Anybody who is in any way surprised at today’s announcement that nobody will be prosecuted for extraordinary rendition and torture, is in deep denial about what a corrupt and rotten state the United Kingdom is.
Among the many documents the Metropolitan Police (who are genuinely furious) handed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and which now lies in a bin, is my own sworn evidence of the complicity in torture of Jack Straw and senior FCO officials. I therefore now publish the statement I made to the Metropolitan Police.
I should explain this is not my language. The Metropolitan Police officers interviewed me for two days at my home and then wrote the statement which I signed. This is not the signed copy because I did not have a photocopier at my home. Two copies were printed off on my printer, one of which I signed and gave to them. This is the other copy, and is exactly the same as the signed copy.
This is the most incredible cover up conceivable.
When similar. earlier extraordinary CIA rendition of terrorist suspects occurred in Sweden, and Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh was claimed to permit it, she became completely riled up about it, resulting the Meir Dagan’s Mossad apparently murdering her.
When Chief Constable Mike Todd was investigating similar activity in Britain, he too was murdered, again by the Mossad, it seems.
Then there was the unexpected death of questioning Foreign Secretary Robin Cook at the hands of those kind helpers in the Highlands after he collapsed.
SIS can get done whatever it wants, even in the UK, without fear of any prosecution or even any coherent explanation of what happened.
It is not a particularly incredible cover up when viewed in its proper perspective.
Take the death of Gareth Williams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Gareth_Williams
Now that is incredible!
I must say that the apparent murders of Todd and Cook certainly match that of Gareth Williams.
Todd was tricked into going to Snowdonia to meet up with some source, and was drugged while imbibing with it, then stripped of clothing, and left to die from exposure.
And Cook was apparently poisoned the night before, and when he collapsed the next day, a four-man party – probably the UK’s resident kidon which had killed Kelly back in 2003, conveniently arrived to help in his resuscitation, the worst thing that can be done to one under such circumstances, as I discovered when the CIA too had been poisoned in Portugal during1995-6.
Attacks on the pancreas-liver must be left for the body to work out alone, as it cannot deal with more activity and survive.
In my case, I just slept them off.
Trowbridge, read this & thought you might find it interesting;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36434706
Thanks, Macky, I am interested as it recalls my work on that assassination too, making me think the JER was really the assassin.
Don’t recall exactly why he was trying to get to Africa as a mercenary, but believe that it was because “Raul” aka Harvey Steinmeyer and William King Harvey had promised to provide him the means to do so which proved totally unfounded when he got to London.
Insufficient evidence apparently. However to be fair the CPS have probably got their hands full with the prosecution of the oldest ever defendant
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-36460749
The trial is not until December, so there is plenty of time for him to cheat justice by way of death. Who could doubt that such prosecutions are manifestly in the public interest, all brought to you by the worlds greatest freak show empresario that is the CPS.
Raison d’État…
The Matrix-Churchill affair, with Ms. Helen Garlick as prosecutor.
Turns out Ms. Garlick was climbing much too high on the prosecution totem pole and the prosecution, for selling arms to Saddam after the war was declared, had to shut down ‘in the national interest’ because the secret service was the entity using the front company to sell the arms.
How more sordid can it get? Send sons and daughters to fight for Queen and country; sell some arms to the enemy in between time; – all ‘in the national interest” !
Who cares anyway? What can we do?
Craig, I’m just flying through, and don’t have time at the moment to read and absorb the documents you’ve posted. I’ll come back later.
And with that caveat I will just add that the security services in the UK are completely out of control, as highlighted recently by Privacy International…
http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/snoopers-charter-means-nothing-state-surveillance-will-escalate/
Not to mention the quite breathtaking stuff that’s occurring on the other side of the Pond with Hillary Clinton: our glorious leaders no longer bother to conceal just how corrupt they are, and what utter contempt they have for the public and the rule of law.
You’re right. Hillary Clinton won with a massive lead in the popular vote, so that’s proof positive that the vote was rigged!
http://www.usapoliticstoday.com/watchdog-names-clinton-most-corrupt-politician-of-2015/
The above piece does not mention the Clinton Foundation, which many folks name as a massive criminal enterprise.
ROTFLMAO: “nonpartisan”???
Google is hard…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Whitaker
Funny how Whitaker’s profile on the FACT website doesn’t mention any of his adventures as a Republican politician. http://www.factdc.org/#!about/cjg9
Do you know what astroturfing is, by any chance?
Here you go rob,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/09/where-are-the-missing-california-primary-votes/
Martinned.
Not much of choice, for US voters, in the run in, Clinton a confirmed war hawk or Trump, a Mexican Muslim hating billionaire.
Still I think, Clinton will get her feet under the Resolute desk, due the popular wave of electing America’s first female president.
The Bush’s and Clinton’s have had a dog in the presidential race for decades now, I wonder if Putin’s tenures will out do those, in the long run. ?
You do realise that Sanders and Clinton voted almost identically when they were both in the Senate, right? The only difference is that Sanders likes to shout at people and Clinton prefers to get things done.
Martinned.
No I didn’t know that, also if I recall only one or two senators backs Sanders, bid for the Democratic candidacy, and that the Black and Hispanic vote also mostly went to Clinton.
Still I really don’t see America making any great leaps forward on its social issues no matter who’s president. On the international front the Democratic encumbent Obama, ordered ten times more drone strikes than Bush did.
Will Clinton out do Obama on the war front ? Don’t bet against it.
Oh yes Hillary likes to get things done – she especially likes to get the US ambassador to Libya done. Just don’t ask her if she has any e-mail records of this event
I really don’t see America making any great leaps forward on its social issues no matter who’s president
Well, that’s democracy at work. Among the general voting population, the votes simply aren’t there. Turnout at Sanders rallies isn’t evidence to the contrary.
