US wants 'exclusion zone' around Bush, says anti-war group

The Independent (U.K.) ^ | 11/12/03 | Kim Sengupta

[Pokey78]

Anti-war protesters claim that US authorities have demanded a rolling "exclusion zone" around President George Bush during his visit, as well as a ban on marches in parts of central London.

The Stop The War Coalition said yesterday that it had been told by the police that it would not be allowed to demonstrate in Parliament Square and Whitehall next Thursday - a ban it said it was determined to resist. The coalition says that it has also been told by British officials that American officials want a distance kept between Mr Bush and protesters, for security reasons and to prevent their appearance in the same television shots.

The Metropolitan Police banned the Parliament Square and Whitehall route by the use of Sessional Orders - which can be enforced for such a purpose when Parliament is in session.

MPs supporting the protests saydemonstrations have been allowed while Parliament was sitting, and, in any case, it was unlikely it will be doing so on the day of the proposed march.

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said yesterday that Mr Bush should not be shielded from public anger about the Iraq war, and Londoners should not have to pick up the £4m policing bill. He said: "To create a situation in which perhaps 60,000 people remain unseen would require a shutdown of central London which is just not acceptable."

It is reported that Mr Bush's entourage will number around 500 with up to 200 members of the security service. The Americans are also said to be bringing a US Marine Corps Sea King helicopter, a Black Hawk helicopter and 15 sniffer dogs.

Organisers say they expect between 50,000 and 70,000 people for the biggest protest against a visiting head of state. Andrew Burgin, of the Anti-War Coalition, said: "We have refused to sign off the agreement over Parliament Square and Whitehall, and we shall certainly also refuse to do so on this whole idea of an exclusion zone." He said: "If there is no agreement by next week, we have a potentially highly risky situation with so many protesters in the centre of London."

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP, said: "[The police] are under pressure from the Americans, and the losers appear to be people of Britain who want to show their opposition to the Iraq war."

George Galloway, the MP expelled from New Labour over his opposition to the Iraq war, said "What makes the whole matter ludicrous is that on Thursday next week, when the main march takes place, we don't think Bush is even going to be in London. We think he will be in Sedgefield with Tony Blair.

"We are not blaming the police. We have had no problem with them in previous marches. In our biggest march we had up to two million people, and the number of arrests was lower than on an average Saturday. But the Metropolitan Police are having to cope with a hidden hand which stretches from Washington via Downing Street. "A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "The security surrounding the Presidential visit is a matter being discussed between the American authorities, the Foreign office and the Home office."

A police source added: "It is perfectly normal to use Sessional Orders to stop demonstrations in certain areas when Parliament is sitting.

"We don't want to stop the public from exercising their legitimate right to protest. We are trying to find a reasonable agreement on this."

[dwd1]

Where is Judge Mills Lane when we really need him?

[facedown]

George Galloway, the MP expelled from New Labour over his opposition to the Iraq war,...

Um, excuse me, he was booted because it was discovered he was on Saddam's payroll, IIRC.

[swilhelm73]

So the the left, criminalizing protestoring on public property is ok - ala FACE - but trying to protect a chief of state who happens to be leading his nation during a war is somehow wrong?

If 60k people show up, how many will be hard core Islamists? 1k? I'd say that is a rather extreme lowball number - and would be a security nightmare of epic proportions... And of course, even excluding the Islamists, doesn't anyone remember what the Euro left in the Netherlands did to Pim Fortuyn?

[WilsonTheDog]

You are correct, facedown. Some folks, in their misguided political views, have a short memory. It's otherwise known as "spin" or "revisionist history".

[ayoshida]

I'm seriously concerned about this visit.

I worked on a novel once which began with an al-Qaeda attack launched under the cover of a massive protest. It would only taken a dozen people in the crowd, seeking to provoke a riot. Once things get a little rough, use the confusion to open fire on a few police officers and to hurl about a few grenades.

Imagine that going on in a crowd of 100,000 or more people on the streets of London, New York, or Washington, DC. The death toll would be high.

And I wonder who would be blamed?

[rickmichaels]

Anti-war protesters claim that US authorities have demanded a rolling "exclusion zone" around President George Bush...

Just like using anti-bacterial soap.

[Jackson Brown]

" ""George Galloway, the MP expelled from New Labour over his opposition to the Iraq war,..."" "

""Um, excuse me, he was booted because it was discovered he was on Saddam's payroll, IIRC.""

No, that is not the "official" reason...at least.

Here is a recent article about Galloway. In short he was kicked out the Labour Party for Making statements detrimental to the Party...including a call for British solders to disobey orders and an "out cry" for the Arab Armies to come and fight (and kill) the British and US troops.

THis guy is more than just a stooge, he is a raving zealot.

BTW -- take a look at the name of the person who is the "favorite" to win his Glasgow district...Mohammed Sarwar.

How attack on 'wolves' caught up with George Galloway
(Filed: 24/10/2003)

Andrew Sparrow on how Galloway's outburst in a TV interview triggered a Labour inquiry.

Labour prides itself on its media monitoring, but George Galloway may have thought that even the party's most determined apparatchiks would never catch up with him when he agreed to do an interview on Abu Dhabi TV.

The Left-wing MP has a high profile in the Middle East. He has been a passionate pro-Arab campaigner since the days when, as a young Labour activist, he arranged for the Palestinian flag to fly over the town hall in Dundee. In the spring, as one of the most outspoken critics of the invasion of Iraq, he was in frequent demand as a television commentator.

