While business leaders find their appreciation for human rights in the case of the Natwest three, the proposed extradition of terror suspects continues relatively unabated.

The latest deal to be suggested is with Algeria, for reasons that Bair says is for "greater co-operation between our countries can facilitate our ability to send people back to Algeria who are in this country and who for reasons for example of involvement in extremism we wish to deport."

In conjunction with the arrival of the Algerian president to the UK Amnesty International have released a report detailing the use of torture by "Military Security", known as the Department for Information and Security (Département du renseignement et de la sécurité, DRS).

As with other frontlines in the 'war on terror', and with a back drop of the governments energy review "Algeria was forecast to provide 12% of our gas and be Europe's second largest source of gas after Russia and BP had an investment of $4billion there".

How many torturing nations does it take to switch on a light bulb?

Forever will he be an upstanding member of the vile spew that is the mainstay of Fox News. Despite his support for the war, the Reverend of the church of hate, Bill O'Reilly has said that what Iraq needs, for the short term at least, is some Saddam style justice.

"See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight. That's me. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK?

That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? Because if you got out of line, you're dead.

Now, is that the kind of country I want for Iraq? No. But you have to have that for a few months to stabilize the situation so the Iraqi government can get organized, can get security in place and get the structure going."

A few days later he said:

"At this point, the new Iraqi government should declare martial law in areas controlled by insurgents. That means anyone can be arrested and shoot-on-sight curfews.

Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher."

He also attacks the ACLU and, bizarrely the BBC because it 'helps the enemy'.

O'Reilly obviously hasn't been paying enough attention, for a while there has been news about Iraq's interior ministry and its use of death squads, one of which is lovingly named the Wolf Brigade. Victims of this group usually end up floating in the Tigris with the likely cause of death being a drill hole to the skull.

Elsewhere: Can anyone else smell a set-up? The American backed militia looses Mogadishu to the Islamists, and now we hear that they have "said in a statement it had appointed Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys as its new leader. The Bush administration has said Aweys was an associate of Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s."

Whether it is the inaccurate science of intelligence gathering, or the overriding insistence of the political elites to create fear, and manufacture an organisation known as Al-Qaeda because explaining to the population that these people acted alone wouldn't fit the required image.

Their intense motivation to turn against their adoptive homelands was driven by the war in Iraq, and inspired by extremist doctrines. By putting bogeymen on a pedestal of fear has elevated them to an existence that can be both derided and as has been the case, admired and emulated.

The first set of London bombers had no connection with Al-Qaeda, after the later failed bombings Blair said "until we confront these people at every single level. And not just their methods but their ideas... they will always have a reason and I am not saying any of these things don't affect their warped reasoning and warped logic." Is this a two-way street? There is no justification for terrorism, in the same respect as there is no justification for pre-emptively invading and/or bombing weak mostly third world countries Serbia, Afghanistan and then Iraq. Destroying infrastructure and increasing the suffering of an already beaten people.

Not as widely publicised is the trial and charging of 29 people linked to the Madrid bombings, and subsequently it has also been revealed that they acted alone, sans Al-Qaeda. Their reason? Spain's involvement in Iraq.

In Iraq itself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been built up to be considered Bin Laden's man with the plan, the new don of Mesopotamia, however, Zarqawi's role in the insurgency has been "overstated" the designated target of the propaganda is the American public. Added to this a fairly old video tape of al-Zawahri has been released praising al-Zarqawi, despite three video tapes being released since the time it was recorded, and according to Bin Laden's mentor al-Zarqawi has been "sacked for mistakes."

A lot has been said in the last week regarding on going wars and the situation in Iraq. Blair has taken a queue from Bush's recent reassertion of pre-emptive war stating the "fight must be taken to the enemy, to keep them on the run", and further down framing the war as a "battle of ideas".

In a recent foreign policy speech by Blair to a benign sounding think tank the Foreign Policy Centre, the following line was pounced upon by the media - "This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation". It contained all the previous key markers from US/UK speeches there was democracy, freedom, September 11th, July 7th, Saddam, Osama, WMD, previous conflicts dubbed 'humanitarian', human interest tales, national context, Iran and so on.

Despite a large amount of half truths and a touch of ignorance on Blair's behalf concerning world events, my interest is the way the language around the arguments was constructed. Globalisation and modernity are mentioned three times, something to note is Blair's definition of modernity in relating to domestic policy issues is often concerned with neoliberal capitalism. For example, 'modernising' public services is a euphemism for private investment. Alternatively it could be the new way of describing people as savages, primitives and uncivilised.

Progress and struggle are used eight times. Slight side track, the definition of Jihad can be described as the "struggle" for a cause, namely Islam. Another definition states "a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam by waging war" while the last sentence of Blair's speech states "it is a battle of values and progress; and therefore it is one we must win".

With this in mind, but not as implicit as Jihad, and translated into western diplomatic speak the policy can be reduced to - a moral duty imposed on democracy to spread freedom through intervention.

Onto our own version of Donald Rumsfeld, John Reid. Labours 'attack dog' who has proclaimed that anti-war protesters "can support the Iraqi democrats and the overwhelming majority of ordinary Iraqis or you can support, in effect, the terrorists", dissent bad, obedience good.

Other than that he has said that Iraqi civil war is not currently occurring, nor is it close to happening, describing the situation as "serious but not terminal". The simplest definition of civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country". In that respect Iraq is embroiled in a civil war however, a more militaristic geopolitical definition states:

"A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations".

