Yearly archives: 2006


Minister admits ‘rendition’ planes used RAF bases

By Richard Norton-Taylorn in The Guardian

‘ Government breaks silence on CIA flights

‘ Aircraft landed at Brize Norton and Northholt

The government last night admitted for the first time that aircraft suspected of being used by the CIA to transport detainees to secret interrogation centres had landed at British military airfields.

After months of refusing to answer questions from MPs or the media, it disclosed that two aircraft known to have been chartered by the CIA landed 14 times at RAF Northholt, west London, and RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire between October 2003 and May 2004.One aircraft, a Boeing 737, was registered N313P, the other, a Gulfstream, was initially registered N379P and later as N8068V.

The flights were disclosed by Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, in a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell, newly elected leader of the Liberal Democrats. Last week, the Liberal Democrats threatened to report the minister to the parliamentary ombudsman if he continued to refuse to answer detailed questions about flights suspected of being used for “extraordinary rendition” – the practice of sending detainees to camps where they were at risk of being tortured.

(more…)

View with comments

Dahr Jamail Follows the Trail of Torture

From TomDispatch

The other day on Jerry Agar’s radio show, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to accusations about American atrocities at our prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He accused the detainees there of manipulating public opinion by lying about their treatment. He said, in part:

“They’re taught to lie, they’re taught to allege that they have been tortured, and that’s part of the [terrorist] training that they received. We know that torture is not occurring there. We know that for a fact? The reality is that the terrorists have media committees. They are getting very clever at manipulating the media in the United States and in the capitals of the world. They know for a fact they can’t win a single battle on the battlefields in the Middle East. They know the only place they can win a battle is in the capitol in Washington, D.C. by having the United States lose its will, so they consciously manipulate the media here to achieve their ends, and they’re very good at it.”

Statements like this have been commonplaces from an administration whose President repeatedly insists it doesn’t do “torture,” while its assembled lawyers do their best to redefine torture out of existence. Here’s how, for instance, our Vice President has described the lives of detainees at Guantanamo Bay: “They’re living in the tropics? They’re well fed. They’ve got everything they could possibly want. There isn’t any other nation in the world that would treat people who were determined to kill Americans the way we’re treating these people.”

(more…)

View with comments

Embedding Torture as Policy from Guantanamo to Iraq

By Dahr Jamail writing from Tom Dispatch

They told him, “We are going to cut your head off and send you to hell.”

Ali Abbas, a former detainee from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, was filling me in on the horrors he endured at the hands of American soldiers, contractors, and CIA operatives while inside the infamous prison.

It was May of 2004 when I documented his testimony in my hotel in Baghdad. “We will take you to Guantanamo,” he said one female soldier told him after he was detained by U.S. forces on September 13, 2003. “Our aim is to put you in hell so you’ll tell the truth. These are our orders — to turn your life into hell.” And they did. He was tortured in Abu Ghraib less than half a year after the occupation of Iraq began.

While the publication of the first Abu Ghraib photos in April 2004 opened the floodgates for former Iraqi detainees to speak out about their treatment at the hands of occupation forces, this wasn’t the first I’d heard of torture in Iraq. A case I’d documented even before then was that of 57 year-old Sadiq Zoman. He was held for one month by U.S. forces before being dropped off in a coma at the general hospital in Tikrit. The medical report that came with his comatose body, written by U.S. Army medic Lt. Col. Michael Hodges, listed the reasons for Zoman’s state as heat stroke and heart attack. That medical report, however, failed to mention anything about the physical trauma evident on Zomans’ body — the electrical point burns on the soles of his feet and on his genitals, the fact that the back of his head had been bashed in with a blunt instrument, or the lash marks up and down his body.

Such tales — and they were rife in Baghdad before the news of Abu Ghraib reached the world — were just the tip of the iceberg; and stories of torture similar to those I heard from Iraqi detainees during my very first trip to Iraq, back in November 2003, are still being told, because such treatment is ongoing.

