Tony Blair is expected to reject Conservative demands for an inquiry into the London bombings when he makes a statement to MPs later on Monday. The prime minister is due to underline his confidence in the intelligence services after the attacks which killed at least 49 and injured 700. Conservative leader Michael Howard has called for an inquiry, to see if any lessons could be learned. But minister Hazel Blears said the idea was unhelpful and may distract police. She said that in the normal course of their inquiries the police would examine how things had gone in the aftermath of Thursday's atrocities but she did not want them distracted and forced to take their "eyes off the ball". Downing Street meanwhile said it had two priorities: identifying the dead and informing the relatives, and finding the forensic clues that would help capture the perpertrators.

"It's not time for a knee-jerk response," the spokesman added.

Contact with enemy

Conservative homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer said it was entirely possible the terrorists would attack again and said his party wanted a quick inquiry so any lessons could be learned. "No plan survives contact with the enemy and clearly things weren't perfect on Thursday," he told BBC News. "I don't mean that to be antagonistic. This is designed to be helpful to the government," he added. "Our priority is to nail these people, of course it is. But at the same time, there has got to be a quick inquiry to find out what can be done, what didn't go perfectly on Thursday and to try to protect us from a further attack."

On Sunday Mr Howard told BBC News 24 said: "It is sensible to have an inquiry with the benefit of hindsight into what was done and what wasn't done to see if there are lessons which can be learned. Perhaps there are perhaps there aren't."

Anti-terror measures

Ms Blears said all efforts were being directed towards capturing the bombers.

"For goodness sake, let's focus on what's important here and that is for the police and the security services to follow up every single lead they've got," she said. "I genuinely think that calling for an inquiry at this point is not going to be helpful at all".

The Home Secretary Charles Clarke is expected to propose further anti-terrorism measures at a meeting with his European counterparts this week. These are set to include a proposal for telecommunication firms to make records of phone calls and emails available to the police.

Constructive support

Police and security agencies say they are now almost certain that they are not dealing with a suicide bomb attack. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said his party would work constructively with the government on measures to improve UK security.

"I am encouraged by the home secretary's admission that ID cards would not have stopped Thursday's attacks. We remain convinced that the money for ID cards would be better spent on more resources for the police and the intelligence services.

"We will work with the government to establish plans to extend the length of time data from e-mails and phone calls can be kept." - BBC

[extract] July 13, 2005 Tony Blair today said he intended to tighten the Government's controversial anti-terror laws after the London bombings which claimed 52 lives.

Mr Blair also said measures were in hand to fast-track the deportation of radical priests, to prevent them from spreading what he described as their "evil and extreme ideology", springing from a "perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam".

As the police investigation continued in Leeds, Luton and London, Mr Blair told a hushed Commons that police and security services had done 'magnificent work' in the aftermath of the July 7 bombings.

The raids came after the discovery of driving licences and credit cards at the scenes of the explosions, and a telephone call from the mother of Hasib Hussain, who asked police to try to trace her son. timesonline.co.uk

10:40am 31st July 2005 - A Government minister has defended a police move to target specific ethnic groups for stop-and-searches as part of the security response to the London bombings.

Home Office minister Hazel Blears said she believed the Asian community would accept that the measure is a necessary response to the security threat.

Interviewed by the Mail on Sunday, British Transport Police Chief Constable Ian Johnston made it clear that his officers would not shy away from targeting those groups most likely to present the greatest threat. Mr Johnston told the newspaper: "Intelligence-led stop-and-searches have got to be the way", adding that there were "challenges for us in managing diversity as an issue."

But he continued: "We should not bottle out over this. We should not waste time searching old white ladies."

Mr Johnston said he was confident that "there is every sign that the Muslim community understands the predicament we face" and that the police would continue to receive support from them, even if young Asians become the focus of most police searches.

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House, Ms Blears supported the approach. She said: "What it means is if your intelligence in a particular area tells you that you're looking for somebody of a particular description, perhaps with particular clothing on, then clearly you're going to exercise that power in that way. That's absolutely the right thing for the police to do.

"But what I think is really important is that we have a dialogue with that community - that says look, this is why we're using the powers. We're going to use them in this way, it will be fair and people will have the circumstances explained to them."

But Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said 'racial profiling' was a disaster. She said: "If you search people of a particular race or description while lettings others through, it doesn't take long for a terrorist group to learn ways of placing their lethal cargo with those who don't meet the profile." - daily mail

spot the subliminal message!!!

Flashback: "The threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or who are falsely hiding behind Islam. If a threat is from a particular place then our action is going to be targeted at that area. It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community. It was a reality that should be recognized." Home Office minister Hazel Blears - March 2005 Welcome to Perception Central - William Bowles

David Gelernter, Los Angeles Times - Tuesday, August 2, 2005

THE NEW YORK CITY police are prowling subway and train stations for possible terrorists. They say they are stopping travelers "at random," but I'm happy to report that they are (unintentionally) lying. Because they have also said (reports the New York Sun) that they will only stop people with "cumbersome containers or backpacks," or "wearing bulky coats" inappropriate for summer, or seeming "nervous." So they are not checking "at random."

