...until someone gets the point.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Monday, February 06, 2006
Don't go round there!
Get Me Tickets has gone into insolvency. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Their company address is listed as being here:
5, Denmark Street
London WC2H 8LU
UK.
This is a map of the location:
Streetmap Link
From the GMT Website after the Beeb lifted the lid on the dubious practices last March...
"Regarding the situation, Michael Rangos, Managing Director of Getmetickets.net, observed: 'Getmetickets.net is extremely proud of its excellent service, the devotion of it staff and its reputation as the 'front row specialists'. While we would have preferred to be able to provide tickets for the Glastonbury Festival this year, we consider it in the best interests of the Festival that we take these steps. The huge percentage of returning satisfied customers amongst our exquisite clientele is a unique testament to the company's reliability, professionalism and authenticity. It is to be hoped that BBC Watchdog's inaccurate reporting will be retracted and a more balanced, accurate portrayal of the company be presented in due course.'
Getmetickets.net continues to provide premium priced 'front row' or 'hard-to-get' tickets for most 'sold out' events via its website www.getmetickets.net or the hotline 020 7240 9999.
For further information:
Getmetickets.net
Michael Rangos
Managing Director
71 Endell Street
London WC2H 9AJ"
Furthermore, their domain admin contact is:
James Barrington-Brown (my, aren't we posh?)
and his phone number is: +44 (0) 870 474 8888
Not that I'm suggesting that you -
a) Go round there
b) call JBB up and let him know he's fronting for scheisters.
because that would be wrong.
Their company address is listed as being here:
5, Denmark Street
London WC2H 8LU
UK.
This is a map of the location:
Streetmap Link
From the GMT Website after the Beeb lifted the lid on the dubious practices last March...
"Regarding the situation, Michael Rangos, Managing Director of Getmetickets.net, observed: 'Getmetickets.net is extremely proud of its excellent service, the devotion of it staff and its reputation as the 'front row specialists'. While we would have preferred to be able to provide tickets for the Glastonbury Festival this year, we consider it in the best interests of the Festival that we take these steps. The huge percentage of returning satisfied customers amongst our exquisite clientele is a unique testament to the company's reliability, professionalism and authenticity. It is to be hoped that BBC Watchdog's inaccurate reporting will be retracted and a more balanced, accurate portrayal of the company be presented in due course.'
Getmetickets.net continues to provide premium priced 'front row' or 'hard-to-get' tickets for most 'sold out' events via its website www.getmetickets.net or the hotline 020 7240 9999.
For further information:
Getmetickets.net
Michael Rangos
Managing Director
71 Endell Street
London WC2H 9AJ"
Furthermore, their domain admin contact is:
James Barrington-Brown (my, aren't we posh?)
and his phone number is: +44 (0) 870 474 8888
Not that I'm suggesting that you -
a) Go round there
b) call JBB up and let him know he's fronting for scheisters.
because that would be wrong.
Friday, February 03, 2006
So, just run that past me one more time, would you?
Jack Straw Showing Dismay over the 'Mohammed Cartoon' RowJack 'Weasel' Straw has chimed in on the "Cartoons Provoke The Wrath of Allah" debate/outrage/storm in a teacup. Never one to miss a bandwagon onto which he is singularly unfit to jump onto, *cough*Uzbekistan*cough*Human Rights*cough*, Janus Jack has let it be known that he finds it 'disrespectful' for European media organisations to be re-printing these cartoons.
Well, fuck him. He was elected (sadly) in the U.K., and even though his brief is the foreign affairs desk, other countries, let alone their media have absolutely no reason to listen to him and his whining.
Shaykh Ibhrahim Mogra, from the Muslim Council of Britain:
"Muslims will respect the rights of others to choose a way of life for themselves or a religion. But at the same time we reserve the right to disagree most emphatically with those lifestyles, just as others have a right to disagree with our lifestyle. This is the most offensive thing - even the vilification of God is not as offensive as this," he said.
So burning Danish flags, surrounding foreign embassies at gunpoint, that's 'respect', is it? BBC
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Happy Happy Joy Joy
And the hits just keep on coming.
So, it would now seem that freedom of the press is a relative thing in France these days.
So, a big 'Well Done' to Raymond Lakah, whose fearless stand on this issue shows that Western European press can't be bullied.
Ooops - sorry, got that wrong - instead, sack the guilty party, and let's all move on; despite the fact that the journos on the paper all came out in support of the fallen hack.
And, lest we forget, surrounding the EU offices in Gaza over the publication of a few cartoons isn't an over-reaction. Oh, no.
And of course, destroying 1,600 year-old statues isn't racial vandalism at it's lowest, then I really don't know.
Let's see how long Saudi Arabia manages to maintain it's embargo in Danish-produced insulin.
It's a good thing that strict Muslims don't touch alcohol, as I suspect an embargo on French Champagne might be a bit of a tricky one to enforce.