O, and by way of evidence on voting record, the New York Times has them voting the same 93% of the time, which is frankly less than I thought I’d seen: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
Here’s some stuff about the Clinton Foundation…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419791/clinton-foundation-reeks-crooks-thieves-and-hoods-deroy-murdock
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/will-clinton-foundation-accounting-fraud-implicate-a-major-accounting-firm/article/2575782
The fact that someone like Hillary Clinton is going to be the next president, all aided and abetted by the presstitutes, shows that western ‘democracy’ is akin to the Soviet Union in the 1970s.
‘Martinned’ and Habba & Co are enablers of this; all propaganda vermin who might find themselves put up against a wall and shot.
‘That’s democracy at work..”
Nope. That’s the purloined Jeffersonian facade at work. If there’s anything Bankers and politicians are good at, it’s finance. Oh, I don’t mean the squeaky clean Reagan piss-down objective goal. No. I’m talking human avarice taken to it’s extreme without boundaries or practiced ethical standards. I’m talking ‘End justifies Means’ shit. The problem with the Economy is that there are just TOO many regulations for us to operate as freely as say…Al Capone.
‘Martinned’ and Habba & Co are enablers of this; all propaganda vermin who might find themselves put up against a wall and shot.
Bless your heart…
This is a half truth, from someone who is rather skilled at dealing in them.
The whole truth is this: the primaries are organised in various ways in the various states. In some states they are open to all voters who choose, on the day, to vote in the election. In other states they are open only to those registered, often months, in advance as supporters of the party. In other states party supporters meet together, in caucuses and choose delegates on the basis of shows of hands and other straw polls. In these last the popular vote is neither recorded not recordable. In still other cases caucuses are followed by conventions of sub delegates who meet together to elect convention delegates. No doubt there are other state practises which I haven’t noted.
Thus it is a half truth to say that Clinton had a massive lead in the popular vote, unless one explains that by “popular vote” one means a particular thing.
The truth is that nobody knows what the popular vote totals were. The best way of guessing is to use the polls and the polls unanimously reflect the fact that Sanders is far more popular than Clinton.
As to whether the votes were rigged, this is not something open to doubt. If it were those responsible- the local ward healers, bosses and capos- would be protesting, because all of them expects to be paid, in appointments, contracts, Embassies and other considerations, cash included, when the election is finished and “to the victor go the spoils.”
These discussions would be much more interesting and fruitful if we dealt in facts and reality rather than talking points and propaganda.
Really? I’m the one who gets accused of dealing in talking points?
I’m not sure how many links I can paste into a comment before it gets picked up in the spam filter, but here is Fivethirtyeight adjusting the primary results for all the things you mention. They still have Clinton winning by 12%-points.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/
As for popularity polls, I’m not sure which ones you have in mind, but the simple truth is that actual Democrats overwhelmingly prefer Clinton. Don’t take my word for it, here is a graph showing every single head-to-head poll since the spring of last year:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/
Really? Moi? 🙂
You really shouldn’t take 538 as gospel. They have been pushing the Clinton candidacy for months.
The fact is that Clinton won New York, her own state currently, only by crushing majorities in a couple of NYC counties run by the Tammany Hall machine. Even then it took the voiding of 200,000 voters in Brooklyn to put her over the top.
What you mean by ‘actual Democrats’ is unclear. Democratic voters greatly prefer Sanders.
Clinton will be lucky to get to the Convention, apart from her unpopularity (she is one of the most detested and distrusted politicians in America) there is the small matter of her industrial scale influence peddling when, as Secretary of State, she was collecting money for the Clinton Foundation.
The deletion of 30,000 emails from her illegal private server was no accident and the FBI knows it.
You really shouldn’t take 538 as gospel. They have been pushing the Clinton candidacy for months.
Facts have a well-known, you know.
But seriously, they’ve simply been showing that Clinton has been winning for months, because, well, she’s been winning for months.
What you mean by ‘actual Democrats’ is unclear. Democratic voters greatly prefer Sanders.
No they don’t. Democratic leaning independents favour Sanders. Registered Democrats favour Clinton by a wide margin.
she is one of the most detested and distrusted politicians in America
What can I say? 20 years of right-wing propaganda works. Sanders has it easy, no one has ever bothered to slander him until a few months ago.
Craig in your book “Murder in Samarkand” you recall the scene of the sham trial in which the Judge directs the sole witness* and tells him off for not paying attention to the proceedings. That scene keeps recurring throughout the book and then in real life, in various transactions in differing forms and in differing venues, included your dismissal that was based on a sham investigations and a preordained decision.
However, reading the current witness testimony to CPS clearly shows that we have the sophistication of stopping the sham trials by carrying out an investigations and then passing it on to the CPS which then stops any probable display/whiff of a sham trail by declaring there is insufficient evidence or not enough evidence for any probable trial. The sham trial does not take place although the preordained decision of declaring everyone of the culprits innocent and pure as the driven snow is the order of the day! That is the difference between amateur wannabe rulers with their manifestly autocratic methods, and the subtle and nuanced manipulation of the processes that deliver the same results without so much as appearing to be improper or corrupt.
Simple fact is we know Straw knew of the torture, and we know that bLiar knew of the falsehoods that he was peddling to go to war aiding and abetting the user of exotic substances and alcoholic Bu$h in the US to start his hundred years wars. However as you have yet again demonstrated, despite the data being public domain as yet none of the war criminals and the torture sponsors have been indicted or are likely to be even questioned about their crimes, because as we all know there would be insufficient evidence to take any of these bastards to any kind of trials.