(more…)

View with comments

The Lancet publishes research on government under-reporting of British casualties in Iraq

Click to visit The Lancet

The highly regarded medical research journal, The Lancet, has published an analysis of government under-reporting of British casualties in the Iraq war. The research was conducted by Professor Sheila Bird of the MRC Biostatistics Unit at Cambridge, and illustrates the difficulties in trying to obtain accurate information from the government. It also confirms that casualty figures are almost certain to be much higher than stated by John Reid, the Minister of Defence.

For comment and further analysis go here

View with comments

Beyond Abu Ghraib – lessons still not learnt

Amnesty International have issued a new report on detainee abuse by coallition and Iraqi army units in Iraq.

Click to read the full report

From Reuters AlertNet

LONDON, March 6 (Reuters) – Amnesty International condemned the detention in Iraq of around 14,000 prisoners without charge or trial, saying on Monday the lessons of the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal had not been learned.

“As long as U.S. and U.K. forces hold prisoners in secret detention conditions, torture is much more likely to occur, to go undetected and to go unpunished,” Amnesty’s U.K. Director Kate Allen said. In a 48-page-report entitled “Beyond Abu Ghraib”, the London-based human rights group called for an end to the internment, which it said contravened international law.

“After the horrors of life under Saddam and then the fresh horror of U.S. prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, it is shocking to discover that the multinational forces are detaining thousands of people without charge or trial,” Allen said. “Not only have there been recent cases of prisoners being tortured in detention, but to hold this huge number of people without basic legal safeguards is a gross dereliction of responsibility on the part of both the U.S. and U.K. forces.”

Amnesty highlighted the case of Kamal Muhammad, also known as Abdullah Al-Jibouri, who it said was a 43-year-old father of 11 held without charge by U.S. forces for over two years. “His brother reports that he has received insufficient food and has lost some 20 kilos in weight in prison,” Amnesty said.

It said over 200 detainees had been imprisoned for more than two years and nearly 4,000 for over a year. “There are chilling signs that the lessons of Abu Ghraib have not been learnt,” Allen said. “Not only prisoners being held in defiance of international law, but the allegations of torture continue to pour out of Iraq.”

Human rights activists and others have often criticised the United States over its treatment of prisoners in Iraq, where it is holding around 30 times as many prisoners as it is at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The U.S. military says it has a policy against torture, but has acknowledged using interrogation techniques that include placing detainees in stress positions. In the Abu Ghraib scandal, U.S. soldiers were pictured sexually humiliating prisoners and menacing them with dogs at the jail near Baghdad.

View with comments

Sunday morning and still angry

Sky News has a viewers’ vote which shows 88% believe that Tessa Jowell should resign. However they have two guests to discuss the issue with Adam Boulton. One was her friend and former ministerial colleague Baroness Jay and the other her junior minister! They are featuring nobody who thinks she should resign.

The BBC is still worse. The streamer under BBC News 24 regularly tells us that the separation is not a ploy to save her political career. I listened to Radio 4, watched Andrew Marr’s political programme and BBC New 24 from 9.55 to 10.40. Not a single critic of Jowell has appeared on the BBC, even though it is the headline story on all these outlets. They are simply deluging us with pro-Jowell propaganda.

For anyone who ever doubted the existence of the “Establishment”, this is a real lesson. The views of the people can’t get on to the media at all.

View with comments

Impeach Blair

Yet more scandalous reporting from the BBC. They are saying that anti-war protestors are up in arms because Blair said that “God will judge him for his decision to go to war in Iraq.”

That is a deliberate twisting of what Blair said into a more favourable light. I too believe God will judge Blair: the poor bastard has really got it coming in the hereafter. Blair actually said that “Others” were involved in the decision to go to war. When Parkinson pressed him, he confirmed that he was referring to God.

Saying that “God decided we should go to war” is very different from saying “God will judge my actions.”

We know that Blair and Bush had decided to attack Iraq before 9/11. We know they prayed together when they took that decision. We know they pushed on illegally once the UN wouldn’t back them, despite their lies on WMD. We know they killed scores of thousands of Iraqis, and life is a living hell for many millions still living. We know of the pointless sacrifice of the lives of our own troops.

