Yearly archives: 2006


“Murder in Samarkand” confiscated by airport staff – again

From The Guardian

The war on terror moves in mysterious ways. Last month, not long after the allegedly planned terrorist attacks on multiple jetliners over the Atlantic were foiled, Ben Paarman turned up at Luton airport for a flight to Berlin. Having forgotten to remove toiletries from his hand luggage, he was hauled over for further inspection, and two books were discovered. A German novel passed without comment, but Murder in Samarkand, Craig Murray’s memoir of his incident-strewn stint as British ambassador to Uzbekistan, didn’t. “‘Is that about terrorism?’ asked the lady that examined my onboard luggage,” wrote Paarman on neweurasia.net, a collection of blogs by and about Central Asians. “‘Humm, well, it contains mentions of that, but it’s about your former ambassador to Uzbekistan and more about diplomacy,’ I replied politely. ‘Does it have al-Qaeda in it?’ I looked a bit confused. ‘Well, I have to check this with my manager, the rest of your stuff is fine, though.'” The manager arrived, asked Paarman where he got the book (Waterstone’s, Islington), then pronounced: “I am afraid you cannot take this onboard, Sir.” The book was duly confiscated. This much has already been mentioned, in this paper. But then it happened again.

On Monday Gillian Davison, an actress on her way to New York, reported on the blog that she had had her copy of the same book confiscated at Heathrow. Murray has offered to replace Paarman’s copy – and consulted lawyers. “The lawyers said that the first time it might have been just a mistake, not policy,” he replied this week, to an email from the Guardian asking how far this course of action had gone, “but twice at two different airports looks like a policy. We are strongly minded to go to the High Court for an injunction under the Human Rights Act.”

View with comments

BRITAIN: The mysterious case of the disappearing ‘terror’ plots

From Green Left Review

By Norm Dixon

Readers of Britain’s newspapers are regularly accosted with blood-curdling banner headlines screaming of the ‘thwarting’ of potentially catastrophic ‘terror plots’, of ‘Islamic fanatics’ being apprehended in daring midnight raids. ‘Chilling’ details, ‘revealed’ by anonymous police and government ‘sources’, underline why ‘we’ must accept a ‘trade-off’ between civil liberties and ‘security’, the editorials assure an apprehensive populace. Months or even years later, however, news that many of the ‘plots’ never actually existed is buried behind the latest sex scandal or exploitative ‘expose’ ‘ if reported at all.

On August 10, deputy commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police Paul Stephenson declared that a plan to ’cause untold death and destruction’ and ‘mass murder on an unimaginable scale’ had been foiled with the arrest of 24 people. ‘We believe that the terrorists’ aim was to smuggle explosives onto planes in hand luggage to detonate them in flight’, Stephenson alleged. Britain’s and the world’s mass media trumpeted the claims.

However, within days the dramatic case against the detainees as told to the media by anonymous US and British government and police ‘sources’ began to unravel. The claim that an attack was ‘imminent’ was false. No reservations had been made or airline tickets purchased by the 10 charged with serious terrorism offences; several did not even have passports. Apparently, just one had used the internet to check flight schedules recently. There were no bombs.

The assertion that the detainees intended to destroy 10-12 aircraft was ‘speculative and exaggerated’, a British official admitted to the August 28 New York Times. Claims of a convoluted ‘Pakistani connection’ between the plotters and al Qaeda have disappeared. The possibility of successfully concocting ‘liquid bombs’ from household products in a plan’es toilet mid-air has been dismissed by chemical experts.

Misrepresentation

Gareth Pierce, defence lawyer for the 17-year-old in the case accused of possessing items ‘useful to a person preparing acts of terrorism’, told the August 31 Chicago Tribune how police had misrepresented what they had found at the boy’s mother’s home and twisted it to fit their grandiose claims. According to police, ‘suicide notes’, a map of Afghanistan and a bomb ‘manual’ had been found.

What was actually discovered, Pierce told the Tribune, were wills written by people who had fought in Bosnia more than 10 years earlier. The accused was just six when much of this material was placed in the box! ‘They’re not suicide notes at all. They’re really simple wills. To call these suicide notes was absolutely disgraceful’, Pierce said.

The wills were found in a box that once belonged to the boy’s father ‘ who has since divorced and moved out ‘ when he ran a now-defunct charity that helped displaced Bosnian Muslims. The box also contained a crude map drawn by the boy’s younger brother when he was a child. There was also a book of drawings of electrical circuits, which even if it was of some use in building a bomb, it would be useless for the device that police allege the group was trying to construct.

Associated Press on September 4 reported that prosecutors told a London court that the detainees will not face trial until March 2008. They will remain in prison and the key details of the prosecution’s case will be kept secret until then.

Lies and fabrication

Will the British government and mass media’s accusations stand up in court? Not if the record of British police, government and media lying, exaggeration and fabrication in recent ‘terror’ cases is anything to go by.

As Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, pointed out in an August 14 article on his website

‘Of the over 1000 British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only 12% are ever charged with anything. That is simply harassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few ‘ just over 2% of arrests ‘ who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do with terrorism, but of some minor offence the police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.’

At 4am on June 2, around 250 police, some wearing chemical suits, stormed a house in Forest Gate, east London. Police claimed that a chemical bomb was in the house. Awoken by the sound of doors being broken down, the two families living there thought they were being attacked by robbers. Mohammed Abdul Kahar was shot in the chest by police, who failed to identify themselves or give a warning, narrowly missing his heart.

Rupert Murdoch’s seedy Sun newspaper on June 3 ramped up the anti-Muslim panic, without a shred of evidence: ‘A CHEMICAL bomb held by Islamic terrorists is primed to go off at any time, police feared last night. The device is believed to have been designed to release a toxic cloud in a crowded space ‘ killing hundreds. And senior officers are convinced it has been prepared for an ‘imminent’ attack in the UK … Last night a frantic hunt was on to find the bomb before it could be activated by fanatics. One senior security source said: ‘We are absolutely certain this device exists and could be used either by a suicide bomber or in a remote-controlled explosion.”

Not to be outdone, Murdoch’s Times on June 3 reported the finding of a ‘poison suicide vest of death’. No chemical bombs or suicide vests ever existed. Kahar and his brother were detained for eight days without charge under the Terrorism Act (2000) before being released. ‘The only crime I have committed is being Asian and having a long beard’, Kahar told the BBC on June 13. ‘They haven’t had the decency to apologise.’

‘Red mercury’

In one of more bizarre examples of how the British government, police and the media work hand in glove to manufacture terror scares was provided when the notorious ‘fake sheikh’ Mazher Mahmood, a journalist for Murdoch’s tacky News of the World who regularly dresses up in Arab robes to trick celebrities and others into compromising themselves, and an undercover police agent in 2004 attempted to entrap three people in a ‘virtual’ terror plot.

Mahmood offered to sell them an imaginary nuclear substance, ‘red mercury’, telling them it could be used to make a radioactive ‘dirty bomb’. However, the three seemed to be more interested in the claim that red mercury could also wash marked money. The undercover cop then offered to buy the fake substance from them for $300,000 a kilo.

With the approval of the Labour government’s attorney-general, the three dupes were arrested by the Met’s anti-terrorist squad on September 24, 2004. They were charged with attempting to secure funding or property for terrorism and having ‘a highly dangerous mercury-based substance’ for use in terrorism. The following day, the News of the World’s front page screamed, ‘Anti-terrorist cops move in after News of the World uncovers bid to buy radioactive material’. Red mercury, the News of the World lied to its unfortunate readers, is’a deadly substance developed by cold war Russian scientists for making briefcase nuclear bombs’.

