Category: Archive

Archived material from historical editions of The Generator

  • Deserter life sentences ‘inhuman’

    No increase in severity of punishments will prevent servicemen and women from speaking out
    John McDonnell

    "It’s the life imprisonment that appears to me to be inhuman and barbaric," Mr McDonnell said during debate in the Commons.

    The bill was "really about the war in Iraq", he added, saying the number of "abscondees" in the military had trebled since the invasion.

    "I believe that legislation of this sort will fail," he said.

    "No increase in severity of punishments will prevent servicemen and women from speaking out."

    Instead, he called for a maximum desertion penalty of two years, a proposal opposed by many opposition and Labour MPs.

    Labour’s Harry Cohen agreed that "we should take this opportunity now to get rid of this excessive sentence that can be applied to people who have serious conscientious objections to the war in Iraq".

    Sanction backed

    Nick Harvey, for the Liberal Democrats, said that "in almost all circumstances life imprisonment would be way over the top as a penalty".

    But he said Mr McDonnell’s desire to change desertion from "a serious offence" to one punishable by a maximum two-year sentence "would not be desirable".

    And Labour’s Kevan Jones backed the life sentence sanction, saying there must be controls over people who had made a decision to join the armed forces.

    "We can’t have a pick and choose army where people pick and choose where they do serve," he added.

    Defence minister Tom Watson said there would only be a maximum sentence of life where desertion was "to avoid relevant service".

    That would exclude things like military occupation of a foreign country.

    Relevant service operations would be "the ones which every member of the force needs to have complete confidence in the other members of his unit," he added.

    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/5006638.stm
    Published: 2006/05/22 19:18:04 GMT
    © BBC MMVI

  • A Nation in Chains

    Earlier this month, the International Centre for Prison Studies at King’s College London released its annual World Prison Population List. And there, standing proudly at the head of the line, towering far above all others, is that shining city on the hill, the United States of America. But strangely enough, the Bush gang and its many media sycophants failed to celebrate – or even note – yet another instance where a triumphant America leads the world. Where are the cheering hordes shouting "USA! USA!" at the news that the land of the free imprisons more people than any other country in the world – both in raw numbers and as a percentage of its population?

    Yes, the world’s greatest democracy now has more than two million of its citizens locked up in iron cages: an incarceration rate of 714 per 100,000 of the national population, the Centre reports. The only countries within shouting distance are such bastions of penological enlightenment as China (1.55 million prisoners, plus some unsorted "administrative detainees"), Russia (a wimpy 763,000) and Brazil (330,000), whose exemplary prison management has been on such prominent display this week.

    Inside the Homeland, the state of Texas sets the pace, as you might imagine. During George W. Bush’s tenure there as governor in the 1990s, Texas had the fastest growing prison population in the country, almost doubling the national rate, as the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice reports. In fact, by the time Dubya was translated to glory by Daddy’s buddies on the Supreme Court, one out of every 20 adult Texans were "either in prison, jail, on probation or parole," the CJCJ notes; a level of "judicial control" that reached to one in three for African-American males. George also killed more convicts than any other governor in modern U.S. history as well – a nice warm-up for the valorous feats of mass slaughter yet to come.

    But although the U.S. prison population has soared to record-breaking heights during George W. Bush’s presidency, America’s status as the most punitive nation on earth is by no means solely his doing. Bush is merely standing on the shoulders of giants – such as, say, Bill Clinton, who once created 50 brand-new federal offenses in a single draconian measure, and expanded the federal death penalty to 60 new offenses during his term. In fact, like the great cathedrals of old, the building of Fortress America has been the work of decades, with an entire society yoked to the common task. At each step, the promulgation of ever-more draconian punishments for ever-lesser offenses, and the criminalization of ever-broader swathes of ordinary human behavior, have been greeted with hosannahs from a public and press who seem to be insatiable gluttons for punishment – someone else’s punishment, that is, and preferably someone of dusky hue.

    The main engine of this mass incarceration has been the 35-year " war on drugs": a spurious battle against an abstract noun that provides an endless fount of profits, payoffs and power for the politically connected while only worsening the problem it purports to address – just like the "war on terror." The "war on drugs" has in fact been the most effective assault on an underclass since Stalin’s campaign against the kulaks.