Blair doesn’t just need to be brought down, he needs to be brought to justice. Even before God gets his hands on him.

View with comments

If Fred and Rosemary West Had Separated, Would That Have Made Them Innocent?

BBC – Tessa Jowell splits from husband

The latest move in the Jowell scandal is the most cynical bit of media manipulation. Tearful Tessa, lower lip trembling, eyes welling, torn apart from the man she loves. Altogether now: Aaah! But wait – there is hope. The couple need time to “rebuild” their relationship. So they will get back together after all, in a happy reconciliation, probably just after the local elections.

Who could be so stupid as to buy this crap? Well, the BBC has been reporting it all morning without the tiniest touch of irony. Even the saintly Martin Bell was wheeled out to say that Tessa is now out of the woods.

This answers none of the questions about the money laundering and the corrupt payment she has already received, and is plainly a ploy to divert attention from the continual lies she has told about her involvement in the family finances. Her story yesterday wouldn’t stand up to a moment’s genuine scrutiny – so let’s divert the scrutiny.

It is as if Fred and Rosemary West had said: “OK, we’ve separated now. We’ll see if we can rebuild our relationship. So there is no longer any need to dig up the garden or the cellar.”

View with comments

Everyone has regrets: An interview with Craig Murray

An interview with Craig Murray published in February in The Courier

There are some things Craig Murray still feels guilty about even though they weren’t his fault. The biggest regret of the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan is having dinner with a professor of literature who disagreed with his Government’s use of torture.

”While we were eating, the Government kidnapped the man’s 17-year-old grandson and tortured him to death. They immersed his hand in boiling liquid until the flesh came off, smashed his knees and elbows then killed him with a blow to the head and dumped his body.

”That had a pretty profound effect on me. I knew it wouldn’t have happened if I hadn’t agreed to meet his grandfather.” This is just one of many grim tales Craig Murray collected in his two-year stint in Uzbekistan before his opposition to the US ally’s brutal methods brought his career to an end.

Norfolk-born Craig (47) studied history at Dundee University and was students’ association president for two years before starting with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s diplomatic service in 1984.

He started working in Africa and still considers himself an African specialist. The British Government’s view towards the continent changed dramatically over the two decades of his career, he says. ”The ANC was regarded as a terrorist organisation and Margaret Thatcher branded Nelson Mandela a terrorist. But then she was also against the reunification of Germany, and history just overtook her.

”It does sound strange, but the Tories were much more accepting of discussion and dissent than New Labour are. Under New Labour you aren’t allowed to disagree or express dissent. ”There were some good people in New Labour, though. I got on very well with Robin Cook. ”

After a stint in Nigeria, Craig worked in Cyprus and Poland before returning to Africa where he oversaw the 2000 election in Ghana, which was won by the opposition. ”I stood guard on the election building in case government soldiers came and tried to destroy the ballot papers. I was awake for 48 hours.

”I was the go-between between the government and opposition and I guess I must have done well because they said, we’re going to make you an ambassador, would you like to go to Uzbekistan? And I said yes-then got an atlas to find it!”

Within a few days of moving to the former Russian state, Craig began to feel a sense of disquiet. ”If you haven’t lived in a truly totalitarian state before it’s very hard to describe. They had all the control of the Soviet Union with several layers of brutality added.

”People told me it was like being back in the time of Stalin. The capital city, Tashkent, has 40,000 uniformed policemen and God knows how many plain clothes officers. People are encouraged to spy on their neighbours.”

Although the two countries have since fallen out, Uzbekistan was a staunch US ally at that time and seen as a vital part of the war on terror. The US base there was used to launch strikes into Afghanistan and the Americans wanted to make the base permanent.

The barely-tapped oil and gas reserves also had US energy companies drooling, in particular ill-fated energy giant Enron. Therefore, the abuses of President Islam Karimov’s dictatorship Government were tolerated and, as Craig was to find out, anyone who shouted too loudly about them would feel the full force of the British and US governments’ displeasure.

