The documents I obtained under the Freedon of Information Act yesterday are irrefutable evidence that Jack Straw lied to the parliamentary inquiry into extraordinary rendition. This is what Straw said:
I set out the British Government’s position on this issue on a number of occasions, including in evidence both here and to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I wrote a pretty detailed letter to a constituent of mine back in June, setting out our position. As I said there, there are no circumstances in which British officials use torture, nor any question of the British Government seeking to justify the use of torture. Again, the British Government, including the terrorist and security agencies, has never used torture for any purpose including for information, nor would we instigate or connive with others in doing so. People have to make their own judgment whether they think I am being accurate or not.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfaff/573/5102405.htm
Yet all the time he had been personally directing a secret policy of using, justifying and conniving with torture, as these documents prove. I provide here a brief transcript with notes for those having difficulty understanding Civil Service jargon. :Deletions are by government censors.
My notes are in bold.
TRANSCRIPT
Classification redacted
From: Linda Duffield (Director, Wider Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office)
Date: 10 March 2003
Reference: 1
To PUS (Permanent Under Secretary, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Michael Jay now Lord Jay)
cc: (Sir) Michael Wood, Legal Adviser
Matthew Kidd (Position redacted – representing MI6)
SUBJECT: UZBEKISTAN; INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
1. Michael Wood, Matthew Kidd and I had a meeting with Craig Murray (Me, British Ambassador to Tashkent) to discuss his telegram (Tashkent Telno Misc 01). (Detail of telegram deleted. In it I complained that we regularly receive material from the CIA, got from the Uzbek secret services, obtained by torture.) I said you had asked me to discuss this with Craig personally in view of the sensitive nature of the issues involved.
2. Craig said his concerns had been prompted by a presentation to the Uzbek authorities by Professor Korff (OSCE Adviser) on the UN Convention on Torture. Craig said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the Convention to receive or to possess information obtained under torture. He asked for clarification on this. Michael Wood replied that he did not believe that possession of information was in itself an offence, but undertook to re-read the Convention and to ensure that Craig had a reply on this particular point.
3. I gave Craig a copy of your revised draft telegram (attached) and took him through this. I said that he was right to raise with you and Ministers (Jack Straw) his concerns about important legal and moral issues. We took these very seriously and gave a great deal of thought to such issues ourselves. There were difficult ethical and moral issues involved and at times difficult judgements had to be made weighing one clutch of “moral issues” against another. It was not always easy for people in post (embassies) to see and appreciate the broader picture, eg piecing together intelligence material from different sources in the global fight against terrorism. But that did not mean we took their concerns any less lightly.
4. (Whole paragraph deleted – this may have related to my querying of the accuracy of the CIA torture material).
5. After Michael Wood and Matthew Kidd had left, Craig and I had a general discussion about the human rights situation in Uzbekistan and the difficulties of pushing for a Resolution in Geneva, which we both agreed was important. (Section about US administation supporting Karimov in UN deleted)
CONCLUSION
6. In conclusion, Craig said that he was grateful for the decision to discuss these issues with me personally. At the end of the day he accepted, as a public servant, that these were decisions for Ministers to take, whether he agreed with them or not. If it ever reached the stage where he could not accept such a decision, then the right thing to do would be to request a move. But he was certainly not there yet. He had fed in his views. You and Ministers had decided how to handle this question. He accepted that and would now go back to Tashkent and “Get on with the job”.
7. I think it was right to see him. I am not sure this is the end of the issue (or correspondence), but it was a frank and amicable discussion and Craig appears to be making efforts to balance his work on human rights with other FCO objectives. We shall, of course, be reviewing these again once he has produced his post objectives for the upcoming year.
Signed
Linda Duffield
Director Wider Europe
Then Comes the Endorsement from Jack Straw:
Linda Duffield
UZBEKISTAN
Last night the Foreign Secretary (Jack Straw) read a copy of your minute of 10 March reporting your conversation (in the company of Michael Wood and Matthew Kidd) with Craig Murray.
The Foregin Secretary agrees with the PUS that you handled this very well. He has asked me to thank you.
Signed
Simon McDonald
(Assistant Private Secretary to Jack Straw)
Does anybody wish to now argue that Jack Straw told parliament the truth when he said two years later – when asked specifically about my account that hese events had happened –
It is Mr Murray’s opinion. Mr Murray, as you may know, stood in my constituency. He got fewer votes than the British National Party, and notwithstanding the fact that he assured the widest possible audience within the constituency to his views about use of torture. I set out the British Government’s position on this issue on a number of occasions, including in evidence both here and to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I wrote a pretty detailed letter to a constituent of mine back in June, setting out our position. As I said there, there are no circumstances in which British officials use torture, nor any question of the British Government seeking to justify the use of torture. Again, the British Government, including the terrorist and security agencies, has never used torture for any purpose including for information, nor would we instigate or connive with others in doing so. People have to make their own judgment whether they think I am being accurate or not.