The three remained in jail until their acquittal almost two years later. During the trial, which cost more than ‘1 million, the government prosecutor declared that ‘the Crown’s position is that whether red mercury does or does not exist is irrelevant’ and urged the jury not to get ‘hung up’ on that point. Luckily, the jury did not agree.

Own goal in Manchester

Britain’s government-police-press team scored an own goal in April 2004, when 400 Greater Manchester police rounded up 10 Iraqi Kurds. Leading the lynch mob was the Sun, which ran an invented story that began: ‘A SUICIDE bomb plot to kill thousands of soccer fans at Saturday’s Manchester United-Liverpool match was dramatically foiled yesterday. Armed cops seized ten terror suspects in dawn raids. Intelligence chiefs believe al-Qaeda fanatics planned to blow themselves up amid 67,000 unsuspecting supporters. A source said: ‘The target was Old Trafford.’ The Islamic fanatics planned to sit all around the ground to cause maximum carnage. They had already bought the tickets for various positions in the stadium, cops revealed last night.’

The entire fantastic story, and the cops’ case against the Kurds, was improvised from leaked police information about the ‘discovery’ of a couple of old ticket stubs from a Manchester United soccer match in a suspect’s flat. He was indeed guilty of being a fanatic ‘ a fanatical supporter of Manchester United who had kept the stubs as a souvenir of the only game he and a friend had attended! They were bought from a scalper, which explained why the tickets were for different parts of the ground. The 10 people were released without charge.

Ricin reflux

Perhaps the most cynically exploited of the British government’s series of fabricated ‘terror scares’ was the police announcement in January 2003 that a ‘terrorist cell’s’ plans to use ricin poison in an attack had been foiled.

On January 7, British government ministers announced that ‘traces of ricin’ had been found in a flat raided by police. Prime Minister Tony Blair seized on the ‘plot’ to bolster the propaganda campaign to go to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Blair made the ludicrous claim that the discovery of ricin, which can only kill if directly injected into a person’s bloodstream, proved that ‘this danger [of weapons of mass destruction] is present and real and with us now. Its potential is huge.’

Then US Secretary of State Colin Powell also referred to the alleged ‘cell’ during his speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, arguing for war against Iraq if Hussein did not abandon his non-existent WMD. Powell claimed it was proof of a ‘sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network’.

The truth was that there was no al Qaeda cell and no ricin. On the same day that the government proclaimed the discovery of ‘traces of ricin’ in the flat, tests by the government’s own research facility at Porton Down had found there was no ricin. That finding was kept secret by the government for more than two years.

In April 2005, four people were acquitted on charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism, while charges against four others were dropped. One person, Kamel Bourgass, was convicted on a lesser charge of ‘conspiracy to cause a public nuisance by the use of poisons and/or explosives’, based on his possession of ‘recipes’ to make ricin and evidence of attempts to do so. However, the April 20, 2005, Independent reported that ‘Professor Alistair Hay, one of Britain’s foremost authorities on toxins, said Bourgass’s attempts to construct toxic weapons from his small supplies of ingredients and ramshackle ‘laboratory’ were ‘incredibly amateurish and unlikely to succeed’.’

From Green Left Weekly, September 13, 2006.

View with comments

Mass hangings.. TV station closed .. Democracy reaches Baghdad

From Postman Patel

Al-Arabiya, is an independent Dubai based Arabic language satellite news station with offices in over 40 major cities. It was launched in 2002 in opposition to Al Jazeera. It was originally funded by Saudi-controlled pan-Arab satellite TV pioneer MBC, Lebanon’s Hariri Group, and other investors from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. It was set up as an all-news channel to compete directly with Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV.

The Iraqi Government have issued an order to close the station down in Baghdad. The station was able to broadcast live the entry of police to close their Baghdad city centre studios.

The order apparently was issued by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Cabinet and said TV stations should uphold the code of media ethics (?) , or else the government would take legal action against them.

In November 2003, the U.S.-Paul Bremer’s Governing Council banned Al-Arabiya from reporting from Baghdad after it aired an audio tape, said to be from Saddam Hussein, who was still at large at the time. 46 Coalition troops had been killed that month, there had been a loss of a Chinook helicopter and Bremer had just returned from a pep talk with Cheney from Washington.(See BBC Online report at the time)This action was approved by Bremer but curiously in his book “My Year in Iraq” forgets to mention it.(see WAPO report)Charles Heatly, a spokesman with the U.S.-led administration said, “Ambassador Bremer fully agreed with and supported the Governing Council’s decision.”

Shortly after, Saddam was found and captured and they were allowed to continue, famously they interviewed the leader of the free world and Commander in Chief of the occupying forces in May 2004. (White House transcript)

Just over a year ago in August 2005 Iraq ( Prime Minister Iyad Allawi) re-introduced the death sentence. Common during Saddam’s rule, capital punishment was suspended by the occupying US authorities in 2003. “This law is to help protect the Iraqi people in the face of an onslaught of indiscriminate murder. I think it may help,” said, Minister of State Adnan al-Janabi adding that it would remain in force until the security situation was deemed more stable.

This was condemned by the UN, European states and human-rights groups. “If the Iraqi government has reintroduced the death penalty we will lobby them to abolish it as we would do with other states that have the death penalty,” a Foreign Office spokesman said at the time.(To date la Beckett remains silent on the matter)

The first 3 victims were members of Ansar al-Sunna, an insurgent group, who were executed on September 1st 2005 after confessing to their crimes in a televised trial broadcast in May from al-Kut, in southern Iraq.

The men were identified as Bayan Ahmad al-Jaf, 30, a Kurdish taxi driver, and two Sunni Arabs, Uday Dawoud al-Dulaimi, 25, a builder, and Taher Jassim Abbas, 44, a butcher. They were found guilty of kidnapping and murdering three policemen and abducting, raping and killing Iraqi women.

The Iraqi authorities took over responsibility for the overcrowded Abu Ghraib prison at the weekend where there are said to be hundreds of prisoners who have received a death sentence. There are also reports that several gallows have been recently installed. On Wednesday a mass execution of 27 people took place. (Daily Telegraph 8/8/06)

An Iraqi Justice Ministry official said two of those hanged had been convicted of terrorism charges, and the other 25 ‘ including a woman ‘ were convicted of murder and kidnapping. In confirming the hangings a spokesman called the dead prisoners, “terrorists”, a name normally reserved for insurgents who have attacked coalition or Iraqi forces.

News of the executions was made public by Prime Minister al-Maliki when attending a ceremony to hand control of Iraq’s military to the recently elected government from American control.

The verdict on Saddam Hussein is expected this month and he faces a death sentence, he has asked to face a military firing squad rather than hanging.

View with comments

Bush confirms existence of secret CIA prisons

From the JURIST

JURIST] US President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged [speech transcript] that the US Central Intelligence Agency [official website] has operated secret prisons outside the US where high-value terror suspects [DNI backgrounder, PDF] were detained, and said that 14 of those suspects [DNI profiles, PDF] have now been transferred to the Defense Department’s military prison at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] where they will face trial. The suspects transferred to Guantanamo include alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [BBC profile] as well as key al Qaeda members suspected of designing the bombings of the USS Cole and US embassies in Africa. Bush said that it was necessary to keep the “small number” of detainees in secret facilities where they could be “questioned by experts and – when appropriate – prosecuted for terrorist acts” due to the threat posed by the detainees or because they may possess “intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks.”