So, it would now seem that freedom of the press is a relative thing in France these days.
So, a big 'Well Done' to Raymond Lakah, whose fearless stand on this issue shows that Western European press can't be bullied.
Ooops - sorry, got that wrong - instead, sack the guilty party, and let's all move on; despite the fact that the journos on the paper all came out in support of the fallen hack.
And, lest we forget, surrounding the EU offices in Gaza over the publication of a few cartoons isn't an over-reaction. Oh, no.
And of course, destroying 1,600 year-old statues isn't racial vandalism at it's lowest, then I really don't know.
Let's see how long Saudi Arabia manages to maintain it's embargo in Danish-produced insulin.
It's a good thing that strict Muslims don't touch alcohol, as I suspect an embargo on French Champagne might be a bit of a tricky one to enforce.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
The Devil makes work for idle Cartoonists
Tolerence, a sorely undervalued concept - well in some places, at least.
Freedom of the press? Well, yes, but within limits.
Al Jazeera - the 'fury' of Muslims across the world after two different European publications printed a bunch of not-especially-good cartoons; Firstly was the Danish publication Jyllands-Posten, who are now receiving bomb threats, death threats and more besides. Now, in a wonderfully 'fuck you' kind of stylee, France Soir has decided to reprint the cartoons under the winner of a headline 'Yes, we have the right to caricature God'.
Serge Faubert, the editor, seems to need to brush up on his diplomatic skills, bless him - "Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots! There is nothing in these incriminated cartoons that intends to be racist or denigrate any community as such, some are funny, others less so. That's it. That is why we have decided to publish them."
So far, Saudi Arabia, that bastion of free-speech and human rights (but that doesn't matter, because Dubya likes the royals there) has gotten the right hump about the matter, withdrawing their ambassador from Denmark, and doubtless France is going to be next, as well as threatening all kinds of retaliation.
And, just in case you don't have access to today France Soir, here's a choice selection of these cartoon gems*
*They're not all that good, but this just rather goes to prove the point.
Other Top Stories this hour:
On Dec. 2, 3,000 Muslims gathered at the Jamia Mosque in Sangia Hill and called for the elimination of Christians and the public hanging of a Christian accused of blasphemy.
Last year, on Oct. 29th, a group of unidentified machete-wielding assailants attacked a group of girls, on their way to class at a private Christian high school in Indonesia, beheading three of them and seriously wounding a fourth, police said.
Well, I don't necessarily have a bacon sandwich every morning, but this seems a bit strong.
** Update: The Danish Embassy in Syria had to be evacuated due to a bomb threat. Reuters
*** Another Update: Die Welt Online have finally got some of the images up on t' web. As well as a good comment piece. The German's NUJ bloke didn't seem to keen on the idea of the reprint, though.
Freedom of the press? Well, yes, but within limits.
Al Jazeera - the 'fury' of Muslims across the world after two different European publications printed a bunch of not-especially-good cartoons; Firstly was the Danish publication Jyllands-Posten, who are now receiving bomb threats, death threats and more besides. Now, in a wonderfully 'fuck you' kind of stylee, France Soir has decided to reprint the cartoons under the winner of a headline 'Yes, we have the right to caricature God'.
Serge Faubert, the editor, seems to need to brush up on his diplomatic skills, bless him - "Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots! There is nothing in these incriminated cartoons that intends to be racist or denigrate any community as such, some are funny, others less so. That's it. That is why we have decided to publish them."
So far, Saudi Arabia, that bastion of free-speech and human rights (but that doesn't matter, because Dubya likes the royals there) has gotten the right hump about the matter, withdrawing their ambassador from Denmark, and doubtless France is going to be next, as well as threatening all kinds of retaliation.
And, just in case you don't have access to today France Soir, here's a choice selection of these cartoon gems*
*They're not all that good, but this just rather goes to prove the point.
Other Top Stories this hour:
On Dec. 2, 3,000 Muslims gathered at the Jamia Mosque in Sangia Hill and called for the elimination of Christians and the public hanging of a Christian accused of blasphemy.
Last year, on Oct. 29th, a group of unidentified machete-wielding assailants attacked a group of girls, on their way to class at a private Christian high school in Indonesia, beheading three of them and seriously wounding a fourth, police said.
Well, I don't necessarily have a bacon sandwich every morning, but this seems a bit strong.
** Update: The Danish Embassy in Syria had to be evacuated due to a bomb threat. Reuters
*** Another Update: Die Welt Online have finally got some of the images up on t' web. As well as a good comment piece. The German's NUJ bloke didn't seem to keen on the idea of the reprint, though.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Diary of a Somebody
Bless him, he's an angst-ridden student of 19 years...
And he's having a terrible time of it. Don't believe me? Check it out.
And he's having a terrible time of it. Don't believe me? Check it out.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
Oh, Mr Straw......... Could you take a look at this please?
Ooops, those swissies have got it!