I have highlighted the bits that are plain lies to parliament in view of the above.
Any argument?
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfaff/573/5102405.htm
Craig, I notice that a nat blogger is being forced off the net because he ‘outed’ Jim Murphy as a cunt. Consider this a shot across your bow – the droids are getting ready for an election, and wardog is an early trophy. Could you please assist the dissonant majority by going on record with a confirmation that Jim Murphy is indeed a cunt (as we in Scotland understand the term in its colloquial and familiar sense as descriptive of an entirely worthless person) – and put on record your regret that an articulate voice of dissent has been silenced?
http://wardogblog.blogspot.com/
Quoting Ruth: “We know what’s going on, OK. But what’s the point of knowing what’s going on if we do nothing?”
Well, quite. But it’s a real poser, isn’t it? c. 2million of us gathered in protest back at Hyde Park: if millions of people all over the UK and the world held no sway as we exercised our democratic right to peaceably protest, then one wonders what exactly would constitute effective lawful action.
One can only hope that the Chilcot inquiry may surprise us with truth and fuel for justice. At least, the MSM seems to be beginning to focus on Blair and his culpability.
“…Fresh evidence is emerging every week of the alleged complicity of the British state in the torture of terrorist suspects, particularly after President Bush’s White House took a much more brutal approach to such enemies of America after the bombing of the Twin Towers in 2001.
It is inconceivable that British intelligence agents would have been involved in the torture of terror suspects without explicit ministerial sanction.
The question is how much did Blair himself know – and the evidence he did is getting nearer his door all the time. A Human Rights Watch report into British complicity with torture is to be published on Tuesday and will add to the pressure.
The third area of potential illegality [first concerns corruption, whereby businessmen or large corporations were able to influence government policy or gained other favours in exchange for donations to the Labour Party]
concerns the still highly controversial decision to go to war with Iraq in March 2003.
A number of legal experts argue that the war was illegal and Tony Blair is therefore guilty of war crimes…”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1229692/PETER-OBORNE-He-looks-haunted-new-claims-torture-war-lies-hes-got-lot-haunted-by.html#ixzz0XSROcxTa
Maybe the smoke and mirrors house of cards will fall under its own despicable weight? May we hope that time will give birth to truth?
Sam. Gathering isn’t enough. That’s the lesson of Feb 2002, and indeed of earlier times! Poll tax demos, miners demos, Iraq war demo. The means of protest via demo died a peculiar and almost unrealised death in the late 20th and early 21st century.
It’s time – long overdue in fact, to make a move into direct action / civil disobedience.
Refuse to bank with institutions who are involved with dirty principles. e.g. Lloyds for blocking Palestinian aid. Barclays for what amounted to threates to bring a little island to it’s knees.
Do not purchase goods/services from companies that have connections to dirty politics.
Don’t vote for anyone other than those clearly against the putrid NWO.
Do not pay tax to fund a war machine.
Don’t pay for media which oils that killing machine.
There are many things one COULD do, but it’s incredibly sad that most just don’t give a toss.
Re: 5:30 AM,
Lots of people care, they just don’t think they can make any difference. I agree with all of the suggested actions, but I really don’t know how the money I spend actually gets used, and it would take an age to find out.
November 19, 2009
“Share the Sacrifice Act Ends Borrowing to Pay for Afghan War”…
http://tinyurl.com/yduojqr
I read that Oborne article claiming that Blair is a war criminal and about the evidence against him:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1229692/PETER-OBORNE-He-looks-haunted-new-claims-torture-war-lies-hes-got-lot-haunted-by.html#ixzz0XSROcxTa
Whilst I don’t disagree with much of it, I think Oborne is a bit naive when he says this:
“His predecessor, Margaret Thatcher, has only to enter a restaurant and the room will rise to applaud her. Tony Blair, in contrast, is increasingly reviled and insulted.”
I well remember Thatcher in power and she was utterly despised up and down the country. Even when the Tory conference was bombed there was much cheering in the country, so much were they hated. So clearly that’s not enough, especially if over time perceptions can change so much.
In many ways it was Thatcher’s destruction of the BBC and Thames Television which paved the way for the toadying broadcast media experience we have today.