For those whom have not read the book (would recommend reading it pronto);
* the same witness had been used in six other trials helping to convict a prisonful of individuals whom were accused of robbing the said witness, with a view to fund their terrorist activities and enterprises. Fact that the witness had not recognised his assailant and pointed at the wrong chap is the source of anger of the judge.
Having worked for, and resigned from the service of, three governments, I can confirm that this account rings absolutely true of the way in which governments work. Pretty certainly, however, the British Government is no more corrupt and rotten than most others. Indeed, the fact that your case caused Jack Straw to “loose sleep at night” (the “at night” confirming this is not CM’s wording) suggests that the British Government of the time was at least slightly less totally psychopathic than one might have expected.
That governments are basically psychopathic is, however, an important lesson of such cases. To succeed in government it is necessary either to be a psychopath or to act like one. Given the power of modern weapons, this is a state of affairs that seems incompatible with the long continued existence of humanity. Given the pervasiveness of modern government, it is a state of affairs incompatible with the long continued existence of civilized society.
But things could have been worse. I mean, they did give you severance rather than sending you to the Tower to have your head chopped as might have happened in an earlier age.
How very British.
We do don’t condone torture, but we mustn’t talk about it if we know of it.
I should imagine that virtually no govt publically condones torture and that the same govts don’t talk about it if they know it went one/is going on.
Why is that specifically British?
Habb.
Which brings us round nicely to this.
http://www.thenational.scot/politics/tories-defend-uks-links-with-saudi-arabia-despite-war-crimes-claims.18589
“TORY MPs defended the Government’s relationship with Saudi Arabia yesterday as opponents challenged them on human rights and war crimes allegations against the Gulf kingdom.”
“The Westminster Hall debate also included condemnation of the treatment of blogger Raif Badawi, sentenced to 1,000 lashes for online comments, and the increased use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, where 47 people were executed in one day earlier this year.”
___________
I suppose one or two in here could do with the odd lash, regarding their inane comments. But on a more sombre note, just where is our very vocal humanitarian Jim? In a strictly imaginary sense of course.
I wonder if our Jim will take up the banner, so to speak and champion Mr Badawi’s cause? Of course on this occasion there’s no angle to expolit for our renowned humanist, of the keyboard persuasion.
The article finishes with a rather, important piece, in which Saudi Arabia threatened not to buy anymore British armaments, in 2014. Our great court jester, extraordinaire, HRH Dobby aka Prince Charles, was despatched to kowtow to Saudi whims, in 2014.
In the now infamous pictures of HRH dancing and twirling in his thwab, and brandishing his scimitar, like a court punchinello, he had the Saudi princes in fits of laughter. The court jester saved the day, and Saudi Arabia continues to purchase British armaments, to this day.
Of course St Nicola would never have dealings with a firm guilty of illegal forced evictions in Africa now would she?
Fred.
If only we had a court jester to send to China, sigh?
You fit the bill perfectly Fred. ?
St Nicola is on TV saying we’re better together, hurry or you’ll miss it.
“Habb.
Which brings us round nicely to this.”
____________________
Correction : it brings you nicely round to this. Leave the rest of us out of it 🙂
**********************************
By the way, iro real life:
1/. when are you moving up to Scotland?
2/. have you started practising BDS against Israel yet?
Oh my dear Habb, how can I possibly leave you out of all people, you are the main protagonist, the nemisis of all things conspiratory. ?
Imagination can be both a beautiful and dangerous thing.
The US openly condones torture – Guantanamo Bay and the treatment of death row prisoners are two examples.
Similarly a number of Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran also openly condone torture.
Your confusion (here we go again) may lie in the fact that the US unilaterally redefines the word “torture” and the Islamic countries claim religious justification for their torture. All of this means that they are either torturing the language or torturing reason.
Not talking about knowledge of torture is an archetypal British response. Fish and chips is a typical British meal – but that does not mean that the only place in the world where you may eat fish and chips is in the UK.
Habbs: I should imagine that virtually no govt publically condones torture and that the same govts don’t talk about it if they know it went one/is going on.
………
This is no doubt true. But
Craig’s essential dilemma as I read it was what one should do when faced with the horror of utterly meaningless torture, which is obviously of no value and was merely being carried out to yank a chain.
Given that Craig knew of rumours of torture before he arrived on the job I wonder what he would have been willing to tolerate without destroying his career. For example if the torture had been only very occasional, based on underlying intelligence and had generated genuine and life saving intelligence: would he then have turned a blind eye? I don’t know the answer? It is easy to say that all torture is abhorrent. It is also easy to argue the slippery slope. Craig was in some odd way fortunate that the torture he was witness to was so horrific and utterly meaningless that he had a relatively easy choice.
I continue to tend to the view that the reason that virtually no government condones torture is because they know it is bad and wrong and is or should be illegal, but that events happen. When they do happen they should be so rare and unfortunate that all those involved slope around with heads down nervously awaiting the siren.
Of course even then the problem is those few involved even if just in an occasional incident may fall into two types: the conscientious full of remorse who are keen to learn their lesson and ensure that such incidents do nor reoccur and those who revel in the conspiracy to cover up and the possibilities that may follow.
There are no easy answers and I commiserate with Craig for what he went through.
fwl, the obvious thing about torture is that it never provides real information (because of course people will say anything when under torture).
Torture is used by governments that want to terrify their own population. That’s its only purpose.
No, it has another purpose, as Stalin’s secret police well knew (and as the CIA whose job it was to follow the Soviet secret police also well knew): to furnish false confessions to back up a line of government propaganda, as well as lists of the next people to be arrested and tortured.
