Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 team came from Saudi Arabia. In response we keep invading other countries by mistake.
The so-called Attorney-General ordered the Serious Fraud Office to stop the investigation into BAE’s maasive bribery payments to Saudi Arabia because of “national security”. By this, he meant that the Saudis might stop giving us “intelligence” from their torture chambers if we persisted.
The Saudis are even allowed to torture British people if they feel like it:
Three Britons and a Canadian have been denied the right to sue Saudi Arabian officials they say tortured them. A Law Lords ruling allowed an appeal by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia against a 2004 Court of Appeal decision for the men to be able to sue for damages.
The four had been jailed after being accused of taking part in a bombing campaign in Saudi Arabia six years ago. Saudi Arabia, supported by the British government, argues that its officials are protected by state immunity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5078118.stm
It was fitting that the first stop on Blair’s World Rour was Libya, where he did deals with Gadaffi for BP and British Aerospace. No Prime Minister ever did more for the oil and defence industries.
But somewhere in the BBC, somebody is redisclvering their nerve. Take advantage of it before they get sacked to watch what looks like an interesting Panorama programme on June 11.
BBC investigation
A Saudi prince who negotiated a ’40bn arms deal between Britain and Saudi Arabia received secret payments for over a decade, a BBC probe has found. The UK’s biggest arms dealer, BAE Systems, paid hundreds of millions of pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
The payments were made with the full knowledge of the Ministry of Defence.
Prince Bandar would not comment on the investigation and BAE Systems said it acted lawfully at all times. The MoD said information about the Al Yamamah deal was confidential.
Private plane
The investigation found that up to ‘120m a year was sent by BAE Systems from the UK into two Saudi embassy accounts in Washington. The BBC’s Panorama programme has established that these accounts were actually a conduit to Prince Bandar for his role in the 1985 deal to sell more than 100 warplanes to Saudi Arabia. The purpose of one of the accounts was to pay the expenses of the prince’s private Airbus.
David Caruso, an investigator who worked for the American bank where the accounts were held, said Prince Bandar had been taking money for his own personal use out of accounts that seemed to belong to his government. He said: “There wasn’t a distinction between the accounts of the embassy, or official government accounts as we would call them, and the accounts of the royal family.”
Mr Caruso said he understood this had been going on for “years and years”. “Hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars were involved,” he added.
Investigation stopped
According to Panorama’s sources, the payments were written into the arms deal contract in secret annexes, described as “support services”. They were authorised on a quarterly basis by the MoD.
Prince Bandar was Saudi ambassador to the US for 20 years. It remains unclear whether the payments were actually illegal – a point which depends in part on whether they continued after 2001, when the UK made bribery of foreign officials an offence. The payments were discovered during a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation. The SFO inquiry into the Al Yamamah deal was stopped in December 2006 by attorney general Lord Goldsmith.
Prime Minister Tony Blair declined to comment on the Panorama allegations. But he said that if the SFO investigation into BAE had not been dropped, it would have led to “the complete wreckage of a vital strategic relationship and the loss of thousands of British jobs”.
Prince Bandar, who is the son of the Saudi defence minister, served for 20 years as US ambassador and is now head of the country’s national security council. Panorama reporter Jane Corbin explained that the payments were Saudi public money, channelled through BAE and the MoD, back to the Prince.
The SFO had been trying to establish whether they were illegal when the investigation was stopped, she added. She believed the payments would thrust the issue back into the public domain and raise a number of questions.
‘Bad for business’
Labour MP Roger Berry, head of the House of Commons committee which investigates strategic export controls, told the BBC that the allegations must be properly investigated.
If there was evidence of bribery or corruption in arms deals since 2001 – when the UK signed the OECD’s Anti-Bribery Convention – then that would be a criminal offence, he said. He added: “It’s bad for British business, apart from anything else, if allegations of bribery popping around aren’t investigated.”
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said that if ministers in either the present or previous governments were involved there should be a “major parliamentary inquiry”. “It seems to me very clear that this issue has got to be re-opened,” Mr Cable told BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight. “It is one thing for a company to have engaged in alleged corruption overseas. It is another thing if British government ministers have approved it.”
Panorama will be broadcast on Monday 11 June 2007 2030 BST
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6728773.stm
Update 08.06.07: The Guardian reveals that Attorney General Goldsmith hid secret money transfers from international anti-corruption organisation
You'll need to set the video: it is on at the same time as this programme on Channel 4:
=====================================
20:00 Dispatches
Kidnapped to Order
Exposing a new phase in America's dirty war on al Qaeda: the rendition and detention of women and children.
=====================================
So could these BAE payments explain some of the Saudi transactions that caused the Riggs Bank scandal?
Almost certainly there are links to Riggs Bank. Maybe we should ask Christopher Meyer why he resigned – although that was reportedly over an issue with Equatorial Guinea which ultimately led to a substantial fine some time after Meyer's resignation.
I just heard a BBC report with a tory spokeman explaining why it was all allright to give bribes to the Saudi royal family. It was Jonathan Aitken, introduced as "former Conservative cabinet minister". Nobody mentioned how he'd spent his time since leaving the Cabinet.
Is it conceivable that BAE would pay a fortune to Prince Bandar without consulting with the MOD and getting the o.k. from the minister of defence? Is it likely that the minister would sanction such a hugely illegal, morally corrupt and costly opperation without seeking approval from Tony Blair himself? After all Blair has stated that the deal had significant economic and national security implications. We now all know how rightwing Blair really is, but what about his level of corruption? For a man who loves the highlife and luxury; it must be frustrating to meet so many fabulously wealthy people with power, and yet have so little real money oneself.
What this really amounts to is the theft of hundreds of millions of pounds from the Saudi people. The extra cost of bribing Saudi officials will be factored into the overall contract, which is ultimately paid for by the Saudi public.
It's no different to any other dictatorship stealing from it's people, except it seems that this time the British government has directly approved it. If we let this go, how can we possibly condemn other dictators for stealing from their people?