    It was launched by Richard Nixon, after urban unrest had shaken major American cities during those famous "long, hot summers" of the Sixties. Yet even as the crackdowns began, America’s inner cities were being flooded with heroin, much of it originating in Southeast Asia, where the CIA and its hired warlords ran well-funded black ops in and around Vietnam. At home, criminal gangs reaped staggering riches from the criminalization of the natural, if often unhealthy, human craving for intoxication. Ronald Reagan upped the ante in the 1980s, with a rash of "mandatory sentencing" laws that can put even first-time, small-time offenders away for years. His term also saw a new flood – crack cocaine – devastating the inner cities, even as his covert operators used drug money to fund the terrorist Contra army in Nicaragua and run illegal weapons to Iran, while the downtown druglords grew more powerful. The American underclass was caught in a classic pincer movement, attacked by both the state and the gangs. There were no more "long, hot summers" of protest against injustice; there was simply the struggle to survive.

    Under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, the feverish privatization of the prison system added a new impetus for wholesale, long-term detention. Politically-wired corporations need to keep those profit-making cells filled, and the politicians they grease are happy to oblige with "tougher" sentences and new crimes to prosecute. Now Bush Junior is readying another front in the war on the underclass, promising this week to build 4,000 new cells for immigrant detainees this year alone – having prudently handed Halliburton a $385 million "contingency" contract back in February to build, lo and behold, "immigrant detention centers" should the need for them arise, the NY Times reports.

    Like the war on drugs, the equally ill-conceived war on immigrants will be directed at the poorest and most vulnerable, not the "coyote" gangs who profit from this human trafficking – and certainly not the American businesses and wealthy Homelanders who love the dirt-cheap labor of the illegals. Those for-profit prisons will soon be filled to bursting with this new harvest.

    A nation’s true values can be measured in how it treats the poor, the weak, the damaged, the unconnected. For more than 30 years, the answer of the American power structure has been clear: you lock them up, you shut them up, you grind them down – and make big bucks in the process.

    A version of this column appeared in the May 19th edition of The Moscow Times.

    May 23, 2006

    Chris Floyd, Global Eye columnist for the Moscow Times, is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.

    Copyright © 2006 Chris Floyd

     
    Find this article at:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/floyd4.html

  • Fruit of the Poison Tree

    The majority of the people are toiling under the illusion that the moral abyss of American politics can be reformed and made to serve the people as well as the public interest. According to this line of reasoning, the malignancy is principally the result of a few bad apples mixed with the good. If they are correct, then removing the bad apples will affect a cure. Yet that has never been the case and it is not the case now. Otherwise, we would not be where we are today. Consider, for example, that America’s Middle East policy has remained essentially the same as it is today through eleven presidencies, consistently yielding the same results.

    The fault lies in the unfounded belief that the poison tree can somehow bear edible fruit. We lobby for our candidate in the naïve belief that if only the other party can get into office things will improve. During the two plus centuries of the American experiment this has occurred many times. Yet the policy decisions have preserved a remarkable homogeneity down through the years. The policies enacted by both the Democrats and the Republicans have almost always disproportionately benefited the wealthy. They have led us into armed conflicts around the world that have resulted in the death of millions of people in war after war. That is because we are living with Plutocratic rule in which wealth, not we the people, holds sway and determines governmental policy.

    Every aspect of American politics is enacted within the shell of Plutocratic corporate rule. Therefore, the Plutocratic tree will continue to bear the fruit of Plutocracy, regardless of which party is in power. During the past fifty years of the American experiment the difference between Democrat and Republican has become increasingly subtle. In essence there is only one party­that of wealth and privilege. The people and the public good are without meaningful representation in government. There are a number of small opposition parties operating in America but the system precludes them from becoming major players.

    Where does this leave us? It leaves us with the sober realization that what ails America cannot be repaired through mere political reform. The poisonous tentacles of capital have enwrapped every political organ over which it exercises complete dictatorial control. The malignancy of capital is so pervasive and systemic as to require revolution for its removal. Otherwise, things will continue to worsen and our republic will suffer a slow and agonizing death, as we are now witnessing.

    The American government in its various incarnations was not created to serve the interests of the people. It was designed to serve capital and to create wealth for the upper echelon by exploiting the working class and plundering the earth. In fact, it is a voracious predatory crime syndicate devoid of conscience that creates perpetual war while simultaneously pilfering the public treasury. It remains in power only through the collusion of its obedient servant, the commercial media and a disengaged public.

