We are witnessing a fundamental ratcheting up of state powers enabling the criminalisation of swathes of political dissent and a frontal assault the Muslim community.
There is still some time to go before the final vote. Lib Ders and Tories have shown they cannot be trusted and have already compromised by allowing a 28 day detention period.
Ken Livingstone's United Communities initiative is welcome, drawing in a wide layer of support. But it bases itself on support for the police in their fight against terrorism. In the wake of the police shooting of young Brazilian Jean Charles De Menezes and Blair's justification of the new repressive powers on the sole basis that the police wanted them - this stance is, to say the least, problematic.
A major mobilisation is needed to bring public pressure to bear: a broad campaign for civil liberties that brings OnLO the streets and gives a clear voice to the opposition. • For more information see www.cacc.org.uk Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on October 28 on 5 counts including "perjury" and "obstruction of justice" by a grand jury.
They were looking into a leak to the media of the name of CIA agent Valerie Plume by members of the Bush administration. Libby's immediate resignation came on the heels of the indictment by a Texas grand jury of House Majority leader Tom Delay on September 28 and the appalling Scooter Libby response of the federal government to the hurricane in New Orleans.
Cumulatively, these events could be viewed as the beginning of the end of the Bush administration, but it's far too soon to get out the party hats
Unlike recent events in England, been handed a minor defeat on the terror laws, the US government's crises appear due to simple internal corruption rather than questions of any great political importance.
This is best evidenced by the response of the members of the Democratic Party who have simply gloated over Bush's troubles but, as usual, continue to offer no viable alternative to the Republican Party, the war in Iraq or the continuing poverty and divisions promoted by the system.
And given that they are a party of the ruling rich, no one should expect them to.
Regardless of this, public
war in Iraq. In an NBC News and Wall Street Journal opinion poll released on November 11th, 57 per cent of Americans now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" people in order to go to war in Iraq with only 32 per cent supporting his policy on can be deemed a direct result now known "Libbygate", 33 per cent think that Bush is being "straightforward and honest" with the public which has dropped 17 per cent since January. In the wake of this wave of bad news for Bush, an opportunity exists for political activists in America to discuss what is wrong not only with Bush, but the What is system itself.
Unfortunately, most libneeded is a erals and the anti-war viable movement in particular
remain wedded to the where Tony Blair has independent Democratic Party, perpolitical haps hoping that some
eventually become antialternative to war politicians. both ruling While some
Democrats, and indeed
class
some Republicans, parties. have become more
vocal in their newfound opposition to Bush and the war in Iraq, it is clear that when it counts they wholeheartedly back their class. This was evidenced in the passing of the Patriot Act as well as the presidential election of 2004 where voters had a choice between a strongly pro-war candidate and a challenger who had voted for the war to begin with. What is needed is a viable independent political alternative to both ruling class parties.