But, just in case you don't speak Swiss-German, here's a Googled translation, which is a bit rubbish, bit I'll clean it up later.
***
CIA scandal
US torture Camps:
The proof!
SANDRO BROTZ AND BEAT JOST
11.01.2006 | 12:37:16
It is the first proof: The Americans operate secret torture prisons in Europe. That comes out from a fax between the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs and its message in London. The message was intercepted by Swiss secret service - and is present Sundays view.
US Foltercamp Guantanamo: More again "world standard" in things of human rights?
The hearing action
As Swiss agents fished the Egyptian fax from the ether
In the middle in the night the first sparks light falls on a dark history. It is short 15 November 2005, before half two. The hearing center Swiss of the Ministry of Defense (VBS) in room forest, a few kilometer south of Berne, schnueffelt as used and strictly according to regulation. The satellite listening system onyx is fully locked also in this night. The secret service operating surgeon with the contraction wbm writes at the "report COMINT SAT" with the order number S160018TER00000115.
Knows wbm, what for an explosive message he transfers in this night for its bosses of the guidance support basis (FUB) of the army into the French (see accompanying facsimile)?
In space, sent secretly from a satellite to the earth the message was intercepted five days before: on 10 November at 20.24 o'clock. It is a fax, which is exchanged between the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs Ahmed Aboul Gheit (63) in Cairo and its Ambassador in London. The title, which Swiss agents set over the message: "the Egyptians have sources, which confirm the existence of American secret prisons." In accordance with Swiss secret service RWS haven report the Egyptians literally: "the message experienced from own sources that actually 23 Iraqi and Afghan citizens on the base Mihail Kogalniceanu in the proximity (Romanian; Anm. D Talk. ) City Constanza at the black sea were cross-examined. There are similar centercenter centers in the Ukraine, in the Kosovo, in Macedonia and Bulgaria." Is continued to announce that according to a newspaper report the human right organization has human Rights Watch proofs, in accordance with which "on 21 and 22 September 2005 prisoners with American military aircraft by the basis Salt pit in Kabul to the Polish base Szymany and the Romanian base specified above were transported". Explicitly the Egyptians note: "the Romanian responsible persons deny defiance of all quoted facts further the existence of secret prisons, in which the American secret service of members of aluminium Kaida cross-examines. The official rejections of the Romanians were taken up positively by the speaker of the European delegation."
The sensation
For the first time a state confirms that it knows from the existence of CIA Secret Prison Camps in Europe
That fax of the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs is hardly to be over-bid at explosiveness: A state has knowledge of secret CIA prisons on European soil. So-called open SOURCES (publicly accessible sources) are not the basis for that like newspaper articles or reports of Nichtregierungsorganisationen like human Rights Watch. In the available case it concerns "own sources", as it means in the fax. The work of the Egyptian secret service is estimated of experts, who do not want to be called in particular, as "high-professionally". Intelligence realizations from Cairo are generally called "absolutely reliably and reliably" in the industry of the Schlapphuete. The Egyptian Ambassador in Berne did not want to express itself on request of Sundays view to fax traffic. To hand to him out the document the editorship does not correspond to its request. On demands, whether he deny the authenticity of the document, he did not want to express himself.
Which only assumes the whole world so far, could be confirmed by the Egyptian sources: The USA kidnap, hide and cross-examine in the war against the terror systematically their prisoners. "we used neither airports nor the air space in Europe in order to bring persons to places, where they were tortured", said the US Foreign Minister Condoleezza Rice (51) approximately one month ago when meeting the NATO ministers of foreign affairs in Brussels. Which did not say it: That it does not give prisons or no transportation.
The Schweiger
Army general Christophe saucy ice needs 48 hours, until he reacts
Total explanation state of emergency prevails now also in the German Parliament Buildings - since Sundays view confronted on Wednesday the army point with questions to its own Schnueffelrapport. How is the army secret service added to spy on a friendly state? Were Secretaries of Defense Samuel Schmid (59) informed, Foreign Minister me LINE Calmy Rey (60) and Minister of Justice Christoph Blocher (65) about important contents of the message? Did the business test delegation (GPDel) of the Swiss federal advice responsible for the secret services receive from it knowledge? Was the paper passed on to the US secret service or other states, how should have been usual with Onyx messages?
48 hours elapse, until army general Christophe saucy ice (60) reacted. The questions of the Sundays view were not answered, communicated the commander of corps on Friday categorically. One inform in detail however the GPDel. Their president, SVP Staenderat Hans Hofmann (66, ZH), avowedly on Friday afternoon on request, it does not have a knowledge of the explosive procedure. Nevertheless Hofmann rates the exposure spontaneously as "indiscretion specialsame".
Radio silence also at the independent control instance (UKI) to the monitoring of the radio clearing-up. Their members - three high-ranking officials out defense -, law and traffic Ministry - all orders for radio clearing-up must examine in accordance with the regulation over the electronic war guidance. With insufficient legal standard the control instance can request the order stop at the federal advice Samuel Schmid (VBS), responsible for the respective intelligence service, or Christoph Blocher (law and police section, EJPD).