    This continues against a specter of an ever widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, costly foreign invasions and occupations, and extended global hegemony. These policies have resulted in millions of innocent deaths world wide, obscene defense spending and the systematic demise of programs of social and spiritual uplift. Despite numerous changing of the guards things are getting progressively worse­perhaps exponentially.

    Our continued faith in politics and political reform is unwarranted, I contend, given the judgment of more than two hundred years of historical evidence against this thinking. I realize that this is both a sobering and disturbing conclusion. The blunt truth is that social ills cannot be corrected through political reform within the framework of capitalism. Any form of government that serves capital rather than democracy cannot and does not have the interest of the people or the public good at heart.

    If the core problem is capital, as I believe it is, the system cannot be reformed. Capital is by its very nature violent, coercive, oppressive and unjust, as revealed by the historical evidence. This history is particularly poignant in capital’s brutal oppression of organized labor, especially during strikes, and through spreading global militarization.

    Because capital finances and controls the major political parties, it is always assured of both power and control, regardless of which party is in power. Thus capital will never allow meaningful reform that could usurp some of its power and redistribute it among the people. Capital demands complete power and total control over the political process. It will allow no more than minor change within narrow predefined limits that create the illusion of reform. Beyond those limits capital feels threatened and reacts with violent brutality.

    Capital is particularly onerous in that it socializes costs but privatizes profits­an especially insidious form of corporate welfare that is inherently unjust. Long ago the corporate government and the commercial media conspired to create a propaganda empire without equal that keeps the people ignorant and inundated with superfluous lies. Virtually all other industrialized nations have socialized medicine and free higher education for those who seek it. But in America our wealth is plundered in wasteful and repressive militarism, massive corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Is there no hope for us? Yes, there is but it will require much of us; much more than we have been willing to pay for a long time. Revolution, a popular revolt of the people, is the only means by which power can be wrested from the Plutocrats and their corporate pay masters. Corruption never yields power willingly. It must be forced out and social democracy ushered in.

    So the question arises: What form will the revolution take? While peaceful rebellion is the most desirable means to accomplish these ends, capital will most assuredly, as it always does, meet resistance with violence and brutality. Again, history provides bountiful examples.

    According to labor historian James Green, during the thousands of labor strikes that have occurred in this country there were 160 instances in which state and federal militias intervened on behalf of the employers. There is not one instance where the militia intervened to protect workers from the tyranny of their employers. These actions reveal who is running the country and who is making policy. There are well over 700 labor disputes in which striking workers were killed by the police, militias, or the hired guns of industry­all of this within a span of 230 years. These are ultra conservative estimates. It is no coincidence that America, the nucleus of capitalism, is the greatest purveyor of violence of any nation on earth, as Dr. King rightly pointed out.

    The people have two principle options. Either we stay the course and allow the republic to suffocate and die, or we revolt. Bush and his neocon cabal have no fear that the people will stop him. He and his ilk thumb their noses at the law with impunity and the working class people’s struggle to scratch out a decent living. His Plutocratic policies seem to say, “Let the people eat our shit!”

    Whatever course we choose to take it should be evident that there is no easy way out. Either we accept whatever injustice the current regime and its corporate thugs dictate to us, or we refuse to co-operate with them. India’s Gandhi and our own Dr. King lead successful non-violent populist revolutions. Gandhi transformed a nation but Dr. King was assassinated at the pinnacle of the civil rights movement in 1968. Both movements suffered unspeakable brutality and cruelty at the hands of capitalists. Capital will certainly spill our blood. Are we strong enough and courageous enough to do what must be done?

    The time will come when enough people will become sufficiently uncomfortable and disenfranchised that a massive upheaval will inevitably occur, as the chasm between rich and poor widens. As conditions deteriorate, a group of courageous and socially conscious agitators will appear to awaken and arouse the slumbering masses to action. Many of them will be imprisoned and killed for their political beliefs, as has been the historical pattern. But the time will come when either we fight or perish.

    It would be better to act sooner rather than waiting to be motivated by sheer desperation, when are at our weakest and most vulnerable. Let us join a worldwide revolution of the working class that is already under way. We have only to look to Latin America for working models. With iron clad global solidarity the people cannot lose. Divided and fragmented we are doomed.