Bush also stressed that US Justice Department and CIA lawyers have determined that program complies with US law, saying:

This program has been subject to multiple legal reviews by the Department of Justice and CIA lawyers; they’ve determined it complied with our laws. This program has received strict oversight by the CIA’s Inspector General. A small number of key leaders from both political parties on Capitol Hill were briefed about this program. All those involved in the questioning of the terrorists are carefully chosen and they’re screened from a pool of experienced CIA officers. Those selected to conduct the most sensitive questioning had to complete more than 250 additional hours of specialized training before they are allowed to have contact with a captured terrorist.

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws, and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it — and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.

The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorists at any given time — and once we’ve determined that the terrorists held by the CIA have little or no additional intelligence value, many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments. Others have been accused of terrible crimes against the American people, and we have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice. So we intend to prosecute these men, as appropriate, for their crimes.

The existence of secret CIA prisons [JURIST report] in Europe was first reported by the New York Times in November and at the time the Bush administration refused to either confirm or deny the report. Both the European Union and the Council of Europe (COE) have conducted investigations into the prisons and the CIA’s alleged use of illegal rendition flights [JURIST news archive] throughout Europe. The COE in June passed a resolution [JURIST report] adopting the report [PDF text] of Swiss legislator Dick Marty accusing European countries of colluding with the CIA in transporting terror suspects in a “global spider’s web” [COE graphic] of secret prisons and rendition flights.

During the same speech Wednesday, Bush also detailed his administration’s proposal for legislation authorizing military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. AP has more.

View with comments

Banned in Britain

From the Washington Post

It was a diplomatic war of words. On one side, Britain’s outspoken envoy in Tashkent, Craig Murray, aiming to expose Uzbekistan’s human rights abuses. On the other, Murray’s superiors in Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, seeking to rein in his criticisms — and his behavior.

While writing his just-released memoir “Murder in Samarkand,” Murray tried to publish several memos and telegrams documenting the FCO’s efforts against him. However, he withdrew them after the British government threatened a lawsuit. The documents, excerpted below, are available at sites such as http://blairwatch.co.uk/ and http://dahrjamailiraq.com/ .

Shortly after reaching Tashkent in the summer of 2002, Murray voiced criticisms of human rights violations in Uzbekistan and U.S. policy in Central Asia. Simon Butt, head of the FCO’s Eastern department, sent an e-mail about Murray to Michael Jay, chief of Britain’s diplomatic services, on Oct 16, 2002:

. . . We are fast developing a problem with Craig Murray, who is using unclassified email pretty indiscriminately to fire off criticisms of the Uzbek regime, US policy etc . . . He has also sent the draft text of a speech he is shortly to give at a Freedom House meeting, which criticises the human rights situation in Uzbekistan in terms which are bound to infuriate the Uzbeks (“This country has made very little progress in moving away from the dictatorship of the Soviet period . . . no effective brake on the authority of a President who has failed to validate his position by facing genuine political opponents in anything resembling a free and fair election”).

* * *

Charles Hill of the Eastern department sought to revise the text of Murray’s Freedom House speech. He sent this letter to Murray on Oct 16:

Many thanks for sending a copy of your draft speech. It is hard-hitting, and one that (I think) Martin Luther King would have been proud of. But there are elements of it, as currently drafted, that I doubt should be delivered by an HMA [Her Majesty’s Ambassador] Tashkent. Language which is too outspoken risks antagonising the Uzbek authorities, and undermining your mission (in both senses of the word) . . .

Nowhere in the speech is there any acknowledgement of the Soviet legacy Uzbekistan needs to overcome, or the genuine extremist/terrorist challenges it has had to grapple with . . . We do not accept Uzbek arguments that these problems justify human rights abuses, but we do seek to address them in recognising that . . .

The best examples of what the FCO is on record as having said are in publications such as the Human Rights Reports . . . As you will see, on torture the Report says “Uzbekistan has a poor record of ensuring respect for human rights . . . We are concerned about reports of torture . . . etc etc”. We would be content for you to jazz up the language of the Report somewhat, but expressions like “deep shame” “outrage” etc go too far.

* * *

On the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Murray sent a telegram to the FCO accusing the Bush administration of “double standards” for deciding to dismantle “the torture chambers and the rape rooms” in Iraq while treating the “systematic torture and rape” of the Karimov regime as “peccadilloes.” Butt subsequently met with Murray in Uzbekistan and reported back to the FCO on April 16, 2003:

. . . Craig was unapologetic. What he had said needed saying. He had again received congratulatory emails from a number of other Posts which had received the telegram. These were issues about which he felt strongly, and which needed to be aired. His drafting style reflected his feelings. He was not prepared to compromise on principles to further his career. I did not dispute his right to air the issues (I myself met with the US Ambassador and queried whether US policy was too indulgent towards Uzbekistan). But he should cultivate a more measured and less emotional style, and should not seek to give the impression that he was the only person in the FCO with a conscience . . .

I ought to mention, without further comment, one further aspect of Craig’s unconventional style. After a dinner in Samarkand, the rest of the party returned to our hotel. Craig, in the company of our young female LE [locally engaged] fixer, went off in search of a jazz club. I have heard from others that he has patronised strip clubs in Warsaw . . . But during my visit his demeanour was perfectly correct, and I picked up no signs whatsoever of familial tension while staying at the Residence. It is not particularly palatable to set these tales down, but they should be recorded somewhere. . .

Craig is likely to continue to speak as he finds. But he accepts the need to broaden his functions beyond being a powerful advocate of respect for human rights (and he has got us to raise our game on this).

View with comments

Her Majesty’s Man in Tashkent

From the Washington Post

The courtroom provided a telling introduction. I had recently arrived as British ambassador in Uzbekistan’s old Silk Road capital of Tashkent, where I was watching the trial of a 22-year-old dissident named Iskander Khuderbegainov. The gaunt young man was accused with five other Muslims of several crimes, including membership in a terrorist organization linked to al-Qaeda. The six sat huddled in a cage guarded by 14 Kalashnikov-wielding soldiers. The judge made a show of not listening to the defense, haranguing the men with anti-Islamic jokes. It looked like a replay of footage I’d seen of Nazi show trials.

The next day, an envelope landed on my desk; inside were photos of the corpse of a man who had been imprisoned in Uzbekistan’s gulags. I learned that his name was Muzafar Avazov. His face was bruised, his torso and limbs livid purple. We sent the photos to the University of Glasgow. Two weeks later, a pathology report arrived. It said that the man’s fingernails had been pulled out, that he had been beaten and that the line around his torso showed he had been immersed in hot liquid. He had been boiled alive.

That was my welcome to Uzbekistan, a U.S. and British ally in the war on terror. Trying to tell the truth about the country cost me my job. Continuing to tell the truth about it dragged me into the Kafkaesque world of official censorship and gave me a taste of the kind of character assassination of which I once thought only a government like Uzbekistan’s was capable.

When I arrived in Tashkent, in the summer of 2002, I was a 43-year-old career diplomat with two decades of varied experience, which included analyzing Iraqi efforts at weapons procurement and negotiating a peace treaty with Liberian President Charles Taylor. But nothing had prepared me for Uzbekistan, a country immediately north of Afghanistan in the heart of hydrocarbon-rich Central Asia. President Islam Karimov had reigned here as the Soviet satrap since 1989; after independence two years later, he had managed to make poverty and repression even worse than in Soviet times.

In Karimov’s Uzbekistan, no dissent is allowed. Media are state-controlled, and opposition parties are banned from elections. Millions of people, including children, toil on vast state-owned cotton farms, receiving some $2 a month for working 70-hour weeks. Their labor has made Uzbekistan the world’s second-largest cotton exporter. More than 10,000 dissidents are held in Soviet-style gulags. Many are pro-democracy advocates, but anyone showing religious enthusiasm is also swept up. Most are Muslims, but Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses are routinely persecuted, too.