The BBC was destroyed by Thatcher in 1987, and Thames lost its franchise in 1992 on foot of changes in the franchising legislation passed by Thatcher. This legislation allowed Carlton to win the Thames TV franchise. Carlton was an even poorer broadcaster than Channel Five is today. Thames was one of the best current affairs and news broadcasters in British history.
Thatcher certainly paved the way for Blair and Mandelson’s control of the news agenda.
Maybe we all need to meet to thrash out ideas on how to become an effective organisation.
RUTH’S COMMENT & THE DOUBLE STANDARD IN HUMAN RIGHTS
Ruth, you raise a very good question. Look at my own case. I won’t reiterate it except to say that it is indicative of an appalling double standard in human rights and civil liberties. Now I am not in any way belittling these foreign human rights matters that are so regularly reported on and so important. They are absolutely shocking issues that need exposure, but there is a double standard being applied.
The double standard is this – Our human rights industry will not deal honestly with human rights issues (like mine) where the core of the high establishment are the abusers. Yes, they will attack Pinochet-types thousands of miles away, or the CIA, even occasionally our own personnel ?” but never the high establishment. Other victims of the high establishment have reported the same.
This is my experience of Amnesty International and The Guardian. These organizations hold themselves out to be advocates of human rights issues; so people believe that they are honest and report all. So when they avoid an issue (like mine) they are effectively denying it credibility, and operating indirectly in support of the abusers.
What I do know is this. After leaving The Guardian’s offices in Manchester, my wife and I were threatened by MI5 just for going there. When we reported the issue (multiple death threats from MI5/6 being covered-up by government) to Amnesty, they ran a country mile (to the disgust of some of their local activists) and made no attempt to check anything whatsoever. My correspondence with Amnesty is on the Internet.
Comments on my shocking experience with The Guardian have been published in other mainstream papers under the heading:
THE GUARDIAN: PRESS SELF-CENSORSHIP WHERE THE HIGH ESTABLISHMENT IS CONCERNED
It can be seen on this web site:
http://russell46.livejournal.com/
Ruth, as long as the home established can rely on the operation of a double standard in human rights (and civil liberties) and on the hypocrisy and cowardice of organizations such as The Guardian and Amnesty International, you can be certain that nothing will happen at all. It seems to me that the high establishment and their tools (MI5/6) have it all nicely sown up.
Roderick Russell
#207, 1733 ?” 27 AVE. SW
Calgary AB T2T 1G9 CANADA
403.229.0864
The Internet’s uncensorable nature and the power it gives individuals to publish is a huge step forward. Look about the ‘net and you’ll see all sorts of groups publishing things the establishment would rather not make public. But what it doesn’t do is create a large consensus on such issues.
Off Topic: Sorry. But what do people think of this down the memory hole article on this quirky blog referencing BBC News:
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/11/british-plot-against-pakistan-british.html
According to the Independent: “Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan.” (Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters …)
A post at this site Cached tells us of the British government link to the terror in Pakistan.
In 2007 Pakistani Intelligence traced the source of much of terror in Pakistan to a ‘terrorist’ camp in Helmand province in Afghanistan.
The camp was run by Michael Semple and Mervyn Patterson.
The real story was that these training camps were to create the Pakistan Taliban or Tehreek-e Taliban-e Pakistan (TMP); but why?
Maybe we all need to meet to thrash out ideas on how to become an effective organisation.
Posted by: Ruth at November 21, 2009 2:42 PM
>>>Yes. Where? When?
and why…? One has to be very clear about purposes and aims in order to create the grounds for consensus. (cf. Clark at November 21, 2009 4:38 PM)
People DO care about what’s going on: corruption, the psychopathy of many of our leaders, the increasingly delusional nature of our culture (cf Roderick Russell’s experience, common to many, where the organisation spouting support for this or that ‘good’ actually turns its back on the victim of contraventions.)
I notice that there are a number of apparently kosher looking democracy groups springing up around the net now. But I wonder how effective any of these are/will be. See, for example, Helena Kennedy’s Power 2010 http://www.power2010.org.uk/about/about-power-2010, which looks to me like something that’s been done before and was squashed out of existence.
Delphine Delgardo
No idea, except that the idea of the UK training the Taliban reminds me of a photo I once saw of a contortionist arching his back far enough to put his head backwards up through his legs. Moral contortionism. Seriously, one of the most effective ways to get people to accept secularism, which means separation between all social authority and religion, is to create war fatigue. Whatever it takes to put a stop to this terrible fighting, I will sign. i.e. collective torture. Secondly people always blame the perpetrators rather than the agent-provocateurs. Hence in Kurdistan, for years on end, the flow of funerals used to be continuous and now they blame the Arabs, rather than the West which armed Saddam Hussain, not just with weapons, but biological and other chemicals.