Hence the 9/11 Commission Report relies for its narrative to such an extent on the testimony of tortured detainees.
Lysias, you don’t have a reply button, and I agree with what you say.
Wouldn’t disagree with anything there, fwl.
You’ll understand I only made my comment in response to “Tony Minogue”‘s silly comment singling out the UK govt.
I note that he of course hasn’t come forward to explain/defend that silly comment.
And yet again we see the involvement of old “5k-a-day” Straw.
What a despicable man he is.
Just yesterday the European Parliament passed resolution naming & shaming six countries as being complicit in CIA renditions, & for failing to investigate these renditions & cases of torture, yes the UK was one of them; unfortunately the resolution is non-binding, and the strongest words it used to criticise both the EU & the concerned countries were “regret” & “apathy” !
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/08/european-parliament-calls-for-investigation-of-secret-cia-torture-sites/
“Macks”
For your general education: the European Parliament adopts dozens if not hundreds of Resolutions at each of its sessions. They are known as “own initiative Resolutions” and are never binding.
Legislative Resolutions, on the other hand, are (in the sense that they are an integral part of the EU’s legislative procedures)?
No charge today, just behave for the rest of the evening. 🙂
Well Mystic-Meg has nothing you Habba-Clown, you could feel in your water that I was lacking that knowledge ! You really are a Clown ! 😀
I feel you lack quite a lot of knowledge, “Macks”.
But you do make up for it by silly invective garnished with lots of exclamation marks and smileys.
Keep it up.
It’s just what criminals, spooks and political leaders call a “cut-out”. Like a fuse, a way of disengaging themselves from blowback. A simple “off switch” that prevents retribution. We have our whole police force and “justice” system ready to roll into action. But nothing can happen unless a prosecutor says “Go!” The prosecutors work for the government…
I think you know perfectly well which are the criteria which the CPS uses in order to decide whether to proceed to prosecution or not?
Or at least you should, they’ve been mentioned on here at least half a dozen times in the last couple of months.
Please try to keep up.
Forgive me for interloping, but actually I have no idea as to the criteria used by the CPS in deciding whether to bring a prosecution or not.
Whatever the criteria is I would be interested as to how it fits with prosecuting a 101 year old man for historic alleged sex offences.
I am not familiar with all the details of the case but he has been granted bail – so I assume that he not considered currently dangerous. Given the relatively long lead times associated with the Crown Court process I assume that he stands a fair chance of shuffling off this mortal coil prior to the conclusion of the case. If he is found guilty then presumably no part of his sentence can be for deterrent purposes. Equally the prospect of early release for good conduct is unlikely to be a motivating factor in this instance.
Whilst being ignorant of the CPS prosecuting criteria – it would seem, be reference to this case, that whatever they are, they are defective.
It will give the alleged victims the opportunity to have their stories presented to the court and legally affirmed as capable of belief, if they are in fact so.
I don’t think this has an easy answer – it’s like prosecuting incredibly aged war criminals – it seems cruel, but the other side is that the infirmity of the alleged perpetrator does not make the crimes any the less horrible, if they are found to be proved, and the alleged victims have a right to justice, and possibly compensation.
Perhaps, as in the case of Greville Janner when he was alive, there should be a separate procedure where the defendant is of great age or infirmity, whereby the alleged victims have their stories heard and legally recognised, but in mercy the defendant is not criminally punished. I am not sure. There was not much sympathy for Janner on here.
Indeed – it is a complex issue. However the fact is that Janner was not prosecuted and this 101 year old man is being prosecuted.
What I do not understand is the CPS guidelines that allow for such divergent outcomes.
Janner was not brought to trial because he died. I am not sure if a trial of facts means that the defendant is prosecuted. I think the defendant is. However, Janner was, according to the medical evidence, unfit to plead. This defendant seems well enough able to understand what is going on.
This may help.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html
I believe those criteria are (1) a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction (this is where matters like the availability and solidity of evidence come into play) and (2) would a prosecution be in the public interest.
Taking the second criterion and applying it to the case under examination, I could imagine that at least the following two factors would be coinsidered: (1) the utility of prosecuting and convicting a person who is likely to die fairly soon (perhaps even before the trial is launched, as against (2) the feeling that it is important to send a signal that society is strongly against paedophilia and that paedophiles will be therefore brought to justice no matter how long ago the offences may have been committed.
Yesterday I posted a link, condemning, Britain’s ally in Syria, the USA, and its decision to shall we say cooperate with Al Qaeda, to defeat Assad forces in Syria, as destestable, which it is.
Today, it’s Iran’s turn.
“IRAN’S fundamentalist regime is using Afghan refugees as “cannon fodder” to bolster its forces fighting in Syria, according to one of Iran’s “parliaments in exile”.”
“The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – an umbrella group of political opposition to Tehran – has revealed a new promotional video aimed at recruiting Afghan nationals to join the war in Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.”
“According to intelligence obtained by the opposition People’s Mujahidin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) from inside the IRGC, Tehran has deployed more than 70,000 revolutionary guards, regular army and foreign units to fight in Syria. Among them are up to 20,000 members of the Fatemiyoun.”
“In April, a Revolutionary Guard general acknowledged that the Iranian regime was burying its Afghan mercenaries who have died in Syria anonymously. The burials were thought to be taking place in order to cover up the high level of Afghan casualties.”
http://www.thenational.scot/world/refugees-sacrificed-in-syrian-war-zones.18580
________________
Iran appears to be bolstering Assads regime in Syria, at the cost of many Afghan lives, whilst in Yemen Iran tries to unseat the Yemeni government, which is ferociously backed by Saudi Arabia.