Good for them. The police can't check everyone. Naturally, they identify easily visible characteristics that terrorists are likely to have, then concentrate on people who have them. That is, they work from a profile -- which should be as complete as possible. Even if it becomes a dreaded "racial profile."

Terrorists are rare. If you fit the profile, it only means that you are more likely than other people to be a terrorist. But most people who fit are completely innocent. And some who don't fit are guilty: No responsible police force can rely on profiles exclusively. Alert observers are always the best terrorist detectors. Still, information is the most important anti-terror weapon. Profiles summarize the best current information. If "looks like a young Muslim" or "looks Middle Eastern" is an easily visible characteristic that terrorists are likely to have, it belongs in the profile.

But that's racial profiling, some will say, which is bad, not to mention illegal. When police stop blacks merely because of their race, the overwhelming majority are innocent of any crime. All Americans, they say, must be treated equally! But the same holds true for bulky-backpack wearers -- the overwhelming majority are innocent of any crime; all are entitled to equal treatment.

Ideally, a profile would list characteristics that identify all criminals and only them, but usually there are no such (easily visible) characteristics.

So the real question is: Are we eager enough to prevent the crime in question to stop people (like bulky-backpack wearers or travelers who appear Middle Eastern) who we know might be guilty but almost certainly aren't? Are we willing to impose this inconvenience on innocent people who fit the profile to find a few guilty ones?

If the goal is to pre-empt "ordinary" crimes (theft or robbery) that hurt only a few individuals, the coldblooded answer is probably no. If the goal is to pre-empt a terrorist attack that might hurt the nation, the answer ought to be yes.

Once we've decided to use profiles, we should make them complete. A complete profile is as likely to promote fairness as damage it.

If I'm carrying a bulky backpack and you look Middle Eastern, and both items belong in the profile -- why should I be stopped and not you? Equality doesn't mean you get a pass or special privileges just because your skin is dark or you appear Middle Eastern.

You might argue that dark-skinned people are a special case, given the way the United States has treated them. I agree -- we have treated them so solicitously, and worked so hard to suppress racial prejudice, that dark- skinned people owe their country the benefit of the doubt.

The United States doesn't deserve gratitude for not doing wrong. But no nation in history has ever worked harder to correct a fault than the United States has to end racial prejudice. We've earned the right to expect everyone who fits a security profile to grin and bear it.

Which doesn't make it any less of a pain to match a profile. As a graduate student traveling alone in early-1980s Europe, I sometimes matched terrorist profiles and got stopped. (In those days, European terrorist groups were bigger problems than Islamic terrorism.) Today, I look like a bearded, troublemaking professor, and I still get stopped occasionally, in airports.

But the fact remains that profiling is logical in loads of circumstances, from deciding who should get flu shots to choosing whom to chat with when you don't know anyone at a party. Profiling means making smart choices when you have nothing but externals to go by.

Good citizenship -- remember that phrase? -- requires that we cooperate with the authorities as they work to head off the next terror attack. John F. Kennedy, a Democrat and the nation's first neoconservative president, put it well: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

How to deal with profiling? Take it like a New Yorker, with a shrug.

- David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard.

[Hmmm... Yale & Murdoch, nice combination huh?]

November 23, 2003 - "It is hard for most people steeped in the humane, liberal values of Western Civilization to understand the massacre of innocents. To slaughter to make a political point. But terrorism is not likely to disappear. Indeed, it is a surprisingly common practice. Although Americans were taken unaware on September 11, many other peoples have long suffered from the murderous attention of domestic and foreign terrorists.

"Terrorism is common, and will persist, because it is a tool of the weak versus the strong, a cheap military weapon to achieve expensive political goals. As long as there are people willing to kill to advance their ends, there will be terrorists." Cato twats

7/7 2005

"If anything can come out of this attack it is perhaps that the leaders of the G8 are together. How will anti-war leaders President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder react to another terrorist attack in Europe? President George Bush was quick to tell G8 Summit media in Gleneagles that "the war on terror goes on." And perhaps for the first time in a while he has the support of the majority of the British people behind him. But it's not the people of UK and US that need to be paying attention, but those in France and Germany. It's time to wake up--Paris and Berlin may well be next."

London Calling

He Researches water policy in developing countries; health policy and endemic diseases in developing countries (AIDS and malaria); international environmental and health agreements (industrial chemicals, climate change, and water); the role of aid agencies and NGOs in developing countries; and genetically-modified organisms and pesticide policy in developing countries. profile

By Michael Rubin, American Enterprise Institute - Thursday, July 7, 2005

No American official has called for invasion nor, despite accusations to the contrary, has there been any proposal to employ the Mujahidin al-Khalq--an organization guilty of terrorism against Iranians, Iraqis and Americans--in pursuit of regime change. The White House nevertheless has a number of policies that could empower Iranians to the point where they win the same rights for themselves that Georgians, Ukrainians, Lebanese and even Bhutanese have in the past year.

A democratic Iran might not abandon its nuclear program, but neither would it sponsor anti-American terrorism, undercut the Middle East peace process or deny Israel's right to exist. Democratization, therefore, can take the edge off the Iranian threat. - AEI