I saw this happening in a country regarded as a strategic friend by the United States, which was looking for well-placed allies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Karimov had delivered for President Bush, allowing the United States to take over a major former Soviet airbase at Karshi-Khanabad to help wage war in neighboring Afghanistan; the several thousand U.S. forces stationed there were the first Americans permitted to serve in former Soviet territory. As a reward, Karimov had been Bush’s guest for tea in the White House in March 2002.

It was clear by the time I arrived in Tashkent a few months later that the United States was handsomely rewarding Karimov’s cooperation. Hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid were flowing to the country — after the U.S. government, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, repeatedly certified that the Uzbek government was making progress on human rights and democracy. According to a press release distributed to local media by the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent in December 2002, the Karimov regime received more than $500 million in U.S. aid that year alone. That included $120 million for the Uzbek armed forces and more than $80 million for the re-branded Uzbek security services, successor to the KGB.

In other words, when the prisoner was boiled to death that summer, U.S. taxpayers had helped heat the water.

In mid-October, I made a speech at Freedom House in Uzbekistan, in which I made plain what I had learned in my brief time there. “Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy, nor does it appear to be moving in the direction of democracy,” I asserted, contradicting the U.S. ambassador, John Herbst, who had spoken before me. I went on to detail the political prisoners, prevalence of torture and lack of basic freedoms. I spoke out despite a written rebuke I had received from my superiors in London, chastising me for being “over-focused on human rights.” Apparently, my job was to stand beside my U.S. colleague and support our Uzbek ally.

Danish journalist Michael Andersen later wrote of conversations he had had with U.S. diplomats in Uzbekistan the day after my remarks. “Murray is a finished man here,” one told him.

(more…)

View with comments

Online Database of Terrorism Arrests

This important online database is being compiled and updated by Sala@m It comprises an inventory of arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT) and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime Security Act 2001 (ACTSA) – pre and post July 7 2005.

“According to the Islamic Human Rights Commission, since 9/11 some 950 people, the majority of them Muslims, have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000. Of these only 148 were charged and only 27 convicted of terrorism, defined so broadly now that a question mark hangs over some of these cases. Many thousands more have been stopped under the increased stop-and-search powers that anti-terror laws have given police. In 2003-2004 they were up by almost a third. Last year British Transport police statistics revealed that Asians were five times more likely to be stopped than whites. In the month following the London bombings, they had apprehended 2,390 Asian people. None was subsequently charged.”

View with comments

The Real Threat We Face in Britain Is Blair

From Antiwar.com

By John Pilger

If the alleged plot to attack airliners flying from London is true ‘ remember the lies that led to the invasion of Iraq, and to the raid on a “terrorist cell” in east London ‘ then one person ultimately is to blame, as he was on July 7 last year. They were Blair’s bombs then; who doesn’t believe that 52 Londoners would be alive today had the prime minister refused to join Bush in his piratical attack on Iraq? A parliamentary committee has said as much, as have MI5, the Foreign Office, Chatham House, and the polls.

A senior Metropolitan Police officer, Paul Stephenson, claims the Heathrow plot “was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale.” The most reliable independent surveys put civilian deaths in Iraq, as a result of the invasion by Bush and Blair, above 100,000. The difference between the Heathrow scare and Iraq is that mass murder on an unimaginable scale has actually happened in Iraq.

By any measure of international law, from Nuremberg to the Geneva accords, Blair is a major prima facie war criminal. The charges against him grow. The latest is his collusion with the Israeli state in its deliberate, criminal attacks on civilians. While Lebanese children were being buried beneath Israeli bombs, he refused to condemn their killers or even to call on them to desist. That a cease-fire was negotiated owed nothing to him, except its disgraceful delay.

Not only is it clear that Blair knew about Israel’s plans, but he alluded approvingly to the ultimate goal: an attack on Iran. Read his neurotic speech in Los Angeles, in which he described an “arc of extremism,” stretching from Hezbollah to Iran. He gave not a hint of the arc of injustice and lawlessness of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its devastation of Lebanon. Neither did he attempt to counter the bigotry now directed at all Arabs by the West and by the racist regime in Tel Aviv. His references to “values” are code for a crusade against Islam.

Blair’s extremism, like Bush’s, is rooted in the righteous violence of rampant Messianic power. It is completely at odds with modern, multicultural, secular Britain. He shames this society. Not so much distrusted these days as reviled, he endangers and betrays us in his vassal’s affair with the religious fanatic in Washington and the Biblo-ethnic cleansers in Israel. Unlike him, the Israelis at least are honest. Ariel Sharon said, “It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion ‘ that there can be no Zionism, colonization, or Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands.” The current prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told the U.S. Congress: “I believe in our people’s eternal and historic right to this entire land” (his emphasis).

Blair has backed this barbarism enthusiastically. In 2001, the Israeli press disclosed that he had secretly given the “green light” to Sharon’s bloody invasion of the West Bank, whose advance plans he was shown. Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon ‘ is it any wonder the attacks of July 7 and this month’s Heathrow scare happened? The CIA calls this “blowback.” On Aug. 12, the Guardian published an editorial (“The challenge for us all”), which waffled about how “a significant number of young people have been alienated from the [Muslim] culture,” but spent not a word on how Blair’s Middle East disaster was the source of their alienation. A polite pretense is always preferred in describing British policy, elevating “misguided” and “inappropriate” and suppressing criminal behavior.

Go into Muslim areas and you will be struck by a fear reminiscent of the anti-Semitic nightmare of the Jews in the 1930s, and by an anger generated almost entirely by “a perceived double standard in the foreign policy of Western governments,” as the Home Office admits. This is felt deeply by many young Asians who, far from being “alienated from their culture,” believe they are defending it. How much longer are we all prepared to put up with the threat to our security coming from Downing Street? Or do we wait for the “unimaginable”?

View with comments

‘TIME TO GO’ UK Tour, September 2006 – Updated Schedule

During September, Craig will be speaking at a number of events leading up to the Manchester ‘Time to Go’ demonstration on the 23rd and beyond. The updated schedule/toured now looks like this and replaces the previous version posted last week:

Tuesday 5 September 7.30pm The Crossing, Walsall

Wednesday 6 September 7.30pm Didsbury Mosque

Thursday 7 September 7.30pm Labour Club, Lloyd St, Stockport

Friday 8 September 7.30pm Blue Flame Community Centre, High St, Daubhill, Bolton

Monday 11 September 7.00pm St Barnabus Church, Grove Road, Bow

Tuesday 12 September 7.30pm 123 Park Building, Guildhall Square, University of Portsmouth

Wednesday 13 September 7.15pm The Liner Hotel, Lord Nelson St, Liverpool

Thursday 14 September 7.00pm Blackfriars Hall, St Andrew’s Plain, Norwich

Friday 15 September 5.00pm University of Surrey

Monday 18 September 7.00pm St Albans

Tuesday 19 September 7.30pm Town Hall, St Aldates, Oxford

Wednesday 20 September 3.00pm Camp Democracy, National Mall, Washington DC

Saturday 23 September 1.00pm Albert Square Manchester – National Stop the War demo

Sunday 24 September 10.30am Roscoe Building, Brunswick St, University of Manchester

Saturday 30 September 7.30pm University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Monday 2 October 1.00 pm University of Columbia, New York

Wednesday 4 October 9.00am Fringe Meeting, Conservative Party Conference, Bournemouth

Wednesday 4 October 7.00pm Hammersmith Library, Shepherd’s Bush Road

Wednesday 11 October 7.00pm Trinity College Historical Society, Dublin

Thursday 12 October 7.30pm Theatre Workshop, 34 Hamilton Place, Edinburgh

Friday 13 October 9.00pm Edinburgh Independent Radical Book Fair

Saturday 14 October 11.00am Brighton Peace Conference

Tuesday 17 October CRAIG’S BIRTHDAY!