One of the harshest lessons in the realities of totalitarian politics occurred just two weeks into Craig’s deployment in Uzbekistan. ”There were two guys in Jaslyk Gulag, which was a notorious prison in the middle of the desert. No roads lead into it, you need a four-wheel-drive to get there.

”They were boiled to death and the body of one of them was delivered to his mother in a sealed casket. The mother was instructed to bury the body the next day and not to open the casket. They sent a guard to ensure this happened. ”But the guard fell asleep during the night and she sneaked past him and got the body out on the kitchen table. She took a lot of very detailed pictures.”

The pictures taken by this brave woman made their way to Craig’s hands and he sent them to the pathology lab at Glasgow University. ”Their report showed the guy’s fingernails had been ripped out and he was beaten about the face.

”He died from immersion in boiling liquid. They said you could tell because of the tide mark on his chest.”

Matters escalated after another horrific act by Karimov’s regime, this time closer to home.

”There was a lady who lived opposite me. Our homes are separated by a narrow lane. She was beaten up in the lane itself by Government militia. They broke her legs then they poured paint in her mouth-all because they said she was a dissident. She was a woman in her 50s, for God’s sake! And a friend of mine.”

This tale, horrible as it might seem to us, is a standard event in Uzbekistan. ”It’s estimated the Government has at least 10,000 political and religious prisoners. They’re torturing people on the most massive scale and in the most brutal ways you can possibly imagine.

”People were being killed or put in the Gulag for years. It was all very overt.”

Craig began to feel he couldn’t stand by and accept this sort of barbarity as a commonplace event. He gave a speech calling on Uzbekistan to end its use of torture. ”The Foreign Office were a bit sniffy about it, but the Americans were really hacked off. The very next day they started telling journalists I was an alcoholic.”

So began a very difficult time for Craig, when huge pressure was brought to bear on him. Ironically, Craig found he had quite a lot of influence in Uzbekistan because few people ever stood up against the Government.

Back at home it was a different story, though. The Foreign Office ordered him back to London and hauled him over the coals. ”I was told that they’d made a general decision that because we’re in a war on terror we’re now going to start accepting information that’s obtained by torture. ”I was told I was being unpatriotic.”

According to Craig, the Foreign Office levelled a series of 18 allegations against him, including charges that he was an alcoholic who gave out visas in return for sex. They told Craig to resign as ambassador of Uzbekistan and offered to send him to Copenhagen instead. The alternative was to have these allegations investigated further.

”I told them to sod off. That threw them, but they were all snooty Oxbridge types and I’d gone to Dundee. I wasn’t about to throw in the towel.” During this time, Craig had a nervous breakdown. It took him three months to recover from it.

The threatened investigation went ahead and Craig was exonerated on all 18 allegations. ”For 16 of them, there was no evidence at all. The other two went to a hearing at which I was found not guilty. ”So they told me I could keep my job, but I was banned from entering my own embassy.”

Craig continued in his job as best he could and continued to speak out against the use of torture, but his position was becoming increasingly untenable. After a memo alleging the British Government accepted torture evidence was leaked to the Press, his career was effectively over.

He took early retirement in February 2005 and has devoted the last year to campaigning against the war in Iraq, extraordinary rendition and the UK’s alleged use of torture evidence.

He’s also written a book, Murder in Samarkand (the city where the dissident’s grandson was killed). The book is due out in June, although the Government has tried to ban it and are threatening to sue. Craig and Edinburgh-based Mainstream Publishing have decided to publish and be damned, however.

”We’ve decided they can take us to court if they want to. I’m very worried and jaded about the direction our Government is taking. I think we’re losing sight of the things that make us civilised.”

View with comments

A Guantanamo prisoner talks to the BBC

The BBC has interviewed an inmate of Guantanamo Bay via his lawyer.

Following the interview reconstruction US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, Colleen Graffy, tries to justify the indefensible to an exasperated John Humphries. A must listen!