Mr Galloway speaks eloquently as he denounced Tony Blair and George Bush, and his performance on March 28 was a vintage one.

"They have lied to the British Air Force and Navy, when they said the battle of Iraq would be very quick and easy. They attacked Iraq like wolves.

"They attacked civilians. They encountered resistance from Iraqi forces and Iraqi people who are defending their dignity, religion and country."

More controversially, he appeared to incite other Arab nations to attack the Western invaders. "Iraq is fighting for all the Arabs. Where are the Arab armies?"

Doubtless it all went down well in Abu Dhabi. And that might have been the end of it were it not for the fact that two days later Mr Galloway's words appeared all over The Sun under the headline "MP blasted over 'kill Brits' call".

The Sun is not known for its Abu Dhabi coverage and Mr Galloway believes the paper received a transcript of his remarks from a Government source. The story was widely followed up, and, according to Labour sources, dozens of people contacted party headquarters to complain about his remarks.

Three weeks later, with the war over, Mr Galloway's comments came up again when The Sun was granted an exclusive interview with Mr Blair.

"His comments were disgraceful and wrong. The National Executive will deal with it," said Mr Blair, in words that Mr Galloway cited yesterday as evidence that the party had already made up its mind to force him out.

At this stage Labour had not even suspended Mr Galloway. That meant he was still an official party member on April 22, four days after the Sun carried its Blair interview, when The Telegraph carried a story based on reports purporting to show that Mr Galloway received money from Saddam Hussein's regime. Mr Galloway has denied the claims and is suing the Telegraph for libel.

The Telegraph story is not directly relevant. Labour did not use it as part of its evidence against the MP and the party accepts that he has the right to try to clear his name in the courts.

But, interestingly, it was not until May 6, after the Telegraph story, that Labour decided to suspend Mr Galloway pending an investigation into whether his remarks on Abu Dhabi TV were in breach of party rules.

The key allegation was that Mr Galloway had been inviting the slaughter of British troops and that this was against rule 2A.8 of the party rule book which says: "No member of the party shall engage in conduct which in the opinion of the national constitutional committee (NCC) is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NCC is grossly detrimental to the party."

Mr Galloway's remarks were open to The Sun interpretation, but in the Abu Dhabi interview the MP also made it clear that he never really expected a pan-Arab uprising against the British and American forces.

"Even if it is not realistic to ask a non-Iraqi army to come to defend Iraq, we see Arab regimes pumping oil for the countries who are attacking it," he said, implying that what he was really interested in was a fuel embargo.

Mr Galloway also claimed that he was on the side of the British troops, whom he described in Parliament as "lions" led by "donkeys".

As well as the "inciting Arabs to kill British troops" charge, Mr Galloway was also accused of committing three other "grossly detrimental" acts: urging Plymouth voters to reject Labour MPs (at a public meeting in January); urging British troops to disobey orders, or "illegal orders" as he described them (on the ITV news in April); and threatening to stand against Labour as an independent (on Newsnight, in April).

After Mr Galloway was suspended, a fifth charge was levelled against him: backing an anti-war candidate in Preston.As one of the most articulate voices on the far Left, Mr Galloway has been an embarrassment to the Labour establishment for years and there is no doubt that Mr Blair has been keen to get rid of him for some time.

By coincidence, Mr Galloway's Glasgow Kelvin constituency will disappear in boundary changes at the next election. He would like to represent the new Glasgow Central seat (which has a large Muslim population).

When Mr Galloway arrived for his disciplinary hearing this week, he knew that if he was cleared he would still be in time to fight Mohammed Sarwar, the favourite, for the Glasgow Central nomination.

The hearing was conducted by three members of the NCC, an independent body set up to "try" party members being "prosecuted" by Labour headquarters for disciplinary offences. The NCC was set up in 1986, when Labour was expelling Militant, to make its disciplinary procedures legally robust.

The Labour Party's case was presented by Chris Lennie, the party's deputy general secretary. His trickiest moment apparently came when he was discussing the "illegal orders" remark, and Mr Galloway asked him repeatedly whether it was Labour's position that troops should obey illegal orders.

After Mr Lennie presented his case on Wednesday, Mr Galloway and his legal team presented their defence yesterday. He finished at lunchtime and, two hours later, was called back to be told that the NCC had found against him on four of the five charges and that he was expelled "forthwith".

The only offence on which he was found not guilty was the one relating to the public meeting in Plymouth.

Afterwards, with his customary verbal flair, he claimed that the judgment had been "written in advance in the best traditions of political show trials". He said that he might challenge the decision in the courts and he floated the idea of triggering a by-election to embarrass Labour.

In normal circumstances MPs who are expelled from their party end up being forced out of Parliament. Historically it has been very difficult to win as an independent.

But Mr Galloway can point to an encouraging precedent in Scotland. Dennis Canavan, a high-profile Left-winger, thought his career was over when he failed to be selected as a Labour candidate for the Scottish Parliament. But he stood as an independent in 1999, won, and he is still sitting as an MSP.

If Abu Dhabi TV need to interview a loquacious parliamentarian, it is quite possible they could be ringing Mr Galloway for many years to come.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/24/ngall124.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/10/24/ixnewstop.html

[WoofDog123]

"And I wonder who would be blamed?"

In the Airfield One's capital, there are cameras EVERYWHERE. I would expect it to be virtually impossible to do something like that and not have video documentary of it from various angles. Great Britain is survellance-camera-happy and not afraid to brag about it.

"Secure beneath the watchful eyes"

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/002285.html