For more info on the other ‘Time to Go‘ events being organised go here

View with comments

The freedom paradox

From The Economist print edition (Aug 31st 2006)

Liberty has been the first victim of the war fought in its name

“WE HAVE entered a new type of war. It’s a war against people who

hate freedom,” said George Bush a few days after September 11th 2001.

“We’re fighting for liberty and freedom.” But this new kind of war

seemed to need a new kind of response, one that has actually reduced

freedom.

“We will change the rules,” said Donald Rumsfeld, America’s defence

secretary. “Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are

changing,” echoed Tony Blair after the bombings in London last year.

“Civil-liberty arguments”, his home secretary, John Reid, added

recently, “are not so much wrong as just made for another age.”

Since 2001 many countries have pushed through repressive laws in the

name of the war on terror-but few as eagerly as America and Britain.

America first rushed through the Patriot Act. The authorities’ powers

to snoop on American citizens were vastly increased. Agents armed with

a court warrant could now eavesdrop on private telephone calls, read

e-mails, pry into library records, bank statements, medical records and suchlike without needing to show “reasonable suspicion”. At the

same time, in an apparent breach of the law, George Bush secretly

authorised his own warrantless domestic surveillance programme. He was, he said, acting in his constitutional capacity as wartime

commander-in-chief.

Hundreds of foreigners, most of them Muslims, were rounded up after

September 11th and held without charge, sometimes for months. Tens of

thousands more were called in for questioning and finger-printing. Not

a single terrorist was found. Then came the creation of a detainment

camp in an American naval base in Guant’namo Bay in Cuba, which Mr

Bush argued was beyond the reach of the American courts. There hundreds more suspected terrorists, captured abroad, were interned in a legal limbo, without charge, without access to lawyers or conventional courts, and without prospect of release in a never-ending war. Others have experienced “extraordinary rendition”, that is, they have been spirited away by the CIA for harsh interrogation in secret prisons in third countries where even the International Red Cross has no access.

America has been lambasted for its record on human rights since

September 11th. So has Britain. It has introduced a slew of draconian

anti-terrorist measures over the past five years, and is planning more.

The mere “glorification” or “indirect incitement” of terrorism

is now a crime. Suspected terrorists can be held for up to 28 days

without charge-longer than in any other democratic country-a period

the government now wants to double. (In America suspected terrorists

whom Mr Bush deems to be “enemy combatants” may be held “for the

duration of hostilities”.) Those unable to be tried in court (usually

for want of evidence) may now be subjected to “control orders”,

ranging from electronic tagging to little short of house arrest,

imposed on the simple say-so of the home secretary for indefinitely

renewable periods of 12 months.

Britain’s judges have now ruled in favour of some suspected terrorists, detained pending deportation. And America’s Supreme Court has granted Guant’namo’s inmates certain protections, including the right to challenge their detention in court, the right to be treated humanely under the Geneva Conventions and, for the few that have been charged, the right to a fair trial.

The looming police state

Yet the critics remain unhappy. By abandoning the very values they are

seeking to protect, America and its allies are in danger of winning a

pyrrhic victory, civil libertarians protest. “It is the response to

terrorism, rather than terrorism itself, that does democracy most

harm,” Michael Ignatieff, a former head of Harvard’s centre for human

rights, argues. Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law at Yale, castigates

Britain in his new book, “Before the Next Attack”, for its “tragic slide to a police state”. He accuses America of moving “one step at a time toward a presidential tyranny”. But others,like John Podhoretz, a columnist for the New York Post, maintain the opposite. “What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point

where they can no longer wage war effectively because they have

achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any

really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?” he asks.

For the moment those who would restrict freedom appear to have the

public on their side. Recent polls in Britain and America suggest that

most people still feel their governments are not doing enough to

counter terrorism.

View with comments

Uzbekistan: Observers Say Situation Heading Toward Upheaval

From RFE/RL

Uzbekistan will celebrate the 15th anniversary of its independence on September 1. President Islam Karimov has proclaimed in the past that the Uzbek nation and its 26 million people are heading toward democracy and that democratic reforms are the only form of political development. But his rhetoric is quite different from reality.

PRAGUE, August 28, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Fifteen years after gaining independence from the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan has what some experts refer to as a notorious reputation.

Bahodir Musaev, an independent sociologist, spoke to RFE/RL from Tashkent. He said: “Fifteen years after declaring independence, we find ourselves behind the starting point, in a deadlock, if not in a complete social catastrophe. The most obvious example is our neighbor Kazakhstan. In 1991, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan were at the same point. Today, there is a huge gap between them [in democratic and economic development].”

Falling Behind

Uzbekistan seems to trail not only Kazakhstan — which is now Central Asia’s wealthiest country — but others as well.

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Tashkent and a fierce critic of President Karimov’s regime, tells RFE/RL that in the fight against dissent, the Uzbek regime is the most brutal among all Central Asian countries and even harsher than Turkmenistan.

“I think the violence is worse in Uzbekistan,” Murray said. “More people are tortured by the regime than in Turkmenistan. Certainly the repression has increased ever since [the May 2005 violence in] Andijon. There are successive trials of both opposition people and religious people, sometimes in quite large groups. And the scale of political attacks seems to be increasing [in Uzbekistan].”

While the Uzbek government has strengthened repression against political and religious opponents, it has also shut down or squeezed out many foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and humanitarian groups.

The most recent case of an NGO’s imminent closure came today. Authorities accused the Massachusetts-based Partnership in Academics and Development (PAD) of proselytizing among Uzbeks. PAD says it has helped Uzbek university professors with new textbooks and assisted them in expanding contacts with academics in the international community.

As a result of its anti-NGO policy, the portion of Uzbek civil society supported by foreign aid groups has almost disappeared.

Meanwhile, authorities continue to strictly control local media, and foreign journalists have been forced to leave the country amid harassment and intimidation.

Fierce Repression

Opposition party members and human rights activists have been either jailed or forced to exile.

Bakhtiyor Hamroev, one of the few human rights activists still working in the country, was injured on August 18 in his apartment by a large group that beat him — in the presence of British diplomats and with police watching.

Another rights activist, publicist Motabar Tojiboeva, who is serving a prison term, is reportedly being ill-treated and tortured in jail.

The situation in the economic sphere does not seem to be any better. And foreign investors have become a target of government pressure.

Earlier this month, authorities announced the bankruptcy of Zarafshan-Newmont, a U.S.-Uzbek joint venture, and froze its assets and confiscated gold.

Earlier this month, reports said authorities had revoked the license of Britain’s Oxus Gold PLC, preventing it from continuing to develop a high-grade zinc, silver, copper, lead, and gold deposit in the country.

On August 24, Uzbekistan stripped an Uzbek-Israeli joint venture of its exclusive rights to process a strategic metal (molybdenum concentrate) produced by the state-owned Almalyk Mining and Metallurgical Combine.

Uzbekistan’s Future

Experts say these are signs of the regime getting more desperate as opposition among the people grows stronger.

The question is: where is Uzbekistan heading and what options do the people have before them? Murray says a popular upheaval is imminent.

“At the moment, Uzbekistan, undoubtedly is heading into further political and economic isolationism,” he said. “And things are simply going to get worse. You can keep people managing to just live at a very low level and you can keep the very wealthy people and President Karimov still managing to steal huge amounts of money from the economy provided that [currently high] gold and cotton prices maintain and the regime keeps its grip on power. But ultimately that’s going to lead to violent upheaval.”

Musaev agrees and says the country is in agony.