The interviews can be heard here Radio interviews

View with comments

Invest in a TESSA

The Guardian’s editor Alan Rusbridger still tries to defend his personal friend Tessa Jowell. From today’s Guardian Leader:

“Ms Jowell has been acquitted by a questionable procedure. That does not make her guilty; a less questionable procedure would very likely acquit her too.”

Oh yes. A genuinely independent judge would have no difficulty believing that her husband did not tell her for four years that he received a $600,000 gift, or that she saw nothing to indicate the mortgage had been paid off. Or that when she then remortgaged the same house again – twice – it did not occur to her that this would not be a problem if, as she claims, she believed the first mortgage had not been paid off.

Let me rephrase my “Does anyone believe her?” question. Does anyone believe her except Alan Rusbridger and Michael White? We all wait for Polly Toynbee’s article entitled “Money laundering is OK if you have a peg on your nose.”

(I suppose I ought to explain that. At the last general election, Polly Toynbee’s Guardian column urged voters to vote New Labour but to show their disapproval of the illegal war on Iraq by wearing a peg on their nose while they did it.)

Craig

View with comments

Italy and Poland still under suspicion over CIA ‘Secret prison’

By Daniel Dombey in the Financial Times

Italy and Poland have failed to dispel suspicions that they have broken European law by colluding with the US over “secret prisons” and extra-legal abductions, the 46-nation Council of Europe said yesterday.

The human rights watchdog said the two countries had failed to give clear answers to questions about their possible involvement in illegal activities by foreign intelligence agencies. Council of Europe member states are legally bound to respond to such inquiries.

“I would have expected both of them to use the opportunity to clear the air,” said Terry Davis, Council of Europe secretary-general.

(more…)

View with comments

U.S.-Italian relations “on the line” in Italian CIA extradition case

From Forbes.com

Italy’s justice minister accused prosecutors Thursday of pressuring him to request the extradition of purported CIA operatives accused of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric on a Milan street in 2003.

The prosecutors have accused 22 Americans of kidnapping the cleric, Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, a terrorist suspect also known as Abu Omar. They contend he was snatched by the CIA and spirited away to a U.S.-Italian air base, flown to Germany and then to Egypt, where he says he was tortured.

The operation is believed to be part of the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” strategy to transfer terrorism suspects to third countries where some allegedly are subject to torture.

(more…)

View with comments

Who actually believes this?

I now learn that Tessa Jowell not only claims that she did not know that her husband had received $600,000, but did not know that her own mortgage had been paid off.

I simply do not believe her. Let me be perfectly plain. I am calling her a liar. Go on, sue me.

I recently paid off my mortgage. That involves paperwork. It also involves the deeds of the house being sent from the mortgage company. This is a very careful and important transaction, and the mortgage company will make absolutely certain that it has the agreement of all parties to the mortgage as to where the deeds are being sent. Paying off a mortgage in your name is simply not the sort of thing you can miss happening.

Presumably she also didn’t notice for four years she wasn’t receiving any mortgage statements.

Who does believe her? I should be most grateful if anyone who does believe her could sign in and leave a comment. In fact, please sign in and tell me whatever you think. (I am sorry about the signing in, but it isn’t painful and has reduced the porno spam in which we would otherwise be drowning).

One last thought. If you do believe her, do you think that a woman who does not know if her own home is mortgaged or not, who does not know her family income within the odd 600 thousand dollars or so, is a sensible person to put in charge of an Olympic Games?

View with comments

I thought I had heard it all

Sir Gus O’Whitewash has ruled. Tessa Jowell did not break the rules because for four years David Mills did not tell her he had received what he then believed was a gift of $600,000.

How nice it must be to be so fabulously wealthy that a gift of $600,000 is so unimportant to you that you do not even bother to mention it to your partner!

Actually, I have a lot of experience of the very rich, and they are much more obsessed with money than the poor, and certainly talk about it more. I just don’t believe Jowell.

This is particularly true as the money was used to pay off a large remortgage which she herself had just taken out. She is now saying that she didn’t have any idea, or apparently ask, where all the money to pay off the mortgage came from.

There is also a peculiar bit of reasoning by Sir Gus O’Whitewash. Jowell alleges that she did not know about the money for four years, and by that time tax was paid for it, so it had become earnings, not a gift.