Surely our illustrious humanitarian, Jim, in the QWERTY style of course, will take up the mantle on this one, afterall, it ticks all the right boxes. ?
You really ought to be more careful as you leap at every opportunity to prove that you are not a kneejerk anti-imperialist.
1/ The NCRI is a very compromised body with links to Mossad.
2/ I know something about Yemen and I can assure you that Iranian influence over the so-called Houthis is virtually non-existent. The two schools of shi’ism represented have very little in common and the Yemenis are in fact the legatees of the old Imanate which ruled the country until the Nasserist revolution in 1966 and was, in the Civil War which followed, supported, openly and covertly by the British and US governments.
As to the current “government” this was created by the US after the elected President Saleh had been forced from power, the current “President” in exile was Saleh’s Vice President. It is true that he won, easily, the Presidential election, but then nobody was allowed on the ballot to oppose him.
How delightfully even-handed of you, RoS! 🙂
Martinned
June 9, 2016 at 17:06
“…Clinton prefers to get things done.”
…………………………………………………………..
Legally or otherwise.
Craig,
In your book ‘Murder in Samarkand’ Chris Hirst gets a rather more sympathetic write up. I really empathised with him.
Are you still in touch?
Another great post on an outrageous decision.
LOL ! Obama tells us all we to know about the Office of President !
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ckh1E8vWEAAyXFs.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkdEgpPXEAA4W-p.jpg:large
Habbabkuk (flush out fakes)
June 9, 2016 at 19:56
“I think you know perfectly well which are the criteria which the CPS uses in order to decide whether to proceed to prosecution or not”
………………………………………………………………
Forgive me Habbabkuk but I have been out of town recently.
Can you please inform me of the criteria which the CPS uses in order to decide whether to proceed to prosecution or not?
Thank you in advance.
Hope you’ve been somewhere pleasant, Doug.
I wonder if the countries blackmailing the UN into removing Saudi Arabia off its blacklist for killing children in Yemen included the U.S. and the UK.
BBC: Yemen conflict: UN accuses Saudis of pressure over blacklist:
Difficult to read the small print of your cut-and-copies, my Transatlantic Friend.
How about using a larger font?
A public service announcement:
Trolls rarely, if ever, give links to back-up anything they’re saying.
If trolls do give a link look into it closely.
Trolls are almost entirely neo-con propagandist vermin.
I am not a neo-con of any sort.
And I am willing to provide links for what I claim if asked.
The CIA shared the information, which is not the same as relying on it. They know that information obtained under torture is of little (but not necessarily zero) use: their own people have said this repeatedly. What happens in other jurisdictions is not their concern legally, and need not be morally if the act of sharing has no bearing on whether or not the torture occurs in the first place. But closing their eyes to information that could turn out to be material to preventing some act of terrorism in the future could certainly be construed as an immoral omission. Of course, none of this justifies torture itself, nor does it make Jack Straw any less repellent. But it does make your throwing away your career over it a cause for greater regret.
While what you say about leaking secret information about torture does not directly apply to me, as I gave up my career as an academic long ago, I did write a ground-breaking article about Abu Omar’s kidnapping in Italy, and torture in Egypt which is relevant down to this day, and appeared on John Young’s cryptome web site
If i had been working then for the Agency, I still would have gladly done it.
I have been more successful, snd happier since I gave up my careers..
Just to put one family;s personal experience of our shameful & barbaric complicity;
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36489647
Some people we have come with are not that impressed they have not been to a Massive Euro Campsite before…but I guess we will muddle through and when we get home I reckon I will vote anti nazi concentration camp…you vote in if you want..its up to you..the girls here are all lovely and us blokes are trying to calm them down…Tony..well you got to try it haven’t you…
MUSE & MEME:
Sensitive intelligence information has codewords over and above ‘top secret’..
Intelligence that describes Al Qaeda (AQ) or attending AQ training camps is mostly untrue or does not exist.
Most Western aligned governments exaggerate the AQ threat.
The ‘War on Terror’ is a device or axiom to justify torture or mass surveillance such as ‘Steller Wind’..
Western governments including Britain seem to be subservient and contained by the CIA.
The US mission to the United Kingdom consists of the following principal officers:
Ambassador: Matthew W. Barzun
Deputy Chief of Mission: Elizabeth L. Dibble
Minister Counselor for Management: Lawrence Richter
Counselor for Agricultural Affairs: Stan Phillips
Minister Counselor for Commercial Affairs: John Simmons
Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs/Consul General: Debra Heien
Minister Counselor for Economic Affairs: Whitney Baird
Minister Counselor for Political Affairs: Thomas Williams
Minister Counselor for Public Affairs: Eric A. Johnson
Belfast, Northern Ireland Consul General: Daniel James Lawton
Edinburgh, Scotland Principal Officer: Susan A. Wilson
Hamilton, Bermuda, Consul General: Mary Ellen Noonan Koenig
Sir Michael Wood had advised Jack Straw is was NOT legal to go to war with Iraq…
Pressure for Craig’s removal came from America.
The Foreign Office MODIFIED internal guidance to diplomats, enabling them to act upon intelligence obtained through torture, even though it would be inadmissible as evidence in a British court.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly defended ‘rendition’ to transport terror suspects between countries.
Permanent under-secretaries or Whitehall liaison have the ear-marks of the Secret Intelligence Service.
Google don’t list the text image text, you need a transcript for the bottom of your post.