Also was order for Egypt, possibly even its attitude examined required? The UKI chairman professor Luzius Mader, vizedirektor in the Federal Office for law, rejects the answer of questions: "for the public information about the activity of the UKI the VBS is responsible." In addition, it means there: NO COMMENT. Schmid speaker Jean Blaise Defago: "the VBS does not express itself to the questions."
The consequences
VBS boss Samuel Schmid introduces an administrative investigation
Hektik, nervousness, concealing: The excitement in Berne is understandable. At the most three to four people get those of hearing report in the original to read. Important messages are converted to confidential reports, which hushes up and masks sources purposefully.
"that the procedure with the Egyptian fax now becomes public, is a disaster", says a high-ranking secret service Insider. "I would have gone thereby to cord TRACKS to Federal President at that time Samuel Schmid, that as a VBS boss of chairmen of the federaladvisable safety committee am."
Whether and when Schmid informed its both Upper House of Parliament colleagues in the safety committee (SiA), like a state secret is guarded. The VBS is not silent itself over it out, Calmy Reys State Department says anything to it and also the Ministry of Justice of Christoph Blocher blocks off. EJPD speaker Sascha Hardegger: "we take in addition no position."
Stand firmly as only, push VBS speaker Defago after that Upper House of Parliament Schmid will introduce an administrative investigation for indiscretion, how the secret paper could arrive at the public.
The Ermittler
Which international experts to the exposures say
May a newspaper publish secret documents over possible CIA prisons? On this question the UN special correspondent about the torture, the Viennese says right professor Manfred Nowak (55): "no question, naturally. There a public interest exists "(see interview, page 7). "that is a Scoop", says thickly Marty (61), Sonderermittler of the Council of Europe in the CIA affair and FDP condition advice. Under the reservation that it is not possible him to examine the authenticity of the document it admits klipp and clearly: "it is an additional indication for something, which we already assumed." The truth comes now "out by the piece". Ex-Mafiajaeger Marty, which examines the CIA affair for two months, requests the governments: "finally the truth says. in this thing"
But, just in case you don't speak Swiss-German, here's a Googled translation, which is a bit rubbish, bit I'll clean it up later.
***
CIA scandal
US torture Camps:
The proof!
SANDRO BROTZ AND BEAT JOST
11.01.2006 | 12:37:16
It is the first proof: The Americans operate secret torture prisons in Europe. That comes out from a fax between the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs and its message in London. The message was intercepted by Swiss secret service - and is present Sundays view.
US Foltercamp Guantanamo: More again "world standard" in things of human rights?
The hearing action
As Swiss agents fished the Egyptian fax from the ether
In the middle in the night the first sparks light falls on a dark history. It is short 15 November 2005, before half two. The hearing center Swiss of the Ministry of Defense (VBS) in room forest, a few kilometer south of Berne, schnueffelt as used and strictly according to regulation. The satellite listening system onyx is fully locked also in this night. The secret service operating surgeon with the contraction wbm writes at the "report COMINT SAT" with the order number S160018TER00000115.
Knows wbm, what for an explosive message he transfers in this night for its bosses of the guidance support basis (FUB) of the army into the French (see accompanying facsimile)?
In space, sent secretly from a satellite to the earth the message was intercepted five days before: on 10 November at 20.24 o'clock. It is a fax, which is exchanged between the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs Ahmed Aboul Gheit (63) in Cairo and its Ambassador in London. The title, which Swiss agents set over the message: "the Egyptians have sources, which confirm the existence of American secret prisons." In accordance with Swiss secret service RWS haven report the Egyptians literally: "the message experienced from own sources that actually 23 Iraqi and Afghan citizens on the base Mihail Kogalniceanu in the proximity (Romanian; Anm. D Talk. ) City Constanza at the black sea were cross-examined. There are similar centercenter centers in the Ukraine, in the Kosovo, in Macedonia and Bulgaria." Is continued to announce that according to a newspaper report the human right organization has human Rights Watch proofs, in accordance with which "on 21 and 22 September 2005 prisoners with American military aircraft by the basis Salt pit in Kabul to the Polish base Szymany and the Romanian base specified above were transported". Explicitly the Egyptians note: "the Romanian responsible persons deny defiance of all quoted facts further the existence of secret prisons, in which the American secret service of members of aluminium Kaida cross-examines. The official rejections of the Romanians were taken up positively by the speaker of the European delegation."