Many of that generation which was brought up during conflict now reject everything Arab including the Qur’an, or giving their children Muslim, Arab names. War-Crime pays, but it’s getting harder, with the internet, not to get found out. Justice on Judgement Day will definitely be done, if not sooner, Inshallah.
Thanks for that link Dephine. Just as it was not impossible to create the talibans political barnd of Islam during the 1980’s in Pakistan with the help of CIA and SIS, it is not impossible to contemplate such mercenary/spooks activities by some irrational thinkers.
I also believe that the resumption of arms trade to Dostum and his best mate Karimov will create civil war conditions and revive the Northern Alliance’s antaginism with the southern tribes. Sadly the chances of Abdullah Abdullahs to unite these two factions by his presedency, he has family relations from both south and north, are not helped by the EU’s lifting of the arms embargo, indeed it looks like a continum policy guranteeing more strife and war in Afghanistan for a while to come.
Already, Mp’s and minister allied to Karzai are attacked with suicide bvombers, he will be gone in a year and then we will be dealing with a whole new situation were alliances with warlords will be forged.
The phenomenon of the West cultivating Al Qaeda in the fight against the Soviet Union was an application of the false principle that the enemy of an enemy is a friend. They armed Saddam against Iran with similar motives (‘He’s a SOB, but he’s our SOB’), and the Israelis similarly cultivated Hamas (to begin with) against Yasir Arafat.
All three policies had disastrous consequences. Saddam invaded Kuwait, Hamas caused more trouble for the Israelis than Arafat did, and Al Qaeda caused 9/11 and its aftermath. Further, the reaction by the West injured its reputation – for America by its conduct in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel by erecting the West Bank barrier and invading Gaza.
Hopefully the West will have learned a hard lesson from all this – to put it as a proverb, he who handles snakes is liable to get bitten.
@Abe Rene
Perhaps the West had an interest in destabilising this region.
It’s obvious that Israel had an interest in destabilising the Palestinians and their territory.
Not sure why you think the West are the planet’s transcendental goodies, whose barbarism is only ever mistakes.
Perhaps you ought to read some history, or at least some current affairs which is something other than from pro-West propaganda sources.
That “West as goodies” premise of yours is not an asset so far as critical thinking is concerned.
On Ruth’s question. My view is that the British people believe that they live in a democracy and indeed there is a steady stream of propaganda from the media to reinforce this viewpoint. It seems to me that the challenge is a PR one ?” to have the people see the truth for themselves.
I also believe that our constitutional arrangements have been twisted out of shape to try and find a role for monarchy. This institution is not the figurehead we are lead to believe, but exercises very considerable behind the scenes power. I do not say that this undemocratic power is exercised by The Queen: monarchy is an institution surrounded by hundreds of courtiers and hangers-on, who may have their own agendas. I have had my views on this subject published in the mainstream Canadian press.
MPs are only interested in getting elected ?” they will effect change if the issues becomes important to them. Perhaps Ruth could give us her views on the best approach to take.
19 November 2009
“A turning point for the constitution”
“So who benefits from this mess? It is certainly convenient for the civil service and the government of the day, but it also benefits pretty much anyone who is in a position of authority or knows anyone in a position of authority with something embarrassing (or even criminal) to hide.”…
http://tinyurl.com/yescqxr
Roderick Russell
We have an idea that at the higher echelons of our society, everyone is scratching eachother’s backs in a united core of establishment self-interest. I suspect that a better model would be the earth’s upper atmosphere where there are several, highly stratified bands of different substances and temperatures.
The problems you have described occur because hierarchy increases in importance as you ascend the establishment scale. Your rank depends on not interfering with the line managers above your own rank. If you question anything, you are immediately removed from rank altogether.
What are human beings, that they have such a high opinion of themselves? Our lives are in the hands of Allah. All the treasures of this world and the next and all respect, are with Allah. These gonks are not allowed to stray out of their jealously guarded slot. My understanding roams freely like light radiating from a distant star. I refuse to value myself by their standards, the bastards who wallow in their own man-made superiority. They are primarily bastards to their own selves. I value myself by the standard shown to us by our prophet Muhammad, may God’s peace be upon him. We are fasting for nine days to get in some free forgiveness for our sins. That’s deep respect for human beings, not the blind insistence on status and status quo that deceives these lost souls/a***holes.
Cheer up, like Craig. You’re in the right place and the right time and you’ve managed to escape from this nightmare of self-delusion we call power.