*********
WITNESS STATEMENT
CI Act 1967. 3.9: MC Act I980. ss.5A(3)(a) and SB; Criminal Procedure Rules 2005. Rule 27.1
Age if under 18 Over 18 (if over I3 insert ‘over 18’) Occupation: Development Consultant
This statement (consisting of pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that. if it is tendered in evidence. I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false. or do not believe to be true.
Signature: Date:
Tick if witness evidence is Visually recorded I (supply witness details on war)
I joined the Foreign Office in 1984 direct from University in the ‘fast stream‘ process. I held a number of posts including second secretary in Lagos, then Head of the Maritime section in London and the Cyprus section. Around 1992-l993 I was also head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) embargo surveillance section both before and after the first Gulf War. Its role was to monitor Iraqi attempts of weapons procurement. I then served in Poland as first secretary in the Embassy and returned to London as deputy Head of the Africa Department. and thereafter in Ghana as Deputy High Commissioner. I was security cleared to Developed Vetted level and because of my earlier work in relation to Iraqi arms embargo l was given extra security clearances enabling me to view other sensitive intelligence material up to including various extra codewords over and above Top Secret. I have never worked for either the Security Service (SYS) or Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). I speak both Polish and Russian.
In August 2002 I took up the role as Ambassador. at the Embassy in Uzbekistan. I was given very little formal pre posting briefing by the FCC and met the outgoing ambassador Chris INGRAM only for about half an hour during which we only discussed a staff issue regarding an embassy member called Chris HIRST. Ihe staff at the Uzbekistan Embassy included a Defence Attache. an assistant. a Deputy Head of Mission. a third secretary. a management officer. consular ofiicer and assistant. My number two was an acting second secretary called Karen MORAN. I didn’t have many staff or much ability to discuss matters with them.
After my arrival in Uzbekistan as part of my role I viewed certain intelligence material originating fiom Uzbekistan. This material came to me from SIS in London and was sent to them by the CIA via the CIA Headquarters in Washington. It was sent to me if SIS thought it appropriate information I should be aware of. The only person security cleared to see such telegrams were I and Karen MORAN in her role as Deputy Head of Mission (DHM).
I was aware even before I arrived in Uzbekistan that the Uzbekistan security services had a terrible reputation for torture that included for example using boiling water on individuals as well as electrocution. I never whilst in Uzbekistan ever had direct involvement with the Uzbekistan security services, SIS officers came out on liaison visits but I don’t recall who they were or who they met.
Signature: Signature witnessed by.
*********
Page 2 of 5
Continuation of Statement of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
In my new role I was proactive in meeting local Uzbekistan people and I had only been there a couple of weeks when I attended a trial of dissidents accused of terrorism. More than one witness tried to change their original account chiming it was made under torture. I found them credible that they were tortured to give a Ihlse account. The United Nations special rapporteur on torture came out to Uzbekistan to do a special report and we arranged for torture victims to see him.
The intelligence that was sent to me by SIS at this time concerned me on two grounds; firstly it showed how systematic the tonure was by the Uzbekistan security services as the intelligence was coming from tortured detainees. And secondly the quality of the intelligence was inaccurate. I knew these from my first hand experience in Uzbekistan and I knew individual facts could be shown to be false.
I came to these conclusions alter about three to four months of being in Uzbekistan. This was due to the Exact I had been doing some work around tortured Uzbekistan detainees and I could see links with the intelligence I was seeing. Mon of the intelligatce didn’t name the detainees but it had similar trends such as Al Qaeda (AQ) membership or attending AQ training camps which wasn’t true. I was aware that my defence attache Colonel RIDOUI‘ had been to one training camp location that was cited in the intelligence reports and found they did not exist. I knew that Uzbekistan was getting money and arms fitom
the United States and I believed the Uzbekistan government were exaggerating the A0 threat in response. I believe this was a view shared by colleagues in the Embassy.
My concerns revolved around the intelligence and the cooperation between the Uzbekistan security services and CIA. I was uneasy about what the US were not doing to stop the torture. I decided something was going wrong and London (the FCO) must have not known about the torture. I asked Karen MORAN who had regular meetings with the US mission in Uzbekistan to ask the US about the intelligence flow 6-om torture and to confirm liom the US mission that it in tact was not from torture. Karen told me that the US response die received was that the intelligence was horn torture however it was justified in the ‘war on terror‘. This response was possibly from the US Mission politiwl counsellor.
On about 17″’ December 2002 I wrote a telegram back to London setting out my concerns. I have obtained a redacted version of that telegram under a Freedom of lnformation request I made I produce a copy ofwhich as CJM/l telegram number I47 of I7/I2/2002 at 0345. It was addressed to the permanent under secretary (PUS) Sir Michael JAY as he was the head of the Diplomatic Service and Michel WOOD the Foreign Office legal advisor as it dealt with legal issues. I also sent it to relevant UK Missions (UKMIS) who had intaest/deal in torture policy. these included New York. Geneva. Vienna and ‘Organisation Security and Cooperation in Europe‘ (OSCE) ofwhich Uzbekistan is a member. lf you send a telegram on policy it is practice that it is also sent to other UK Missions who have an interest as with this telegram.
I don‘t know how I received a response but I got a message back stating that I could discuss the matters with William ERHMAN during an Ambassadors conference that l was due to attend in London in January 2003. I believe this message originated from Sir Michael JAY and I believe it is back refermccd as telcyam 323 of 2002 which appears on the next telegram I sent.
In January 2003 I returned as planned to London for a few days and could not get hold of William ERHMAN so the conversation I intended never took place with him. I submquently returned to Tashkent. Uzbekistan and it was around this time I was aware public concern had just started regarding detainee issues in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. I seemed to be the only person within the FCO who was worried about it. I had never done this before by that I mean flagged up these kinds of issues/concerns.