The sensation
For the first time a state confirms that it knows from the existence of CIA Secret Prison Camps in Europe
That fax of the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs is hardly to be over-bid at explosiveness: A state has knowledge of secret CIA prisons on European soil. So-called open SOURCES (publicly accessible sources) are not the basis for that like newspaper articles or reports of Nichtregierungsorganisationen like human Rights Watch. In the available case it concerns "own sources", as it means in the fax. The work of the Egyptian secret service is estimated of experts, who do not want to be called in particular, as "high-professionally". Intelligence realizations from Cairo are generally called "absolutely reliably and reliably" in the industry of the Schlapphuete. The Egyptian Ambassador in Berne did not want to express itself on request of Sundays view to fax traffic. To hand to him out the document the editorship does not correspond to its request. On demands, whether he deny the authenticity of the document, he did not want to express himself.
Which only assumes the whole world so far, could be confirmed by the Egyptian sources: The USA kidnap, hide and cross-examine in the war against the terror systematically their prisoners. "we used neither airports nor the air space in Europe in order to bring persons to places, where they were tortured", said the US Foreign Minister Condoleezza Rice (51) approximately one month ago when meeting the NATO ministers of foreign affairs in Brussels. Which did not say it: That it does not give prisons or no transportation.
The Schweiger
Army general Christophe saucy ice needs 48 hours, until he reacts
Total explanation state of emergency prevails now also in the German Parliament Buildings - since Sundays view confronted on Wednesday the army point with questions to its own Schnueffelrapport. How is the army secret service added to spy on a friendly state? Were Secretaries of Defense Samuel Schmid (59) informed, Foreign Minister me LINE Calmy Rey (60) and Minister of Justice Christoph Blocher (65) about important contents of the message? Did the business test delegation (GPDel) of the Swiss federal advice responsible for the secret services receive from it knowledge? Was the paper passed on to the US secret service or other states, how should have been usual with Onyx messages?
48 hours elapse, until army general Christophe saucy ice (60) reacted. The questions of the Sundays view were not answered, communicated the commander of corps on Friday categorically. One inform in detail however the GPDel. Their president, SVP Staenderat Hans Hofmann (66, ZH), avowedly on Friday afternoon on request, it does not have a knowledge of the explosive procedure. Nevertheless Hofmann rates the exposure spontaneously as "indiscretion specialsame".
Radio silence also at the independent control instance (UKI) to the monitoring of the radio clearing-up. Their members - three high-ranking officials out defense -, law and traffic Ministry - all orders for radio clearing-up must examine in accordance with the regulation over the electronic war guidance. With insufficient legal standard the control instance can request the order stop at the federal advice Samuel Schmid (VBS), responsible for the respective intelligence service, or Christoph Blocher (law and police section, EJPD).
Also was order for Egypt, possibly even its attitude examined required? The UKI chairman professor Luzius Mader, vizedirektor in the Federal Office for law, rejects the answer of questions: "for the public information about the activity of the UKI the VBS is responsible." In addition, it means there: NO COMMENT. Schmid speaker Jean Blaise Defago: "the VBS does not express itself to the questions."
The consequences
VBS boss Samuel Schmid introduces an administrative investigation
Hektik, nervousness, concealing: The excitement in Berne is understandable. At the most three to four people get those of hearing report in the original to read. Important messages are converted to confidential reports, which hushes up and masks sources purposefully.
"that the procedure with the Egyptian fax now becomes public, is a disaster", says a high-ranking secret service Insider. "I would have gone thereby to cord TRACKS to Federal President at that time Samuel Schmid, that as a VBS boss of chairmen of the federaladvisable safety committee am."
Whether and when Schmid informed its both Upper House of Parliament colleagues in the safety committee (SiA), like a state secret is guarded. The VBS is not silent itself over it out, Calmy Reys State Department says anything to it and also the Ministry of Justice of Christoph Blocher blocks off. EJPD speaker Sascha Hardegger: "we take in addition no position."
Stand firmly as only, push VBS speaker Defago after that Upper House of Parliament Schmid will introduce an administrative investigation for indiscretion, how the secret paper could arrive at the public.
The Ermittler
Which international experts to the exposures say
May a newspaper publish secret documents over possible CIA prisons? On this question the UN special correspondent about the torture, the Viennese says right professor Manfred Nowak (55): "no question, naturally. There a public interest exists "(see interview, page 7). "that is a Scoop", says thickly Marty (61), Sonderermittler of the Council of Europe in the CIA affair and FDP condition advice. Under the reservation that it is not possible him to examine the authenticity of the document it admits klipp and clearly: "it is an additional indication for something, which we already assumed." The truth comes now "out by the piece". Ex-Mafiajaeger Marty, which examines the CIA affair for two months, requests the governments: "finally the truth says. in this thing"
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Deja Vu? Let's bloody well hope so...
OK, now what sounds familiar here?
Sunday October 30th, 2005: No. 10 gives full support to David Blunkett
Wednesday November 2nd, 2005: Blunkett resigns
annnnnnddddd......
Thursday, January 12th, 2006: Kelly receives full backing of No. 10
So, does this mean we only have to wait until Monday to be rid of the Opus Dei member voice-like-a-mysteron-freak-from-hell?