@Grow up
I haven’t had many messages that rival yours for ignorance. I note that your name is a call to others, not to self. You are not a competent judge of my knowledge or anyone else’s. You must learn the difference between speaking to the point and making personal comments based on your knowledge of someone – in your case none.
As for the West being the world’s good guys: the West are humans first, and anything else afterwards. But there is freedom and opportunity here not available elsewhere. You had better learn to be grateful for what you have, and practice what your self-styled name preaches.
@ Abe Rene
I’m a perfectly competent judge of your juvenile comments on this blog.
I note that you’re incapable of addressing the points I made. I’m not surprised at this.
However, I see you’ve introduced another schoolboy howler into the mix, that “there is freedom and opportunity here not available elsewhere”.
Clearly you don’t do irony either.
I suggest you try to find out for yourself what it is like to be subject to US and indeed Western foreign policy, rather than dribbling on about how great things are here.
It’s not my job to remedy the obvious defects in your education, but it is important that the trite drivel you spout is challenged at every opportunity.
@Grow up
You have made no points worthy of attention. If you don’t like it in the West, go elsewhere. I’m not wasting time on you.
@ Abe Rene
I’ve made a number of points worthy of attention.
Their worth is incontrovertible. Your own personal inability to engage with them is an entirely different matter.
I’d suggest that your, “If you don’t like it in the West, go elsewhere” is an appeal to subserviance and undermines the critical analysis that is the essence of Western being.
Curiously enough, I haven’t actually criticised Western values. I’ve just criticised Western foreign policy and how it impacts those unfortunates in whom we take an interest.
But then again, you’re much too dim to appreciate the difference.
I’d be much happier if those who like yourself do not appreciate the critical traditions of Western culture would take yourself off to whatever other state you please, preferably one where drones are doing duty. You’re of no value to the good people of the West.
Now please run along, like a good little boy.
Grow up
I’m not wasting time on you. Go and get your medication.
@ Abe Rene
Well, you do appear to be wasting some time, despite your claims to contrary.
It would be much more productive if you were capable of addressing the points made, but as I’ve shown you’re singularly incapable of doing anything remotely approaching that.
QED
This demolition of your tedious and trivial interventions would serve to undermine any such further intervention on your part, and indeed “points” you might make in further threads.
Educate yourself, before boring people with your tired, shabby, reheated versions of what popular media has instilled in your balefully uncritical mind.
Roderick Russell is correct. Our ‘democracy’ is basically an illusion whilst we have this relic of a monarchy thankfully now self-extinguishing.
I was looking to see how many Privy Counsellors there are (some throwback to gentlemen of the privy? carrying of the piss pots and the like?) and was absolutely staggered to see that there are hundreds of them enmeshed in our judicial and political structure. What are they there for and what do they do? War criminals like Blair, Straw and Hoon are amongst the number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_British_Privy_Council#T
Listening to Andy Hayman talking on The Interview BBC World Service. Total tripe, with apologies to those who like tripe.
Mary asks what the Privy Councillors are they there for and what do they do.
I suspect very strongly that an inner group of the Privy Council direct policy; that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are their executive, that they control funds siphoned off from the taxpayers via the intelligence services and that they use the judiciary to hide state crime.
It’s very interesting that two of the judges in the Lockerbie case became Privy Councillors just before the trial. It’s also very significant that the judges alledgedly brought in a verdict that no reasonable court could produced.
It’s also quite interesting that as soon as Blair had made the Prisoner Exchange Agreement with Libya he asked Alex Salmond to become a Privy Councillor.
Mary asks what the Privy Councillors are they there for and what do they do.
I suspect very strongly that an inner group of the Privy Council direct policy; that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are their executive, that they control funds siphoned off from the taxpayers via the intelligence services and that they use the judiciary to hide state crime.
It’s very interesting that two of the judges in the Lockerbie case became Privy Councillors just before the trial. It’s also very significant that the judges alledgedly brought in a verdict that no reasonable court could produced.
It’s also quite interesting that as soon as Blair had made the Prisoner Exchange Agreement with Libya he asked Alex Salmond to become a Privy Councillor.
Thanks Ruth. I think your suspicions are correct. I should have said that I was looking at the list of privy councillors to see if the members of the Iraq Enquiry were on it. Of course all five, Chilcot, Freedman, Lyne, Gilbert and Prashar, are there. Prashar was only sworn in last month btw.
The strange oath of secrecy they make is here. Sounds more like a freemasons’ lodge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Most_Honourable_Privy_Council
So obviously they had to get Prashar in quick to tow the line.