With that definition Britain and America will never say there is a civil war, but in Blair's terms "the rules of the game have changed", identifiable armies is subjective and probably doesn't include insurgency, Iraq also has no government yet. You can decide whether it is or not.

Civil war? What civil war?
Battle for Baghdad 'has already started'
Militias Kill More Iraqis Than "Terrorists": US Envoy

Two images today because I couldn't decide which one was funniest.

A veritable legal minefield will be unleashed upon the UK, if the House of Lords decides to pass the new Terrorism Bill or the government waves the Parliament Act and force feeds it to the nation, with the added offences of glorification and dissemination of terrorism included.

The Terrorism Act of 2000 currently has the track record of capturing 895 people, leading to only 23 convictions. Under this act terrorism is defined as -

"(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system."

As you might be able to see from that veritable shit storm of legal voodoo could and has been used to encapsulate forms of direct action, it has been used against anti-war protesters for instance.

Now, this is were it gets even more vague and complicated the Terrorism Bill now includes the offences of glorification and dissemination. Which are loosely defined as (Pages 5-7) -

"1 Encouragement of terrorism

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he publishes a statement or causes another to publish a statement on his
behalf; and
(b) at the time he does so—

(i) he knows or believes, or
(ii) he has reasonable grounds for believing, that members of the public to whom the statement is or is to be published are likely to understand it as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences.

(2) For the purposes of this section the statements that are likely to be understood by members of the public as indirectly encouraging the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism or Convention offences include every statement which—

(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and
(b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances."

Confused yet? Here is dissemination -

"2 Dissemination of terrorist publications

(1) A person commits an offence if he—

(a) distributes or circulates a terrorist publication;
(b) gives, sells or lends such a publication;
(c) offers such a publication for sale or loan;
(d) provides a service to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to
or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or
loan;
(e) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; or
(f) has such a publication in his possession with a view to its becoming the
subject of conduct falling with any of paragraphs (a) to (e)."

Originally glorification was to be applied to any terrorism within the last 20 years, that is now gone, and is now supposed to be restrained to direct incitement. Regardless of history look at the current conflicts and insurgencies around the globe, will support of the Palestinians warrant a conviction? The Maoists in Nepal? The uprising in Iraq? The Chechen conflict? Bush has said to the Iranian 'win your own freedom', an echo of what his father asked the Iraqi people to do which actually resulted in an uprising and many, many deaths.

Then there is abuse of the law, Charles Clarke has already stated that militant animal rights activists can be tried under terror laws. Will it also mean that the annual May Day marches will be banned?

The dissemination of terrorist publication electronically is near impossible to police, Al-Qaeda manuals, CIA interrogation techniques and various handbooks exist a mere mouse click away. Che Guevara’s Guerrilla Warfare is sold in most high street book retailers, along with the highly suspected fake yet widely distributed Anarchist's Cookbook.

That is just the implications for the public, for government as always can be as hypocritical as it wants shown by diplomatic relations with Sinn Fein and the ANC, who can tell how Hamas will turn out, and as for the Muslim Brotherhood, according to documents obtained by the New Statesman the British government intends to -

"Increase the frequency of working-level contacts with Muslim Brotherhood parliamentarians (Who do not advocate violence)"

Coincidentally Hamas is described by the memos as "the Palestinian branch of the Brotherhood in all but name".

Why is all this happening? Read - The Politics of Fear (or How Tony Blair Misled Us over the War on Terror)

Yesterday Jack Straw said that research had found that no CIA 'extraordinary rendition' flights had passed through British airports, finding no documents or records to corroborate the accusations. The research can't have looked far the British government may have no documents relating to the torture package holidays but the Danish do.

There have been at least 176 cases of CIA flights passing through Scottish airports, the total amount might be nearer 210. Straw has however, admitted to agreeing to two such flights under the Clinton administration. Ah well, when did 200 instances of something not officially recorded constitute as evidence?

The US has used torture for decades. All that's new is the openness about it.

So Tony Blair has lost a vote in the Commons for the first time in his premiership, whoop de do. While the MPs all give themselves hand jobs for democracy the major impact of the new law gets lost in the media soup of the Tony Show.

You can still be detained without trial or charge for a full cycle of the moon, 28 days. They don't even need evidence just a suspicion of terrorist activities and wham! Say good bye to daylight for a month. Extending the police powers makes it the longest time for internment in a western democracy, US not withstanding Jose Padilla still sits in prison awaiting, um anything.

The Sun reacted as you would expect, 'Traitors' was the headline claiming the winners as Bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi in terms of dismantling democracy they're right. Nothing is ever fully explained, attached to these new laws is the veritable mine field of 'glorification', the Police were lobbying MPs up until the vote, something that contravenes the Separation of Powers Act. This is a death nail in anything that remotely resembled civil liberties.

Bellmarsh is calling, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

It happened again, even though he has distanced himself from the terror alert, it has his stamp all over it. Whenever something like this happens look back a few days and see what is in the news, the Bush poll numbers are still low and the furore over Harriet Miers was evident from all angles.

Added to that DeLay indicted on another charge and Karl Rove was called into the dock, it didn't take the claim of ten foiled terror attacks to divert attention. What hasn't happened this time is people haven't forgotten last week's news. They are still plugging away.

Alternatively Michael Bloomberg has already spent $46.6 million on his re-election campaign perhaps he is just trying to make sure...

*Addition - New York subway threat was a hoax, security sources admit