Sunday October 30th, 2005: No. 10 gives full support to David Blunkett
Wednesday November 2nd, 2005: Blunkett resigns
annnnnnddddd......
Thursday, January 12th, 2006: Kelly receives full backing of No. 10
So, does this mean we only have to wait until Monday to be rid of the Opus Dei member voice-like-a-mysteron-freak-from-hell?
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
"....Just a Little Bit"
Well, who would have thought it? New Labour caught with their pants down once more, courtesy of Mr T Ireland.
Much respeck'
Much respeck'
Friday, December 30, 2005
The woodwork squeaks - out come the freaks
[Note attached image aligned to the right...]
Some fool called Kevin Aylward (from the land of the people who brought you Guantanemo Bay and Extraordinary Rendition, as well as carpet bombing Iraqis) feels somewhat aggrieved (you can look it up here, Kevin) at Craig Murray's publishing activities. Not that it is any of his business, frankly. Oh well, just ignore him and he'll go away - hopefullly.
Is it me, or do his eyes seem a little scary?
He has no vested interests in trying to question the credibility of Craig's arguments, naturally. Oh, no - you'd be a cynic and a traitor to suggest such a thing.
What's that you say, a conniving right wing self-publicist who sets up Blog Award competitions himself only in order to win them? I'm sure he loves his Mum really - but not in that way, no.
PS - What kind of a name is Charlie Quidnunc, anyhow?
Well done Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque has a (what he calls) a nearly real time RSS feed of stories relating to Craig Murray and Uzbekistan. Keep an eye on how fast this is spreading ;-)
Go here.
Go here.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
This Just in... (The return of lying Jack Straw)
Courtesy of the venerable Mr Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads. This concerns the ongoing lies and mistruths being spread by Blair & Straw.
We - in Cheeseland - are happy to help in any way we can.
And the source from Perfect.co.uk here.
Copied text begins:
These documents reveal a very specific list of concerns expressed by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and how our government responded.
At first, they attempted to dismiss the concerns. When Craig Murray pressed them on the matter, they sought to dismiss *him*: Link to BBCi story
You may also wish to note that - in recent statements regarding extraordinary rendition - both Straw and Blair echo Craig Murray's concerns that using intelligence gained by torture is 'morally, legally and practically wrong'.
They do this while claiming to be unaware of any actual instance of torture, but they can only continue to do so while Murray remains gagged.
The writing was on the wall during the 2005 General Election when Craig Murray, standing as an independent candidate in Straw's constituency of Blackburn, was excluded from a public debate. It wasn't until Murray was forcibly removed from the building that Jack Straw felt confident enough to deliver the following answer to this question:
Constituent: "This question is for Mr Straw; Have you ever read any documents where the intelligence has been procured through torturous means?"
Jack Straw: "Not to the best of my knowledge... let me make this clear... that the British government does not support torture in any circumstances. Full stop. We do not support the obtaining of intelligence by torture, or its use."
You may also wish to read/hear the most recent denial from Tony Blair, who claims here that "I've never heard of such a thing. I can't tell you whether such a thing exists - because, er - I don't know." Blairwatch Article
Well they *do* know, because Craig Murray *told* them.... and Uzbekistan is only part of the big picture.
Unlike other European countries, the UK is in a unique position in that, through the UK/US Intelligence Sharing Agreement, the CIA and MI6 pool all their material. So-called intelligence comes not just to Bush, but to Blair and Straw from the torture chambers of countries including Syria, the Gambia, Egypt, Uzbekistan and Morocco. Tony Blair and Jack Straw have lied about their use of intelligence gained by torture and their awareness of the practice of torture. They will be allowed to continue these lies if the following information is suppressed.
Copy and paste this text into a new document. Save it to your hard drive. Make a back-up and send to a friend.
And then post a copy to your website.
Use this timeline for added context if you wish (for added illumination, compare the treatment of Craig Murray to that of David Blunkett, who was allowed to leave office - and then return! - 'without a stain on his character'): More on this.
Legally, Blair and Straw are on extremely shaky ground here. Morally, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Show it, prove it, share it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts
16 September 02
SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism
SUMMARY
US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.
DETAIL
The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record". I agree.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.
Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.
Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.
Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.
The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.
But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.
Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.
This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years - but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.
I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and that Karimov is on "our" side.
If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary - the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.
We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.
Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.
MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)
To FCO
18 March 2003
SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY
SUMMARY
1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.
DETAIL
2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.
3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.
4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid - more than US aid to all of West Africa - is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He - and they - are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?
5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).
6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.
7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.
MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Transcript of facsimile sent 25 March 2003 from the Foreign Office]
From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD
Linda Duffield
UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.
2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:
"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."
3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.
[signed]
M C Wood Legal Adviser
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #3
CONFIDENTIAL
FM TASHKENT (Ambassador Craig Murray)
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 63 OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
SUMMARY
1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.
2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.
3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.
DETAIL
4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.
5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.