“The country has already entered the period of troubles,” he said. “Potential for protest has been growing, there will be social collapses — local, regional, and then bigger ones. The country had already become unmanageable. It is held together only by fear — by rubber truncheons and bayonets.”

Creating Radicals?

Many Uzbeks are trying to find an escape. Some leave the country. Others find consolation in religion: membership in Hizb ut-Tahrir, the banned Islamic religious group that offers to create a caliphate, or an Islamic state, as an alternative to the current system, has reportedly been growing in membership despite the authorities’ brutal repression.

Michael Hall, the director of the International Crisis Group’s Central Asia Program, says political instability, growing unemployment and corruption, as well as repression against dissent contribute to the popularity of radical ideologies. He says the Uzbek government has to change the political and economic situation if it wants to change this trend.

“I think to a large extent, it does depend on the government’s policies,” Hall said. “Allowing, for example, for greater freedom of discussion, allowing for greater independence from the state of religious institutions, I think this certainly can help. I think there are other aspects of the problem, too. One simple fact: a large number of Hizb ut-Tahrir members are young people. Young people very often don’t have much to occupy their time with. The educational system is being underfunded and in some places is inadequate.”

Musaev believes the current regime is unlikely to voluntarily begin making reforms. He says Karimov is not willing to give up power and the only way that will happen is to change the whole political system.

“The political system needs to be dismantled,” Musaev said. “The regime is going to maintain itself only on [declarations of] the necessity to provide national and regional security. But objectively, this internal policy of using violence amid the absolute poverty of people will create a huge social base for terrorism. And it won’t be Islamic at all, just [take] one demographic factor — people who have no jobs. Karimov’s political regime is a complete failure.”

View with comments

‘Titanic Express’ reviewed in the Independent

Peter Stanford reviews Titanic Express, By Richard Wilson

From The Independent

Forgiveness is not a popular concept these days. Instead, we seek justice, compensation and, often, revenge when others have done us wrong. These were the immediate goals of Richard Wilson when his 27-year-old sister, Charlotte, was murdered by rebel gunmen in Burundi in December 2000. A VSO worker in neighbouring Rwanda, Charlotte had been travelling on a bus – the Titanic Express of the title – with her Burundian fianc’, Richard Ndereyimana, when the attack took place. As well as the couple, 20 other passengers were robbed, stripped and then killed in cold blood.

Titanic Express begins with an account of Wilson’s battle to find out how his sister died, and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Foreign Office officials and the Metropolitan police officers assigned to the case are among the obstacles he has to surmount. More than once, he contemplates commissioning someone with a gun in Burundi to do to Charlotte’s killers what they did to her.

As his investigation unfolds, however, Wilson makes contacts with other aid organisations in Burundi, foreign journalists and exiles from its corrupt political system and ethnic tensions between Tutsis and Hutus – the same animosities that caused the genocide in Rwanda in 1995. In the process, he becomes an expert on Burundian politics – a microcosm of the problems that continue to afflict parts of post-colonial Africa. Movingly, he goes beyond a desire for revenge to develop an understanding of why Charlotte’s killers did what they did. Yes, they were heartless murderers, but something had happened to make them like that. In violent, hopeless societies, everyone and everything is infected and degraded.

It is not an easy personal journey. Wilson continues to struggle with a more primitive reaction even late in the book, when he meets a BBC World Service journalist from Burundi who has close links with the rebel group behind the attack. But his honesty carries the reader with him. Intimate books charting an individual’s quest only work if the author is prepared to show himself, warts and all. This Wilson does unflinchingly.

He also goes beyond the particular to ask broader questions about grief. It is a messy, painful, isolating experience that society today is reluctant to acknowledge or support. In his anguish, Wilson speaks to and for all who cannot easily put loss behind us and get on with life as if nothing has happened.

View with comments

Aero’s Cloaks and Daggers

By Barbara Koeppel in Consortium News

Torture at CIA secret sites is illegal. So too is the practice of the CIA transporting suspects to other countries where torture tactics are commonplace.

To expose and halt such goings-on, members of Stop Torture Now and Code Pink gathered last November at a rural airport in Smithfield, N.C., about 40 miles from Raleigh. Their target was Aero Contractors, a charter airline company. The activists insist that from this bucolic setting and another small airport in Kinston, N.C., called Global Transpark (GTP), Aero runs ‘torture taxis”secret rendition flights for the CIA

The activists say they don’t want this dirty business starting on their turf. ‘Aero uses runways and hangars paid for with our tax dollars,’ they argue. The activists cite a $9 million state bond and $650,000 in federal funds secured last fall by Rep. Bob Etheridge, D-N.C., to extend Smithfield’s runway.

The activists also note that Aero’s rent to Global Transpark (GTP) is just $.05 a square foot. Since Aero leases five acres’218,000 square feet’it’s just $10,890 a year. Moreover, since GTP gave Aero a credit for the $60,000 the company spent to ‘upfit’ its hangar, Aero will park free for over five years. Someone is footing the bill, the activists argue, and that someone is the taxpayer.

Aero’s planes stop first at Dulles or at CIA facilities in Virginia to pick up flight plans, then fly to Ireland to refuel, and from there to countries such as Britain, Italy, Sweden, Pakistan, Germany, Bosnia, Macedonia, Morocco and Turkey to collect the suspects. On the final lap, they deliver the human cargo for interrogation to countries such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan and until last year, Uzbekistan’all cited in U.S. State Department reports as having unclean hands when it comes to human rights.

The flights have been documented by Amnesty International and the Council of Europe (COE) Parliamentary Assembly on Human Rights in 2006 reports. To verify the dates and routes, investigators have used a global network of ‘plane spotters’ who stake out positions near runways where they photograph Aero take-offs and landings, and they write down the tail numbers of the otherwise unmarked craft. They then match the numbers with airport and aircraft logs obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.

‘Spider’s Web’

In its April report, the COE described Aero and other civilian charter companies as part of a ‘global spider’s web.’

Why the front companies? To maintain deniability about renditions and secret prisons, the CIA contracts with Aero to fly the planes. As part of the ruse, the craft are registered as ‘owned’ by shell companies: None list boards of directors, phone numbers or e-mail addresses. Their only identifications are post office box numbers. Moreover, the names change nearly every year. Thus, the Boeing 737 that Aero ‘leases’ were ‘owned’ by Stevens Leasing Company in 2001, ‘sold’ to Premier Executives in 2002, and ‘re-sold’ to Keeler and Tate Management in 2004. Each time, new tail numbers are painted over the old, to make the planes harder to track.

Also, the CIA uses civilian charter airlines because, under international law, private companies don’t need to reveal the nature of their trips to the countries where they refuel or fly over, while military planes must declare the names of their crews, flight plans, passengers and cargo. As a civilian charter, Aero is not asked for this information.

Another clue: According to Amnesty International, Aero has ‘CALP’ rights (Civil Aircraft Landing Permits)’enjoyed by just 10 other charter companies’which allow it to land at U.S. military bases around the globe.

However, as a veteran intelligence agent told me, ‘these tactics, like having supposedly private companies do the flying and changing the owners’ names and craft numbers, are so sloppy that they are completely transparent.’

He explained that ‘if the CIA leased planes with a company to really perform an air cargo service it wouldn’t feel compelled to continually change the names of the owners and numbers.’

Secret Police

In Uzbekistan, the flights were common knowledge. Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2003-2004, said, ‘Premier Executives flew dozens of detainees from Kabul to Tashkent, probably Uzbeks or Uzbek nationals living in Afghanistan. The flights were part of an international web of transporting people, the torture end of the operation, since the Americans handed them over to the SNB’the [Uzbek] national security secret police. After this, they went off the radar screen, not seen again.’

