Anwar al Awlaki: The New Osama bin Laden?
THE TELEGRAPH: Anwar al Awlaki, a preacher broadcasting his Islamist ideology in sermons on the internet, is a clear and present danger, says Philip Johnston.

You may not have heard of him before – but this is the new face of international terrorism. His name is Anwar al Awlaki – and unlike Osama bin Laden, who has not been seen in public for many years, he is loud, obvious and very dangerous. If there is an attack any time soon in London or in another Western capital, the chances are that Awlaki will be behind it. The CIA has put him on their hit-list of assassination targets, and in a rare speech on Thursday, Jonathan Evans, the head of MI5, name-checked Awlaki as the West’s Public Enemy No 1.

“The operational involvement of Yemen-based preacher Anwar al-Awlaki with al-Qaeda is of particular concern given his wide circle of adherents in the West, including in the UK,” said Evans.

So, who is Awlaki and why are intelligence agencies so worried about him? To some extent, he is the creation of the West’s success in restraining al Qaeda’s activities in Afghanistan and the lawless borderlands of north-west Pakistan. Bin Laden’s terror organisation, if not exactly beaten, has been scattered. Where, once most of the terrorist plots against Western targets could be traced back to Pakistan (specifically, the tribal areas of Waziristan), the proportion dropped to 75 per cent three years ago and is now down to 50 per cent. The reason is that a lot of al-Qaeda’s foreign fighters, especially the Arabs, have relocated to Somalia or to Yemen – and it is there where Awlaki rules the roost.

But he is not a gun-toting terrorist warlord like bin Laden. Awlaki, 39, is a preacher, broadcasting his Islamist ideology in sermons on the internet. The web gives him a global reach – literally into the bedrooms of disenchanted and gullible young Muslims who may already have been radicalised by an extremist imam or friend. For the intelligence services, this poses a dangerous new threat because it is so hard to keep under surveillance. Plotters meeting can be watched and followed; but if the conspiracy is internet-based, with would-be terrorists acting alone simply because they have heard Awlaki’s call to jihad on their PC, the chances of stumbling upon it are reduced.

The first time that many people heard Awlaki’s name was at the turn of the year. It is said that he recruited and mentored Umar Abdulmutallab, the young African who attempted to blow up a plane carrying hundreds of passengers over Detroit on Christmas Day, by detonating a device in his underpants. However, Awlaki has been on Western intelligence’s radar for some years, as his connections with terrorist plotters, including the September 11 hijackers and the July 7 London bombers, gradually became apparent.

Far from emerging like an Old Testament prophet from the mountains of Arabia, Awlaki is an American citizen. He was born, somewhat incongruously, given his brand of radical Islam, in Las Cruces, New Mexico. His father, a Yemeni, moved there in 1971 with his wife to attend the state university where he received a master’s degree in agricultural economics. In 1978, when Awlaki was seven, the family moved back to Yemen where his father served as agriculture minister. Aged 20, Awlaki returned to the US in 1991 where he studied civil engineering at Colorado State University. He later lived in San Diego, where he obtained an MA in education, and then studied for a doctorate in Washington. Read on and comment >>> Philip Johnston | Friday, September 17, 2010

Philip Johnston: We Need to Consider This: Could Nick Clegg Be Prime Minister?
Are the doors opening for Nick Clegg? Photograph: The Telegraph
THE TELEGRAPH – BLOG: The second televised election debate could be a pivotal event in modern British politics. If Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, performs well and further improves his poll ratings, we could be looking at a totally changed landscape. Instead of musing about the prospect of a Lab-Lib Dem coalition that sustains Gordon Brown in office, we might seriously have to contemplate a Lib Dem win and Clegg himself in Number 10.

The latest opinion polls have the Liberal Democrats on around 33 per cent of the vote, some 10 points ahead of where they normally are. This may be less to do with the party’s policies and more to do with a desire to stick one on the other two parties. But the reasons are less important than the reality of where we are.