6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.
7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.
8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.
9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true - the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.
10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact
11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."
While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.
12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless - we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.
14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.
15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.
16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.
17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this.
18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.
19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.
MURRAY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
copied text ends.
So, what do you make of all that, then?
No, don't worry - that smell is the self-combusting trousers Jack Straw is currently sporting.
We - in Cheeseland - are happy to help in any way we can.
And the source from Perfect.co.uk here.
Copied text begins:
These documents reveal a very specific list of concerns expressed by Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and how our government responded.
At first, they attempted to dismiss the concerns. When Craig Murray pressed them on the matter, they sought to dismiss *him*: Link to BBCi story
You may also wish to note that - in recent statements regarding extraordinary rendition - both Straw and Blair echo Craig Murray's concerns that using intelligence gained by torture is 'morally, legally and practically wrong'.
They do this while claiming to be unaware of any actual instance of torture, but they can only continue to do so while Murray remains gagged.
The writing was on the wall during the 2005 General Election when Craig Murray, standing as an independent candidate in Straw's constituency of Blackburn, was excluded from a public debate. It wasn't until Murray was forcibly removed from the building that Jack Straw felt confident enough to deliver the following answer to this question:
Constituent: "This question is for Mr Straw; Have you ever read any documents where the intelligence has been procured through torturous means?"
Jack Straw: "Not to the best of my knowledge... let me make this clear... that the British government does not support torture in any circumstances. Full stop. We do not support the obtaining of intelligence by torture, or its use."
You may also wish to read/hear the most recent denial from Tony Blair, who claims here that "I've never heard of such a thing. I can't tell you whether such a thing exists - because, er - I don't know." Blairwatch Article
Well they *do* know, because Craig Murray *told* them.... and Uzbekistan is only part of the big picture.
Unlike other European countries, the UK is in a unique position in that, through the UK/US Intelligence Sharing Agreement, the CIA and MI6 pool all their material. So-called intelligence comes not just to Bush, but to Blair and Straw from the torture chambers of countries including Syria, the Gambia, Egypt, Uzbekistan and Morocco. Tony Blair and Jack Straw have lied about their use of intelligence gained by torture and their awareness of the practice of torture. They will be allowed to continue these lies if the following information is suppressed.
Copy and paste this text into a new document. Save it to your hard drive. Make a back-up and send to a friend.
And then post a copy to your website.
Use this timeline for added context if you wish (for added illumination, compare the treatment of Craig Murray to that of David Blunkett, who was allowed to leave office - and then return! - 'without a stain on his character'): More on this.
Legally, Blair and Straw are on extremely shaky ground here. Morally, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Show it, prove it, share it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts
16 September 02
SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism
SUMMARY
US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.
DETAIL
The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record". I agree.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.
Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.
Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.
Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.
The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.
But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.
Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.
This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years - but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.
I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and that Karimov is on "our" side.
If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary - the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.
We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.
Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.
MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent (Ambassador Craig Murray)
To FCO
18 March 2003
SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY
SUMMARY
1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.
DETAIL
2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.
3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.
4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid - more than US aid to all of West Africa - is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He - and they - are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?
5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).
6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.
7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.
MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Transcript of facsimile sent 25 March 2003 from the Foreign Office]
From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD
Linda Duffield
UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.
2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:
"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."
3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.
[signed]
M C Wood Legal Adviser
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #3
CONFIDENTIAL
FM TASHKENT (Ambassador Craig Murray)
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 63 OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
SUMMARY
1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.
2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.
3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.
DETAIL
4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.
5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.
6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.
7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of Eastern Department.
8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.
9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true - the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.
10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact
11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."
While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.
12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless - we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.
14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.
15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.
16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.
17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this.
18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.
19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.
MURRAY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
copied text ends.
So, what do you make of all that, then?
No, don't worry - that smell is the self-combusting trousers Jack Straw is currently sporting.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Just to help out the Foreign Secretary
Some notes you may well have forgotten to pop in your diary:
“Iraq poses a threat to the world because of its manufacture and development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Jack Straw, 24 March 2002
“What we are talking about is chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and anthrax - 10,000 litres of anthrax - that he [Saddam] has.”
Jack Straw, 17 March 2003
“If Saddam Hussein does ... readmit the weapons inspectors and allow them to do their job... then the case for military action recedes to the point almost of invisibility and that is obvious.”
Jack Straw, 15 September 2002
“I have every confidence - and I have expressed that confidence - in the weapons inspectors ... As long as this regime is in place, and as long as it is refusing to co-operate, the inspection process becomes well-nigh impossible.”
Jack Straw, 17 March 2003
“Never once did I come to this House and say that I believed that we should not give the weapons inspectors more time because I did not think that they were going to get any more co-operation than they had had in the past.”