    We must understand that capital government is right wing government in its purest, most violent and repressive form. It is radically anti-people, anti-earth and anti-democracy. The time has come to uproot the tree that bears the poison fruit.

    Charles Sullivan is a photographer, free lance writer, and a social activist residing in the hinterland of West Virginia. He welcomes your comments at earthdog@highstream.net.

  • Web inventor warns of ‘dark’ net

    An equal net
    The British scientist developed the web in 1989 as an academic tool to allow scientists to share data. Since then it has exploded into every area of life.

    You get this tremendous serendipity where I can search the internet and come across a site that I did not set out to look for
    Tim Berners-Lee
    However, as it has grown, there have been increasingly diverse opinions on how it should evolve.
    The World Wide Web Consortium, of which Sir Tim is the director, believes in an open model.
    This is based on the concept of network neutrality, where everyone has the same level of access to the web and that all data moving around the web is treated equally.
    This view is backed by companies like Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to be introduced to guarantee net neutrality.
    The first steps towards this were taken last week when members of the US House of Representatives introduced a net neutrality bill.

    Pay model
    But telecoms companies in the US do not agree. They would like to implement a two-tier system, where data from companies or institutions that can pay are given priority over those that cannot.
    This has particularly become an issue with the transmission of TV shows over the internet, with some broadband providers wanting to charge content providers to carry the data.
    The internet community believes this threatens the open model of the internet as broadband providers will become gatekeepers to the web’s content.
    Providers that can pay will be able to get a commercial advantage over those that cannot.
    There is a fear that institutions like universities and charities would also suffer.
    The web community is also worried that any charges would be passed on to the consumer.

    Optimism
    Sir Tim said this was "not the internet model". The "right" model, as exists at the moment, was that any content provider could pay for a connection to the internet and could then put any content on to the web with no discrimination.
    Speaking to reporters in Edinburgh at the WWW2006 conference, he argued this was where the great benefit of the internet lay.
    "You get this tremendous serendipity where I can search the internet and come across a site that I did not set out to look for," he said.
    A two-tier system would mean that people would only have full access to those portions of the internet that they paid for and that some companies would be given priority over others.
    But Sir Tim was optimistic that the internet would resist attempts to fragment.
    "I think it is one and will remain as one," he said.

    The WWW2006 conference will run until Friday at the International Conference Centre in Edinburgh.

     
    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/5009250.stm
    Published: 2006/05/23 14:12:40 GMT
    © BBC MMVI

  • The rise of the petro-rouble

    Currently, the central banks around the world carry large stockpiles of dollars to use in their purchases of oil. This gives the US a virtual monopoly on oil transactions. It also forces reluctant nations to continue using the dollar even though it is currently underwritten by $8.4 trillion national debt.

    Putin’s plan is similar to that of Iran, which announced that it would open an oil-bourse (oil exchange) on Kish Island in two months. The bourse would allow oil transactions to be made in petro-euros, thus discarding the dollar. The Bush administration’s belligerence has intensified considerably since Iran made its intentions clear. In fact, just yesterday, Secretary of State Condi Rice said that “security guarantees were not on the table” regardless of any Iranian commitment to stop enriching uranium. In other words, Washington will not provide Iran a “non-aggression pact” whether it follows UN Security Council guidelines or not.

    Surely, this is a sign that Uncle Sam is on a fast-track to war.

    The United States must protect its dollar-monopoly in the oil trade or it will lose the advantage of being the world’s “reserve currency”. As the reserve currency, the US can maintain its towering $8.4 trillion national debt and $800 billion trade deficit without fear of soaring interest rates or hyper-inflation. Trillions of greenbacks are constantly circulating in oil transactions just as hundreds of billions are stockpiled in foreign banks. In effect, the Federal Reserve is issuing bad checks with every dollar printed on the assumption that they will never reach the bank for collection. So far, they’ve been right, and as the price of oil continues to skyrocket, the Fed just keeps cheerily printing more worthless paper sending it to the 4 corners of the earth. Regrettably, if Russia or Iran goes ahead with their conversion plan, then the bad checks will flood back to their source and precipitate a meltdown.

    America’s economic supremacy depends entirely on its ability to compel nations to make their energy acquisitions in greenbacks. If the flaccid dollar is not linked to the world’s most vital resource, then banks will dump it overnight. This extortion-racket is the system we are defending in Iraq, not “democracy”. It is a huckster’s scam designed to perpetuate American debt by forcing worthless currency on the developing world.