*********
Page 3 of 5
Continuation of Statemait of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
On 22″‘ January 2003 I sent another telegram this was addressed to William ERHMAN again I produce a redacted copy that was supplied to me under a Freedom Of Information request I made as exhibit CJM/2 on it there is the back reference 323 which I believe was the response originating from Michael JAY that I previously referred to. ‘Die telegram essentially states the same as my Iirst. I did not receive a response to any of the points: this is unheard of bxause if an Ambassador writes a telegram in relation to a policy matter there is always response. I was frustrated and could not understand why there was no written reply on this policy on torture.
Shortly after this] was asked back to London to discuss the issues I had raised. I can’t recall what method this summons was communicated to me. I believed I was coming back to London to see Sir Michael JAY however I never did see him.
I thought I was in trouble due to the nature of the recall to London and I suspected I was going to be sacked. I returned to London on 6″‘ March 2003 I don‘t recall what dictated the timing but it was two weeks before the war started in Iraq. At that time, with the ‘dodgy denier‘ going around supporting the war and my concerns regarding the inaccurate intelligence I had seen. the atmosphere was not good at the F00. It was not the best time to be saying openly that our intelligence was not reliable. A retired ambassador had sated that we should not go to war as the intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was not reliable. From evidence subsequently given in the Chilcott enquiry I believe Sir Michael WOOD had advised Jack STRAW at the time, it was not legal to go to war in Iraq. So all this was going on around my return to London.
I was called into a meeting on the 7″‘ or 8″‘ March 2003 with Linda DUIFFIELD who was the Director Wider Europe (DWE) and my counter signing manager. This meeting took place in her office and she told me Sir Michael JAY wanted to see me but was too busy. With her at the meeting were Michael WOOD and Matthew KIDD who I believe was fiorn MI6 (SIS), he was introduced as being Permanent Under Secretary Department (PUSD) which is a liaison department that deals with SIS. It was a two part meeting with either a private discussion between Linda and myself and then a gmcral discussion with everyone present or the other way around I can’t recall now. She told me that ‘JAY was not pleased I had put things in writing, things like that should not be in writing.‘ In the general meeting with all three she stated Jack Straw had seen my telegrams (CIM/l and CIM/2) and they ‘troubled him and he lost sleep at night over this‘. Also that he had met ‘C’ Sir Richard DEARLOVE and discussed whether. in relation to the ‘war on terror‘ should intelligence liom torture be used. Also that Jack Straw made the decision that I should not send over ‘emotional and melodramatic’ telegrams like these and that intelligence and torture were ministerial decisions.
In the general meeting Sir Michael WOOD stated he had looked at the United Nations convention on torture and that it was his legal position that if we didn’t ask someone to be tortured bttt got intelligence from torture then we were doing nothing illegal.
I asked him about complicity in torture and Article 3 and 4 of the UN Convention on torture. Sir Michael WOOD stated that he didn’t know but Article l6 allowed us to get intelligence from torture but it could not be used in court. Mr KIDD went on to add that intelligence coming from Tashkent was useful to SIS. I told him the intelligaice wasn’t true. he disageed with this.
A formal response to my telegrams was read out to me by Linda with everyone present and she told me the response would not be sent as these things were best not put in writing.
*********
Page 4 of S
Continuation of Statement of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
I produce a copy of the minutes of this meeting again supplied to me under a Freedom of lnformation request I made which 1 exhibit as CIMI3. I do not accept the minutes as a full and accurate account of the meeting. it was not sent to me in dralt afierwards for ‘signing oil‘ which was practice. It also mentions l was given a revised telegram which I was not. I was shown it but not to keep and it was never sent to me.
Afler this meeting I went back to Tashkent. Later in 2005 I obtained a message dated l4/3/2003 supplied to me unda a Freedom of lnfonnation request I made which I exhibit as CJM/4. This indicates Jack Straw saw the minutes of the meeting referred to in exhibit CIM/3. There were hundreds of meetings at the FCO each day and it would be very rare for minutes to be seen by Jack STRAW unless he had previous documents regarding the matter i.e. my original telegrams and an explanatory briefing from Sir Michael Jay or another oflicial. Simon McDONALD was Jack Straw’s number 2 private secretary and Alan CHARLTON was Head of Personnel.
Whilst in Tashkent l was concemed my career was ruined. I had upset my line mangers and I decided I wasn‘t going to say anything else as I was extremely concerned about my future.
I was then told that my third secretary Chris HIRST had attacked a blind person in the street with a baseball bat. I had been told by my predecessor that he had been accused of doing something similar before. but that my predecessor had supported him, this was the staff issue I referred to earlier in this statement. I personally had witnessed his verbally violent outbursts in a local bar before. I knew that as a result of this baseball bat incident that he had to go, which he did. After this I then found papers regarding Chris HIRST that had been hidden from me by his partner Karen MORAN and I learnt she had destroyed other similar documents. As a result of this Karen had to go as well.
At this time I was not receiving any replies from London and asked them why they were ignoring me but got no response.