Jack Straw, 27 November 2003
And some (as ever) helpful clarification from Donald Rumsfeld:
“We know where [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
30th March 2003
“Iraq poses a threat to the world because of its manufacture and development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Jack Straw, 24 March 2002
“What we are talking about is chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and anthrax - 10,000 litres of anthrax - that he [Saddam] has.”
Jack Straw, 17 March 2003
“If Saddam Hussein does ... readmit the weapons inspectors and allow them to do their job... then the case for military action recedes to the point almost of invisibility and that is obvious.”
Jack Straw, 15 September 2002
“I have every confidence - and I have expressed that confidence - in the weapons inspectors ... As long as this regime is in place, and as long as it is refusing to co-operate, the inspection process becomes well-nigh impossible.”
Jack Straw, 17 March 2003
“Never once did I come to this House and say that I believed that we should not give the weapons inspectors more time because I did not think that they were going to get any more co-operation than they had had in the past.”
Jack Straw, 27 November 2003
And some (as ever) helpful clarification from Donald Rumsfeld:
“We know where [the WMDs] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
30th March 2003
Jack Attack
Jack Straw enjoys a 'personal request' from a junior White House advisor
So, our old chum Jack ‘Jet Set’ Straw knows nothing about CIA flights transporting Terror Suspects through the U.K.
His now famously selective memory obviously needs a little jogging, or at least a gentle stroll. The Clinton administration asked (according to ‘Serpent’ Straw) asked three times for such rendition to take place. BTW – I’m with Sandi Toksvig on this, when she asked ‘Isn’t rendition that bobbly stuff you used to put on walls in the 70s?’
Maybe he's trying to put into practise (or indeed re-promote) his moving text given to the Prison Reform Trust 'Making Prisons Work', assuming, of course, that the new edition includes the sub-header 'Well, Secret Ones For Your Politically Expediant Allies, at least'
Meanwhile, the ACLU in the U.S. says "the [CIA] has broken both US and international law." - It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.
Let’s see how that little gem of a case works out.
Meanwhile it would seem that the Blair/Straw/Rest of the Cabinet brown-nosed stance to the Bush administration and their catalogue of ongoing atrocities in their Guantanemo Bay illegal prison in Cuba, torturing at Abu Graib, etc etc etc are now keen to go into major damage limitation on the evidently thorny (for them) topic of extraordinary rendition. Condo-Leaser Rice has been dispatched over to Yoorp to play the bully boy to EU countries and reminding them of their duty to support the ‘war’ on terror.
But Straw is by no means out of the woods yet. Oh no. Diego Garcia is going to be troubling the Janus Straw in the not-too-distant, of this we can be sure.
It would seem that, according to the Guardian:
“Straw is also facing calls to allow MPs and human rights groups access to Diego Garcia, the British island in the Indian Ocean being used as a US military base. It has long been suspected that the island has been used to hold or transfer terror suspects to secret US jails."
And as if this isn’t enough to keep the little poodle busy, one of his Ambassadors has fucked up in the diplomacy stakes, this time it’s on Poland.
Whheeeeeee! Watch him spin his way out of this one. The twat.
Git of the Day
I thought I’d be doing something on Jack Straw today, as I am usually gripped by the blood-rage whenever I hear his snivelling lying whine issue forth my radio in the morning afore setting off to work; But no, I have some other grist for the mill. Albeit rather fatty and unwholesome grist. Yes, step forward Richard Miniter, erstwhile journalist for the New York Times and novelist. NYT not being a laudable source of balanced valuable information I’ll grant you, but Mr Minit has made his home there, as well as publishing such gems as ‘Disinformation – 22 Media Myths that undermine the War on Terrorism’, and ‘Shadow War – The untold story of how Bush is winning the war on terror’. The second of those I’d really like to read, as a) I need a good laugh, and b) Sure some Einsteinian law may be under severe attack if he honestly believes he can stretch the facts that far.
Mind you, the ‘Bio’ section of his own website, and you start to get the picture of where this clown comes from, idealogically, at least.
Pop facts, people:
So Rummy & Cheney are off the hook eh, Dick? That is your name, isn’t it – Dick?
Mind you, the ‘Bio’ section of his own website, and you start to get the picture of where this clown comes from, idealogically, at least.
Pop facts, people:
Miniter's latest book is entitled 'Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror'. Based on exclusive interviews and official documents, the book challenges many widely-held notions: that Bin Laden was trained or financed by the CIA in the 1980s, that Halliburton profiteered in Iraq, that profiling Arabs at airports would stop terrorism, and that the U.S.-Mexico border is an open door for Al Qaeda.
So Rummy & Cheney are off the hook eh, Dick? That is your name, isn’t it – Dick?
Friday, December 09, 2005
Latest Speech by Blair*
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. . . . Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
*Well, not actually Blair - but Hermann Goering in 1946. Don't half sound alike though, don't they? If not in actual words, then most certainly in deeds.
*Well, not actually Blair - but Hermann Goering in 1946. Don't half sound alike though, don't they? If not in actual words, then most certainly in deeds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)