Actually, that doesn’t follow. If you receive a large cash gift it is still classed as income, and taxable.

Of course, what we still do not know, is who this money came from, and why. If it did not come from Berlusconi or from another illegitimate source, show us the paper trail. It is inconceivable that such a large sum from any legitimate source is not documented.

That money was used to pay off a mortgage which was 50% in Jowell’s name. So to accept it is only her husband’s business is simply nonsense.

Whitehall’s whitewash has become so watery as to cover up nothing.

View with comments

Ambassador memoirs put UK officials on edge

'Colourful comic' Steve Coogan

From Greatreporter.com

Few things sell a film better than intrigue and curiosity. Good news for director Michael Winterbottom. Bad news for the British government…

Winterbottom has just optioned Murder in Samarkand, the as-yet unpublished memoirs of Britain’s former Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray. The interest is heightened by Winterbottom’s seemingly odd assertion that the book is “very, very funny” and his proposed casting of the colourful comic Steve Coogan as the ousted ambassador.

For a book that contains descriptions of torture, ranging from people being boiled alive to those who had their children beaten to a pulp in front of them while they are chained upside-down, this surely has to be seen to be believed.

Murray’s book, which, court-wrangles permitting, will make his denunciations of the government’s foreign policy available from bookshops everywhere in June, alleges complicity on the part of Number 10 and the Foreign Office with the torture and corruption Mr Murray claims he witnessed while on duty in the former Soviet state.

Murray is now a prominent critic of Western policy in the region.

The government has, of course, denied the allegations, and is threatening legal action on the grounds of libel, Crown Copyright, breach of confidence and the Official Secrets Act.

Following the relative ease with which the memoirs of Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain’s erstwhile ambassador to the US, made it into the public domain last November, it is rumoured that attempts to block Murder in Samarkand’s publication will be especially forceful.

This is eminently credible, but more because Murray’s book is primed to be rather more damaging to the people who would have it censored, than because of any feeling of ‘missing out’ last time. But with a film now due, attempts to obstruct Murray’s book could well backfire, generating publicity the publishers, would no doubt be delighted with.

Partners in Crime

Like Mr Murray, Mr Winterbottom is no stranger to controversy.

His latest film, The Road to Guantanamo, which premiered at the Berlin Film Festival in February, tells the story of three British Muslims who were held in the infamous American naval base for two years before being released in March 2004.

The film made the headlines not just for its content, but also because when the actors returned to Luton airport from Berlin, six of them were stopped and questioned under the Terrorism Act.

It is something prospective actors for ‘Murder’ might want to bear in mind when work starts on the film in 2007.

View with comments

Council of Europe publish report on alleged CIA detentions and rendition flights in Europe

From the Council of Europe

Strasbourg, 01.03.2006, ‘Europe appears to be a happy hunting ground for foreign security services’ said Terry Davis at a press conference on the occasion of the publication of his report under Article 52 of the European Convention on Human Rights. ‘Hardly any country in Europe has any legal provisions to ensure an effective oversight over the activities of foreign agencies on their territory’ he continued.

The analysis of the replies received by the governments of the Council of Europe member states to his letter of 21 November 2005 also revealed that the existing procedures to monitor who and what is transiting through European airports and airspace do not provide adequate safeguards against abuse. Indeed, no Council of Europe member state appears to have established any kind of procedure in order to assess whether civil aircraft are used for purposes which would be incompatible with internationally recognised human rights standards.

The Secretary General also said that the existing rules on state immunity create considerable obstacles for effective law enforcement in relation to the activities of foreign agents. ‘Immunity cannot mean impunity’ he added. ‘Exceptions to state immunity already recognised in the case of torture should be extended to other serious violations of human rights, such as enforced disappearances.’

Terry Davis said that his inquiry will continue in the case of individual countries which provided incomplete or inadequate replies, and he announced that he will make specific proposals for new Council of Europe legal standards to deal with the deficiencies revealed by the report.