In June 2003 Colin REYNOLDS from the Foreign Ofiioe arrived in Uzbekistan ostensibly to find out what was happening at the Embassy with the sudden departure of Karen and Chris. he had been sent out by Alan CHARLTON. All the Embassy staff was seen by Colin and the staff told me that in fact he was asking them not about Chris’Karen as they expected but things about me such as my drinking habits and whether I used prostitutes. The staff were confused and surprised. I let
Colin finish the interviews of staff and then l asked him what was going on as it seemed to me that he was investigating me. He told me not to worry and that he had been instructed to investigate allegations raised about me. He would not tell me what those allegations were. He later as I understand reported back to London that the staff supported me and there were no issues. I obtained a copy of his findings dated 26/6/2003 supplied to me under a Freedom of information requst I made which I exhibit as CJM/5. This confirms he reported that all the staff supported me. The report has been ec‘d to amongst others Harvey BOWYER of the FCU. This is the internal audit section called the Financial Compliance Unit (FCU) l di<h‘t know where this fined into the investigation by Colin REYNOLDS. However a few months later a team fiom the FCU internal audit came to the embassy to go through all our accounts. All they found at the end of their audit was that I owed about $20 for a lunch for which I lost the receipt, this I repaid. It appeared to me that they were plainly out to get me and I thought I had survived: the only criticism of me was the handling of the HIRST matter.
In July after Colin REYNOLDS left I then went on holiday. London then sent out Dominic SCHROEDER from the FCO political Eastern Department who came and interviewed the same staff as Colin Reynolds again after which he came up with some 18 discipline offences against me.
*********
Page 5 of 5
Continuation of Statement of Craig MURRAY …………………………………………………………………………………….. ..
In August I was called back from holiday in Canada to London to see Howard DRAKE the personnel department director. Present at this meeting were Tessa REDMAYNE of the personnel dwartrnent and Kate SMITH who was my union representative. At this meeting Howard DRAKE asked me to resign and I declined this is detailed in a report he completed dated 27/8f2003 that was sent to me for ‘clearance' I produce a copy as exhibit CJM/6. During this meeting l was told that if I forgot about Tashkent that I would be offered another ambassadorship, but I declined this. It was at this meeting that I first became aware of the allegations albeit Colin REYNOLDS had previously told me they were nonsense. The source of the allegations was never disclosed to me.
All the disciplinary allegations were false and around this time my security clearance was up for review. My security clearance reviewer contacted me to state my clearance had been passed by him but it had then been sent back to him and he had been put under pressure not to clear me. He said that he was sticking by his recommendation and my clearance was renewed.
l was suspended for four months and sent back to Tashkent and told not to speak to anyone about the outstanding allegations. l was banned from entaing embassy buildings and the stress of it all caused my health to collapse. I suffered severe heart and lung problems as a result.
After four months of investigation l was cleared of all l8 allegations: there was a formal hmring in relation to two matters only. These related to being seen with a ‘hangover’ by a local member of stafi‘ in Tashkent and secondly misusing an embassy car, l was cleared on both counts and the evidence against me was shown to be rubbish or non-existent.
l was however found guilty of telling someone about the existence of the allegations when I returned to Tashkent for which I was given a final written warning in January 2004.
Later in June 2004 one of the initial telegrams l had written was somehow leaked to the Financial Times newspaper and the Times printed sections of it. This was not done by me and although I denied it I was suspended as a result and in February 2005 I resigned from the Civil Service. I was given six years early retirement severance pay.
I finnly believe that the allegations against me were knowingly false or grossly exaggerated. and were concocted against me deliberately to silence me atier l was the only senior ClVll servant to enter a written objection to the policy of collusion in torture. As a consequence my career was destroyed and my health pamanently damaged.
afrend: many thanks for the transcript.
The NSA/GCHQ have the ability to film anyone, even whilst they are wanking off porn in their living room. The burgers running the CPS are no exception, and judges, and Oxbridge labour MPs, and laura kuensberg, and ………
MODS
As the above “comment” is obviously designed to scare people posting on here and therefore to shut down expressions of opinion and free debate, I feel you should consider deleting it.
It seems to me even worse than including the question “Are you a person of interest?” in one’s handle.
Tee hee hee, look whos talking ! Classic projection from a small devil, I am afraid yer rainbow yarmulke is showing, hobbled?!
You didn’t quite get it, did you…. 🙂
Ok the shekels finally dropped, but not before green done a matzo job on BHS cattles pensions, in the long tradition of your Maxwells !
The central issue appears to have been that you caused Straw some sleepless nights. Well, that’s something.
The overoptimistic conclusion of this piece may entertain:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/46685/belhadj-rendition-why-mi6-spooks-dropped-jack-straw-it
MI6’s leaked warning to Straw shows that the days of Mission Impossible-style plausible deniability are over – at least in the UK. Our spooks will no longer take the fall for the politicians. In a way their message has a thoroughly contemporary ring – we are all in this together.
But if the shit should, by mischance, hit the fan, the CPS can always be leant on…one of the perks of being an ex- Home Sec?
Yes the CPS is certainly corrupt, My own personal belief has always been that it was set up to create a buffer between the police and the political elite, the political elite use the CPS to protect themselves from facing prosecution for their on going criminal activities. The police no longer understand the law, they can bring a private prosecution and have the authority to arrest the CPS lawyers preventing the case going forward for perverting the course. Anyone can bring a private prosecution.
Dear Craig,
I read with interest your usual succinct and clear account of what went on. At the end of the day, he who laughs last laughs loudest. Finally, we will see the Chilcot report, on July 7th. It remains to be seen how mealy mouthed or evasive it is. What is certain is that the floodgates will open then. Your stalwart stand against the “Elements of darkness” in the FO will long be remembered. But the opening up of the Issues after Chilcot is going to be an opportunity. I myself was pursuing Straw over Diego Garcia,and the horrors that went on there, (which is cross linked). I think enough will emerge to make it possible to take some action against Straw. he is undoubtedly the centre of a great deal of sleaze and corruption and criminality. The thing is that people need to start building a case, cross connecting, and thinking of ways to turn the heat on straw now. But great of you to post your statement. Illigitimi Non carborundam.