    In a recent article by Dave Kimble, “Collapse of the petrodollar looming”, the author provides the details of Russia’s importance to the world oil market.

    “Russia’s oil exports represent 15.2% of the world’s export trade in oil, making it a much more significant player than Iran, with 5.8% of export volumes. Russia also produces 25.8% of the world’s gas exports, while Iran is still only entering this market as an exporter…. Venezuela has 5.4% of the export market.”

    Obviously, it is not in Russia’s interest to trade with its European partners in dollars any more than it would be for the US to trade with Canada in rubles. Putin can strengthen the Russian economy and improve Russia’s prestige in the world as an energy superpower by transitioning to rubles. But, will Washington allow him to succeed?

    A growing number of nations are now focusing on the empire’s Achilles’ heel, the dollar. Venezuela, Russia, Norway and Iran are all threatening to move away from the greenback. Is this a spontaneous uprising or is it a new type of asymmetrical warfare?

    Whatever it is, Washington is bound to be reeling from the affects. After all, war maybe possible with Iran or Venezuela, but what about Russia? Would Bush be stupid enough to risk nuclear Armageddon to protect the drooping dollar?

    The administration is exploring all of its options and is developing a strategy to crush Putin’s rebellion. (This may explain why Newsweek editor and undeclared spokesman for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Fareed Zacharia, asked his guest on this week’s “Foreign Exchange” whether he thought Putin could be “assassinated”?!? Hmmm? I wonder if we’ll hear similar sentiments from Tom Friedman this week?)

    The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the secretive organization of 4,400 American elites from industry, finance, politics, media and the military (who operate the machinery of state behind the mask of democracy) has already issued a tersely worded attack on Putin (“Russia’ Wrong Direction”; Manila Times) outlining what is expected for Russia to conform to American standards of conduct. The missive says that Russia is headed in “the wrong direction” and that “a strategic partnership no longer seems possible”. The article reiterates the usual canards that Putin is becoming more “authoritarian” and “presiding over the rollback of Russian democracy”. (No mention of flourishing democracy in Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan?) The CFR cites Putin’s resistance to “US and NATO military access to Central Asian bases” (which are a dagger put to Moscow’s throat) the banishing of Washington’s “regime change” NGOs from operating freely in Russia (“Freedom Support Act funds”) and Russia’s continued support for Iran’s “peaceful” development of nuclear energy.

    America has never been a friend to Russia. It took full advantage of the confusion following the fall of the Soviet Union and used it to apply its neoliberal policies which destroyed the ruble, crushed the economy, and transferred the vast resources of the state to a handful of corrupt oligarchs. Putin single-handedly, put Russia back on solid footing; taking back Yukos from the venal Khordukovsky and addressing the pressing issues of unemployment and poverty-reduction. He is a fierce nationalist who enjoys a 72% approval rating and does not need the advice of the Bush administration or the CFR on the best path forward for his country.

    The US has purposely strained relations with Russia by putting more military bases in Central Asia, feeding the turmoil in Chechnya, isolating Russia from its European neighbors, and directly intervening in its elections.

    When the G-8 summit takes place next week, we should expect a full-throated attack from the corporate media on Putin as the latest incarnation of Adolph Hitler. Watch the fur fly as the forth estate descends on its newest victim like feral hounds to carrion. (Putin’s announcement that Russia would be converting to rubles HAS NOT APPEARED IN ANY WESTERN MEDIA. Like the Downing Street Memo, the firebombing of Falluja, or the “rigged” 2004 elections, the western “free press” scrupulously avoids any topic that may shed light on the real machinations of the US government)

    Putin’s challenge to the dollar is the first salvo in a guerilla war that will end with the crash of the greenback and the restoration of parity among the nations of the world. It represents a tacit rejection of a system that requires coercion, torture and endless war to uphold its global dominance. When the dollar begins its inevitable decline, the global-economic paradigm will shift, the American war machine will grind to a halt, and the soldiers will come home. Maybe, then we can rebuild the republic according to the lost values of human rights and the rule of law.

    Putin’s plan is set to go into effect on July 1, 2006.