The full report and further information is available here

View with comments

Run of the Mill

It is a sign of our appalling times, and the arrogance of New Labour, that Blair clings on to his loyal muppet Jowell, while Sir Gus O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary, earnestly enquires whether there is anything in the Code of Conduct for Ministers that specifically precludes multiple acts of money laundering. (link)

Well, Sir Gus, there is certainly this; the Code precludes acceptance of gifts. That is what Mills claims this money was. As this “Gift” (note the use of a capital ‘G’) went to pay off a mortgage which was 50% in Jowell’s name and which she had signed, she also accepted it. She should be out. But doubtless the Cabinet Office are working overtime on how to Hutton their way around this one.

In the meantime, the Blairite cheerleaders in the media bravely try to save her. In particular Britain’s worst journalist, the wholly odious Michael White (Political editor of the Guardian), argues against all the evidence that Jowell and Mills’ finances are separate. (link)

That man White is so far up Jack Straw’s rectum that for years he hasn’t had any daylight to report by. He also seems not to know that the ministerial code specifically covers gifts to family members.

Two more shockers…

1. Jowell had remortgaged her home to launder money not just once, but five times. (link)

Does she still claim this is “Normal”? On one occasion she had paid it off again in just 19 days.

2. Finally, yesterday I reported a fact that the mainstream media still does not dare to print; that Mills was under Serious Fraud Office investigation (and his office was raided as a result) at around the same time that New Labour came to power. I also reported that some of the SFO staff on the case were confused and concerned that no prosecution arose.

The mainstream press are too scared of this story to tackle it properly, but I’m sure you’ll excuse my own caution as I state this next bit very, very carefully:

I have seen no evidence to suggest to me that it was a particular handicap to Mr Mills at around that time that his sister-in-law, Barbara Mills, was the Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Head of the Serious Fraud Office.

I mean no more than appears on the face of that sentence.

View with comments

Uzbek court jails opposition activist for 10 years

With yet again no effective protest from the international community, another major leader of the Uzbek democratic opposition is packed off to torture camp. Nodira is a personal friend of mine and I am deeply sad.

She is not, doubtless, a personal friend of my replacement. I was sacked for trying to help democracy and stop this kind of thing. Where now is the British Embassy. Where was my successor, David Moran, when this sentence was passed?

Doubtless doing nothing but swanning from cocktail party to golf course with his mouth, eyes and ears closed, as a good diplomat should,

Craig Murray

From the Washington Post

TASHKENT (Reuters) – An Uzbek court sentenced an opposition activist to 10 years in prison on Wednesday on embezzlement and tax evasion charges in a case her supporters say was politically motivated.

Nodira Khidayatova, a leading member of the moderate opposition Sunshine Uzbekistan Coalition, was arrested in December after returning from a trip to Moscow where she held a news conference to criticize President Islam Karimov.

“The court rules that Khidayatova be imprisoned for 10 years,” Judge Zokirjon Isayev said. Companies controlled by her must also pay $230,000 in back taxes, he said.

Since a bloody government crackdown in the town of Andizhan last year in May, the authoritarian Central Asian state has held a series of trials resulting in the jailing of more than 180 people accused of involvement in the uprising. The authorities have also arrested members of the opposition, like Khidayatova, who criticized Karimov’s government.

“Her guilt was completely unproven,” Khidayatova’s lawyer Oleg Babenko told reporters. He said she would appeal against the verdict.

Sanjar Umarov, a 49-year-old cotton and oil businessman who chairs the Sunshine coalition, is also on trial on economic charges. Prosecutors called last week for him to be jailed for more than 13 years. Umarov set up the Sunshine Uzbekistan Coalition last year to campaign for reform of the country’s Soviet-style economy, which independent economists say has kept much of the population in poverty.

Following the violence in Andizhan, where troops opened fire on a large crowd of men, women and children after armed militants seized a government building, Umarov criticized the government and called on people to join his coalition. Khidayatova held a news conference in Moscow in November, calling on Russia to drop its support for Karimov and acknowledge widespread human rights abuses in Uzbekistan.