How did Murray know? ‘Few westerners live in Tashkent and the city is small so everyone knows everyone else. I knew Premier’s ground crew, who I believed to be CIA operatives. I just assumed Premier was owned by the CIA and that it was based in one of the Carolinas. And I thought they assumed that I assumed it,’ he explained.

The British diplomat told me he chatted with the men about once a week for over a year in a bar frequented by westerners. He noted that they weren’t particularly secretive.

‘They would say ‘things were difficult today,’ or that it was ‘hard work getting them off the plane.’ This was casual conversation after work,’ Murray recalled.

Back in the U.S., on the subject of renditions, the CIA and the Bush administration neither confirmed nor denied that CIA ground and flight crews were involved. Aero didn’t respond to a request for comment on this article.

The U.S. government flatly denies it engages in torture. In December 2005, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated, ‘The U.S. does not permit or condone torture’or transport detainees from one country to another for the purpose of torture.’ She added, ‘where appropriate, the U.S. seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.’

Mounting evidence, however, suggests the contrary. Indeed, in the ‘global war on terror,’ torture is very much on the table. Amnesty International, the Council of Europe and Human Rights Watch describe case after case of terror suspects held incommunicado in secret detention centers, tortured, and kept out of the reach of the International Red Cross, lawyers or human rights groups. The United Nations human rights panel is also convinced of the abuses and demanded in July that the U S. close its secret prisons.

(more…)

View with comments

Manchester Labour Party Conference: Time to Go!

Military Families Against the War will host a Peace Camp to coincide with September’s TIME TO GO demonstration at the Labour conference in Manchester.

‘ The camp will begin in Albert Square at 3pm on Thursday 21st September.

‘ Open to all who want to show their support for our campaign to get the troops home.

‘ Please publicise the Peace Camp, tell your family and friends, post the details on web forums or groups.

‘ If you would like to take part in the peace camp contact MFAW at [email protected]

View with comments

“Rarity of integrity in public life”

By Mary Raftery in The Irish Times

He was accused of corruption, of taking bribes, being an alcoholic and sleeping around. Pretty hairy stuff, if you happen to be the UK foreign office’s youngest ambassador, a high flyer well on your way to a glittering career.

The story of Craig Murray, British ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 until 2004, is a salutary tale for anyone thinking of doing the right thing, of defending people against murder and torture, of standing up and speaking out in the face of duplicity, hypocrisy and evil.

For this is what Murray did when he publicly condemned the Uzbek regime in 2003 for its systematic use of torture – “on an industrial scale”, as he has described it. He also implicitly criticised his own UK government and that of the United States, who accepted information on Islamic groups which they knew had been obtained under Uzbek torture.

Ambassadors in so-called friendly countries who blow the lid on grotesque abuses of human rights are rare birds. Only one precedent in recent decades springs to mind. Robert White was US ambassador to El Salvador in 1980, during that country’s state-sponsored slaughter of its own civilians. He lost his job for publicly condemning the murders, rapes and torture by a vicious right-wing regime, which was of course a staunch ally of the US. Craig Murray also lost his job. Never mind that the outrageous allegations against him were shown to be false; he was still forced out. He was not considered what is euphemistically known as a team player.

Uzbekistan is a member of the “Coalition of the Willing”, making it an enthusiastic supporter of the US/UK war on terror. It has allowed its territory to be used by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, with whom it shares a border.

A former Soviet republic, it has been led since its independence in 1991 by Islam Karimov, a former Communist Party leader. There are no free elections and opposition parties are banned. It is widely accepted internationally, even by the UK foreign office, that the regime of this primarily Sunni Muslim country continues to use the threat of al-Qaeda-style terrorism as an excuse to ruthlessly suppress legitimate opposition to its policies.

The US state department describes Uzbekistan as the “strategic centre of central Asia”. It plays a pivotal role in the region, and the US “accordingly has developed a broad relationship covering political, human rights, military, nonproliferation, economic, trade, assistance, and related issues”. While there is a reference to the Uzbek regime’s routine use of torture, this clearly is no impediment to Uzbekistan’s membership of the coalitions which, according to the state department, “have dealt with both Afghanistan and Iraq”. Nor is it apparently any obstacle to America’s use of Uzbekistan for rendition purposes – it has been reported that several terrorist suspects have been deposited there by the US for interrogation. It was only when the Uzbek military opened fire last year on a group of defenceless protesters in the city of Andijan, killing over 600, that western powers were moved to murmur a protest. Craig Murray’s gravest sin was to go public about the fact that both the US and the UK governments were happily using information gained under torture from unfortunate Uzbeks identified – usually falsely – by the regime as terrorists. In Alan Torney’s enthralling documentary on RT’ radio last week, Murray described how he was told by the British foreign office that it was perfectly acceptable to use information gained as a result of torture so long as the UK did not actually torture people itself, or actively encourage others to do so.

Whether encouraged or not, the Uzbek regime uses rape, asphyxiation and electrocution as standard means of torture.

They also like to wield pliers to tear out finger and toenails and to immerse people in boiling liquid. There are reports of parents forced to witness the torture of their children so as to force information from them.

Murray makes the point that while waging a war in Iraq ostensibly to remove the tyrant Saddam Hussein and his appalling abuse of his own people, both the US and the UK are happily cohabiting with another regime in the area, namely Uzbekistan, whose persecution of its citizens was, and remains, just as savage.

The latest in the Craig Murray saga – and he continues to campaign against human rights abuses in Uzbekistan – is a remarkable assault on his work by the UK administration.

His riveting book, Murder in Samarkand, was published earlier this year, and was to contain official documents he obtained under the UK freedom of information legislation.

The British government responded by threatening legal action, on the basis that it owns the copyright to all such documents and refuses to allow them to be reproduced. Murray himself best sums up his experiences: “Have we come to this, that integrity in public life is now so rare that some consider me a hero just for exhibiting the most basic human decency?”

View with comments

Tribune reviews “Murder in Samarkand”

Murder in Samarkand, Craig Murray. Mainstream, 400 pp, ‘18.99

Paul Routledge

“How can we have come to this,” asks Craig Murray, once Our Man in Tashkent, “that integrity in public life is now so rare that some consider me a hero just for exhibiting the most basic human decency?”

You only have to read this important, and courageous, book to understand why. If you are a public servant, and you speak out about the moral cesspit into which New Labour has jumped ‘ not fallen ‘ then you will be hounded from your job, blackguarded in the media and pursued by the avenging furies of the security services and their lawyers.

Craig Murray paid this price for revealing the British government’s role in the use of information gained by torture, which in turn led to the expose of the USA’s “extraordinary rendition” flights” and infuriated Washington. He simply had to go, and once gone, further and better punished to discourage the rest.

It is amazing that this book ever appeared. The government’s censors have had a field day, cutting out damning details on pain of crippling litigation against the publisher. And Whitehall’s finest lawyers were wheeled out to threaten the author with breach of copyright if he disclosed sensitive diplomatic telegrams. But the great virtue about this awkward Scot, who looks like a bemused schoolteacher down on his luck, is that you cannot shut him up.

Murder in Samarkand is the result : a bludgeon by bludgeon account of the barbaric regime of President Karimov in Uzbekistan, and a Labour government’s complicity in his rule. Murray, a career diplomat with postings in Warsaw and west Africa behind him, was appointed Britain’s youngest ambassador in Tashkent in 2002 at the age of 43. He was Norfolk grammar school and Dundee University, rather than Eton and Oxbridge, and Liberal rather than service-orientated Conservative or career Labour. In retrospect, he looked like trouble from the beginning. Except that he did his job so well.