In the past, the Lib Dems have found it difficult to pick up support in general elections because it is assumed that in national terms a Lib Dem vote is a wasted vote. David Cameron is playing on this with the Vote Clegg, Get Brown attack. But what if voting Clegg gets Clegg as PM? Once that idea takes hold, what happens then to the Lib Dem vote? >>> Philip Johnston | Wednesday, April 21, 2010

TIMES ONLINE: Prep school, privilege and charm smoothe Clegg’s rise to prominence >>> Sam Coates, Will Pavia | Wednesday, April 21, 2010

THE TELEGRAPH: General Election: the Tories have a fortnight to save themselves from disaster: The nation wants change - and Cameron must show that he's the man to deliver it, says Benedict Brogan. It is customary to wait for the patient to expire before performing the autopsy, but impatience is one of the weaknesses of modern politics, and everyone wants to know why the Tories threw away the election. >>> Benedict Brogan | Wednesday, April 21, 2010

People Must Be Free to Hold Intolerant Views about Homosexuality
THE TELEGRAPH: Ministers seem set on eroding yet another safeguard to our liberty, says Philip Johnston.

An important blow for free speech was struck in the dying hours of the last parliamentary session, despite a desperate rearguard action by the Government to quash it. Ministers wanted to remove a protection inserted into a law, passed only last year, which made it an offence to express hatred of homosexuals. But they were twice beaten back in the Lords and eventually ran out of time.

They may try again in the coming session that starts on Wednesday, the last before the general election.

This story encapsulates much that has been so pernicious about the 12 years of misrule to which the country has been subjected. No one can remember a government returning in the very next session to try to undo something to which it had agreed (albeit reluctantly) in the preceding parliamentary term. The free speech protection was proposed by Lord Waddington, a former Home Secretary. It stated: "For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices, shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

This was done for a purpose. There are too many instances of people being questioned by the police under existing public order legislation for holding views that may be considered offensive or intolerant for yet another measure to be passed without setting out the circumstances in which it is meant to be used. These instances include a grandmother, Pauline Howe, who was visited by two constables because she wrote to her local council to complain about a gay rights march and what she considered a "public display of indecency". She was told she might have committed a "hate crime".

A similar experience befell Joe and Helen Roberts, a Christian couple lectured by Lancashire police on the evils of "homophobia" after criticising gay rights in a letter to Wyre Borough Council. A few years ago, Lynette Burrows, a family campaigner, was the target of a police inquiry after saying on the radio that she did not believe homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the former head of the Muslim Council, had his collar felt, as did the Bishop of Chester for making remarks in a religious context that no sane person could have taken as stirring up hatred against homosexuals. The most preposterous example was the Oxford student who was arrested and threatened with prosecution for calling a police horse gay. >>> Philip Johnston | Monday, November 16, 2009

Time to Speak Up about Britain's Islamists
THE TELEGRAPH: We should not be funding groups who are hostile to our way of life, argues Philip Johnston.

The Government will tomorrow launch a new counter-terrorism strategy, called Contest 2. For those who missed Contest 1, a brief explanation is in order. It has four strands: to protect, to pursue, to prepare and to prevent.

Which of these would you consider the most important? I would hazard a guess that most of us would suggest preventing a terrorist attack happening at all is the most crucial aspect of such a strategy. We should be ready, of course, to resist them; and we should track down those who perpetrate them. We should also protect people with straightforward security measures and with good intelligence. But, if we can stop them happening, that would be best.

So it was somewhat odd that when Gordon Brown outlined this updated approach in a newspaper article yesterday, the "prevent" bit seemed less prominent than one imagined it might be. There was talk about "murderous agents of hate" and of "core al-Qaeda" – spook-speak for the central command that is based in the lawless borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"Terrorists remain intent on inflicting mass casualties without warning, including through suicide bombings," Mr Brown said. Tens of thousands of security guards and store managers have now apparently been "trained and equipped to deal with an incident and know what to watch for" (though this was news to my local shop manager when I went to get the papers yesterday). The strategy will also "address the longer-term causes – understanding what leads people to become radicalised, so we can stop the process". And that was about it for prevent.

There was not a single mention of the undeniable truth that the extremists who will actually carry out atrocities live among us and need to be confronted here and now. According to Mr Brown, "we are developing a strategy to tackle the terrorist threat by tackling the underlying causes, the extremist madrassas and the lawless spaces in which terrorists recruit or train". Not here, mind you, but in Pakistan. His only mention that this may have anything to do with British-based radical Islamism was a reference to "a violent extremist ideology based on a false reading of religion". >>> Philip Johnston | Sunday, March 22, 2009