Karimov, who says he is fighting militant Islamists and is backed by Russian and China, has denied any ordinary members of the public were killed in Andizhan. His government says 187 people, mostly “bandits” and “terrorists” and some police, were killed, while independent witness estimates put the death toll at around 500.

View with comments

Normality and the Jowells

Tessa Jowell tells us she did nothing wrong. She merely signed documents to remortgage her home. She strongly asserted today that this was ‘a very normal thing to do, and certainly not illegal.’

It is indeed not unusual to remortgage, though it was unusual that she remortgaged with an offshore bank. It is also unusual to remortgage for as much as ‘400,000. But it is very unusual indeed to remortgage for ‘400,000, then pay off the full loan, within a month, with spare cash.

What sort of people do such a thing? Well, money launderers. If you have ‘400,000 of cash not easily explained, you now have remortgage papers available to show where you got it.

Now, where did the money actually come from? Well, on two occasions, David Mills has said in writing that it came from Silvio Berlusconi. He said so in a signed confession to the Italian police, which he now says was extracted under duress. And he said so in a letter to his own accountant, where he explained that it was not in fact a bribe from Berlusconi for the evidence he had just given in an Italian court to keep Berlusconi out of jail. It was rather a personal gift. Mills now says that this second occasion when he wrote that the money came from Berlusconi was in fact a lie to protect another client. One can believe him or not ‘ he is claiming to be a liar already. What we do know for certain is that, shortly after giving evidence on behalf of Berlusconi, evidence which Italian authorities now allege was perjured, David Mills received a lot of money from an Italian source, which he has difficulty accounting for and claims he needed to disguise. His wife then took out a mortgage for about the same sum, which they almost immediately then paid off again.

It stinks to heaven.

Mills is, beyond dispute, a confidante and adviser of the odious Berlusconi. Mills’ job as an international corporate lawyer is to help the cosmopolitan super rich move their money about and avoid tax, and to disguise their cash flows if necessary. Mills is a long term shyster whose activities and profession should appal Labour supporters. Everything Mills stands for is what Keir Hardie and Clement Atlee were against. So it should be of no surprise that he is close to Blair and a member of his personal circle. The day I decided Blair was calculating and self-seeking, rather than honest and misguided, was the day that Blair first chose to spend family holidays with the Berlusconis, at some of their palaces. But Blair’s friendship with the likes of Mills should have warned all of us sooner.

Now for something else you won’t find in the mainstream media. Mills was under long term surveillance by the Serious Fraud Office for numerous dubious financial transactions. Approximately nine years ago, his office was actually raided by the SFO. As the investigation drew to a close, New Labour came to power. An inside source tells me that SFO staff believed they had a good case, and wondered whether his friendship with the new Prime Minister Blair had any bearing on it not coming to court. A Sunday Times Insight investigation into Mills was spiked by the editors.

So these current peculiar financial dealings do not drop out of a clear blue sky. A lot of taxpayers’ money has been spent investigating Mills before. He is well dodgy.

What will it take for the eyes of the very many decent people still left in the Labour Party to be opened to the appalling people who now lead their party? How many of the current cabinet are not, themselves or their partners, personally millionaires? Blair has a ‘3 million house. Straw has a Cotswold mansion as one of his homes. We recall Blunkett’s dodgy directorships, and Mandelson’s loan from Robinson. Who do these people represent, except a self-serving, cosmopolitan elite? Is it any wonder they are so keen on privatising health and education, when they and all their friends can afford the best? And what does any of this have to do with the aims and origins of the Labour Party, or the hopes of those who elected them?

When you have sold your soul to Mammon, you end up doing things like launching illegal wars that kill over a hundred thousand and cost the taxpayer billions, but bring massive profits to your friends who own shares in oil companies or arms manufacturers. I have no doubt that some of those who have made a killing out of the Iraq War will have paid for Mills’ useful professional advice on offshore money transactions.

Mills and Blair will be close to those making a killing, but not those suffering the killing. It is hard to see that far from the marble terrace overlooking one of Mr Berlusconi’s private beaches.

View with comments