Murray found Tashkent a diplomatic quiet zone, with embassies unable, or unwilling, to influence Karimov’s corrupt, reborn-Communist government. His first act was to attend a dissident’s trial, where three hours of observing perversion of justice set him on his own course of dissent. He fired off a telegram to London condemning the regime that was Blair’s ally in the “war on terror” and demanding an EU protest. Within days, opponents of the regime were knocking at his door with horrific fresh evidence, including photographs of a man who had been boiled alive. The American ambassador cautioned him, claiming that the boiling man was “an isolated case.”

Contrarily, Murray upped the tempo with a public speech condemning the Uzbek regime’s human rights record, and a stream of telegrams disclosing “systemic” torture. His FCO managers were not amused, warning him that he was behaving like a politician, not a diplomat. Worse was to come. Murray, who was reading the MI6 material, denounced as hopelessly wrong information “from a friendly security service” gleaned from “detainee briefing.” He was sure this stuff was “hot out of the torture chambers.” But for Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the head of MI6, the material was “operationally useful”, even if they both (allegedly) lost sleep over its use.

Thereon, it was downhill all the way. The story of the FCO’s persecution of Murray is told in relentless detail. He was accused of being unpatriotic, drunk on duty, unduly fond of the local women, and a host of other undiplomatic habits. He was certainly na’ve, and enjoyed the social round, such as it was in Tashkent. Murray enlivened it with Gilbert and Sullivan, a Scottish rock band and fireworks. Recalled for interview to London, he almost died from a pulmonary embolism and was probably unwise to return to his post while the campaign to destroy him reached a climax at home. He was banned from his own office, a policy specifically supported by Straw. Eventually, practically all the charges against him were dropped, except for the heinous crime of talking about them. But they sacked him all the same, ending his “experiment in a more dynamic style of ambassadorship.”

His real crime, of course, was unwitting subversion of the longstanding US-UK intelligence sharing agreement, under which everything is swapped between the CIA and MI6. Since the American spook industry is four times bigger than ours, this is an unequal swap, and part of the bargain has to be British acceptance of information wherever it comes from. If it comes from torture, “we have to accept it in order to maintain the integrity of the agreement,” Murray emphasises..

That is the nub of the issue, and he is disarmingly frank about stating it. From a simple protest against political corruption, Murray was drawn ineluctably into a power game that could only have one ending. Within days of his controversial Tashkent speech, a top US diplomat in Uzbekistan told a visiting Danish journalist “Murray is a finished man here.”

But happily, not here at home. Murder in Samarkand is not just a harrowing, dramatic story, occasionally relieved by an impish sense of humour. It is a clarion call to all those who care about justice and human rights. No wonder they wanted to shut him up, and thank heaven they failed.

View with comments

UK: Algerian national security deportation an affront to justice and a green light to torture

From Amnesty International

Amnesty International is deeply dismayed at today’s decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) dismissing the appeal of an Algerian man, known for legal reasons as “Y”, against his deportation on national security grounds. The SIAC ruled that “Y” would not face a real risk of torture if he was returned to Algeria.

“The SIAC proceedings were profoundly unfair; they denied ‘Y’ the right to due process of law and any meaningful equality of arms making it impossible for him to effectively refute the UK authorities’ case that he was a national security risk,” Nicola Duckworth, Amnesty International’s Director of the Europe and Central Asia Programme said.

“Y” is a torture survivor who had been granted refugee status in the UK. In 2005, he was acquitted, together with others, of all charges in connection with a purported attempt to manufacture and use ricin. He was released from custody in April 2005, where he had been since January 2003. He was later re-arrested and held pending deportation on national security grounds.

Upon hearing of today’s decision of the SIAC, three of the jurors who had acquitted “Y” in the criminal proceedings expressed their shock that despite his acquittal at the criminal trial, the exact same evidence was being used again to ‘justify his deportation’.

They told Amnesty International:

“As three ordinary members of the public we have had our eyes opened to such an unfair and unjust sequence of events orchestrated by the authorities that we feel compelled to speak out. This is contrary to anything we thought could be possible in a democratic, free society.”

“Since January 2003, ‘Y’ has been persecuted by our government beyond all realms of imagination. We were three jurors on ‘Y”s criminal trial (the ‘no-ricin trial’) and after seven months listening carefully to the evidence and arguments from the prosecution and defence, we, as a jury, acquitted him of all charges and expected that, on his release, he could begin to rebuild his life in this country.”

Amnesty International’s delegates observed most of the proceedings before the SIAC in which “Y” challenged the UK authorities’ assertions that he was a national security risk, and that he would not face a real risk of torture if returned to Algeria.

The organization considers that in the proceedings before the SIAC “Y” was denied his right to effectively challenge being labelled as a national security risk. Of grave concern to Amnesty International was the UK authorities’ introduction of, and the SIAC’s reliance on, secret intelligence that was withheld from “Y”, his lawyers of choice and the public.

“Amnesty International has extensively documented the persistence of torture of people thought to possess information about terrorism by Algerian security forces”, Nicola Duckworth said.

“Given the extensive evidence before the SIAC that ‘Y’ would face a real risk of torture if deported to Algeria, today’s decision can only be described as an affront to justice and wrong.”

View with comments

Words equal liquids to mind police

From the NorthWest Enquirer

CRAIG Murray failed to unseat Jack Straw in Blackburn at the last general election but the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan has proved something of a thorn in the government’s side since. His book, Murder In Samarkand, details human rights abuses in Uzbekistan under president Islam Karimov and criticises the British government’s support for the regime. The government has more recently fired off lawyers’ letters to prevent him publishing documents on his blog. And earlier this month Murray cast doubt on government claims about the scale and imminence of the alleged plot to blow up ten flights to the US. But the bureaucracy is exacting its revenge. Ben, a contributor to the blog Neweurasia, says he was prevented from taking Murray’s book on a recent flight from Heathrow to Berlin. ‘Is that about terrorism?’ he was asked. ‘I am afraid you cannot take this on board, sir.’

View with comments

Still No Info on Terror War’s ‘Ghost Detainees’

By Aaron Glantz in OneWorld US

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 23 (OneWorld) – The human rights group Amnesty International is appealing decisions by the United States government to withhold as secret information detailing the incarceration of so-called ghost detainees as part of the Bush administration’s self-styled “war on terror.”

The requests, which were submitted under the Freedom of Information Act with the help of the International Human Rights Clinic of New York University (NYU) School of Law, concern detainees who are–or have been–held by or with the involvement of the United States government, where there is no public record of the detentions.

Such individuals have also often been subjected to the practice commonly known as extraordinary rendition, which means they have been flown by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to a U.S.-allied nation where torture is legal and have been interrogated there.

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of prisoners have been victims of torture in third countries. It’s difficult to ascertain the exact number because the files remain classified.

(more…)

View with comments

Iran is the the chief beneficiary of the ‘war on terror’

A new report from Chatham House looks at Iran and its neighbours in this new era of conflict and uncertainty ushered in by the polices of Bush and Blair.

“There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. The United States, with Coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments ‘ the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 ‘ but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures. The outbreak of conflict on two fronts in June’July 2006 between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel and Hizbullah in Lebanon has added to the regional dimensions of this instability…

..Iranian regional foreign policy, which is often portrayed as mischievous and destabilizing, is in fact remarkably pragmatic on the whole and generally aims to avoid major upheaval or confrontation.

Iran’s core foreign policy concerns are:

‘ regional hegemony, particularly economic and cultural, within its sphere of influence;

‘ an extension of the sphere of influence;

‘ regional stability;

‘ to see Iraq unified but unable to pose a military threat;

‘ an obsession with the US but uncertainty how to deal with it.”

View with comments