  • Police take anti-war banners

    Mr Haw, who has camped in front of the Houses of Parliament since 2001, was incensed at the "raid" – and said he now intended to go on hunger strike. "It was shocking. I would not have believed they could stoop so low. I thought they going to do it decently, to do it through the courts, when they came like thugs in the night. They have completely destroyed all the expressions of people who opposed the war in Iraq," he said."It seems I am going to die in this place now because I’m going to be fasting and praying. What else can I do as a Christian? They have taken my means of showing people what is going on."

    The battle between police and the 57-year-old protester has been going on for some time. Last July, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force, bringing with it powers to halt demonstrations in Parliament Square and its vicinity, a provision widely seen as having been designed with Mr Haw in mind.

    Mr Haw, in turn, has claimed the restrictions do not apply to him because his demonstration began in June 2001, before the Act became law. But a Court of Appeal hearing this month rejected his argument and refused leave to appeal to the Lords. The court said he would have to apply to the police for authorisation to continue the protest.

    Scotland Yard defended the raid, calling it a partial clearance in response to "continual breaches" of the conditions of the permission imposed on the demonstration. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "This action follows a number of requests to the applicant to adhere to the conditions."

    Human rights and anti-war groups criticised the police for heavy-handedness. David Wilson, of the Stop the War Coalition, said Mr Haw was "hardly a radical revolutionary. He is a Christian who has taken it upon himself to remind politicians that occupation and war mean death and destruction to men, women and children."

    Doug Jewell, campaigns co-ordinator for Liberty, said the raid showed the "Government’s intolerance had reached fever pitch".

    Mr Haw is due to appear before Bow Street magistrates at the end of the month to answer charges of breaching conditions to demonstrate in the square.

    Yesterday his 20-strong group of supporters at Parliament Square said they were more resolute than ever to continue their protest. Barbara Tucker, 44, from Reading, said: "We will replace the placards and just carry on."

    The veteran peace activist Brian Haw was stripped of his anti-war banners and placards by up to 50 police officers in an early-morning raid in Parliament Square yesterday.

    There were chaotic and farcical scenes as police wrestled with nine dishevelled protesters led by Mr Haw, and a 40-metre line of anti-war placards, including two donated by the graffiti artist Banksy, was dismantled and dumped in a metal container. Two demonstrators, Martin McGrath and Maria Gallastegui, who tried to climb the metal container to salvage the placards, were arrested. Mr Haw claimed that officers had seized his "personal belongings" as well, including bedding, clothes and a treasured Bible.

    By yesterday afternoon, the 40-metre protest line had shrunk to three metres, with two small placards remaining. The police presence far outweighed that of the protesters, who included a mime artist bearing a thought bubble with the inscription "free speech".

    Mr Haw, who has camped in front of the Houses of Parliament since 2001, was incensed at the "raid" – and said he now intended to go on hunger strike. "It was shocking. I would not have believed they could stoop so low. I thought they going to do it decently, to do it through the courts, when they came like thugs in the night. They have completely destroyed all the expressions of people who opposed the war in Iraq," he said."It seems I am going to die in this place now because I’m going to be fasting and praying. What else can I do as a Christian? They have taken my means of showing people what is going on."

    The battle between police and the 57-year-old protester has been going on for some time. Last July, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force, bringing with it powers to halt demonstrations in Parliament Square and its vicinity, a provision widely seen as having been designed with Mr Haw in mind.

    Mr Haw, in turn, has claimed the restrictions do not apply to him because his demonstration began in June 2001, before the Act became law. But a Court of Appeal hearing this month rejected his argument and refused leave to appeal to the Lords. The court said he would have to apply to the police for authorisation to continue the protest.

    Scotland Yard defended the raid, calling it a partial clearance in response to "continual breaches" of the conditions of the permission imposed on the demonstration. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "This action follows a number of requests to the applicant to adhere to the conditions."

    Human rights and anti-war groups criticised the police for heavy-handedness. David Wilson, of the Stop the War Coalition, said Mr Haw was "hardly a radical revolutionary. He is a Christian who has taken it upon himself to remind politicians that occupation and war mean death and destruction to men, women and children."

    Doug Jewell, campaigns co-ordinator for Liberty, said the raid showed the "Government’s intolerance had reached fever pitch".

    Mr Haw is due to appear before Bow Street magistrates at the end of the month to answer charges of breaching conditions to demonstrate in the square.

    Yesterday his 20-strong group of supporters at Parliament Square said they were more resolute than ever to continue their protest. Barbara Tucker, 44, from Reading, said: "We will replace the placards and just carry on."