andrew

The British Presence in Basra – Costs and Consequences?

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

With the British forces in Iraq having officially ‘handed over‘ Basra Province yesterday, the debate over whether we jumped or were pushed out has resurfaced. This graph tends to suggest that there were, at the least, compelling tactical reasons to leave, independent of any ‘progress’ on the ground.

The links above come from a site originally set up as the London Friends of Craig Murray blog. This site, set up by a group of, err.., friends in London, supported Craig’s election campaign in Blackburn back in 2005. This year it has morphed in to a dedicated casualty monitoring project, aiming to track the human cost of Blair’s wars to Iraqis, Afghans, and British forces.

The original blog has now moved to a new home at http://www.casualty-monitor.org.

View with comments

Consultation on the right to demonstrate

 in UK Policy by | View Comments

A consultation has been initiated by the UK Home Office on the rights to demonstrate near Parliament.

The consultation paper Managing Protest around Parliament stems from a Governance of Britain green paper in which the government committed to consulting on the sections of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act covering demonstrations near Parliament.

This consultation takes another look at sections 132-138 of that act, and explores whether there is another way to address the situation that would both uphold the right to protest while also giving police the powers they need to keep the peace.

Time is running out for expressing an opinion so if you are concerned about this issue get involved.

The report ‘ Managing Protest around Parliament’ can be read here

The consultation closes on 17 January 2008.

View with comments

Pushing Forward the Torture Agenda

 in Rendition by | View Comments

The US administration is pushing forward in its attempts to make torture acceptable. Yesterday, John Kiriakou, a retired CIA agent, received widespread coverage when admitting that water-boarding was probably torture, and then went on to defend its use.

This is of course only one of the unspecified torture techniques authorised in an executive order signed by President Bush in July 2007. The order stated that the CIA was allowed to conduct a special “program of detention and interrogation”.

However, the CIA is under some pressure, with its head, Gen Michael Hayden, testifying to two key congressional intelligence committees about the deliberate destruction of two video tapes of interrogations carried out in 2002. Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union had this to say:

“The destruction of these tapes suggests an utter disregard for the rule of law. It was plainly a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence that could have been used to hold CIA agents accountable for the torture of prisoners. Both Congress and the courts have repeatedly demanded that this evidence be turned over, but apparently the CIA believes that its agents are above the law.”

The destruction of these tapes appears to be part of an extensive, long-term pattern of misusing executive authority to insulate individuals from criminal prosecution for torture and abuse, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

The ACLU is in the midst of a legal challenge calling for the release of three documents issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that are believed to have authorized the CIA to use extremely harsh interrogation methods. The memos, which were written in May of 2005, were not included in the government’s response to the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all documents pertaining to the treatment and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. The government also withheld the documents from key senators during a congressional inquiry.

Update: The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a motion asking a federal judge to hold the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in contempt, charging that the agency flouted a court order when it destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of prisoners in its custody.

View with comments

Further British Involvement in US Rendition Programme Comes to Light

 in Rendition by | View Comments

CBS reported last week on allegations that U.S. authorities held terrorist suspects on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia as part of a secret prisons network. Diego Garcia, an island of great apparent beauty, is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory. What goes on there is the business of Westminster.

The UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select committee have received a report from the charity Reprieve that details the involvement of the British territory and British officials in illegal CIA activities on the island. Assurances received from the US government about these activities have received little credence from British MPs. Andrew Tyrie, a conservative who has led investigations looking at other British involvements said:

“These assurances come from the same government that invented the rendition program, authorized the use of techniques that all in the civilized world would call torture, and continues to hold hundreds in the moral and legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay,”

Meanwhile, in Italy the trial of CIA agents accused of kidnap continues in absentia.

And, Stephen Grey, author of Ghost Plane, has published an excellent article on rendition as experienced by refugees following the recent US military intervention in Somalia.

Update: Amnesty International are calling for other european governments to initiate independent investigations into their involvement in the US-led programme of renditions and secret detention. See Denmark: Authorities must come clean about renditions

View with comments

The Continuing Plight of the Iraqi Interpreters

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

In response to the half-baked, and frankly dangerous, moves from the British government to increase protection for Iraqi employees and ex-employees, Early Day Motion 2057 has been published in the House of Commons.

“…recognises the courage of Iraqis who have worked alongside British troops and diplomats in Southern Iraq, often saving British lives; notes that many such Iraqis have been targeted for murder by Iraqi militias in Basra, and that an unknown number have already been killed, whilst many others are in hiding; further recognises that many Iraqis who have worked for fewer than 12 months for the UK are threatened by death squads; and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to meet the UK’s moral obligations by offering resettlement to all Iraqis who are threatened with death for the ‘crime’ of helping British troops and diplomats.”

If you are based in the UK has your MP signed? This is an issue where the common cause of reducing the level of carnage in Iraq should be able to unite voices from across the political spectrum. Further ideas for action are detailed here.

View with comments

Agencies accuse UK government of reclassifying cluster bomb in order to beat the weapon’s ban

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

From Amnesty International

The UK, the world’s third largest user of lethal cluster bombs over the last ten years, has renamed one of its two remaining cluster munitions in an effort to beat an expected worldwide ban next year said humanitarian organisations Oxfam, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Landmine Action today.

The move would mean that the Hydra CRV-7 rocket system, which can deliver 171 ‘M73’ bomblets from a helicopter-mounted rocket pod, would remain part of British arsenals.

As recently as 23 November 2006, the government listed the CRV-7 as a cluster munition. But on 16 July this year, just months after it said it would back a worldwide cluster bomb ban, the Government said the CRV-7 was no longer a cluster bomb.

Simon Conway, Director of Landmine Action said:

‘Ten years after it championed a treaty banning landmines the UK has a chance to do the same with cluster bombs – but instead it is spinning a cluster bomb con.

‘This is a deeply cynical move. The UK Government needs to announce an immediate end to the use of these indiscriminate killers.’

US forces used the rocket-delivered M73 ‘bomblets’ in Iraq in 2003. Human Rights Watch reported contamination of unexploded M73 bomblets left behind after the strikes…

View with comments

Bush setting America up for war with Iran

 in War and Iran? by | View Comments

From the Sunday Telegraph

Senior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action…

…Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.

Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.

The full article can be read here

View with comments

Alan Greenspan admits Iraq war was really for oil

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

From The Times

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil, he says…

View with comments

MI5 and MI6 to be sued for first time over torture

 in Rendition by | View Comments

From The Guardian

A British man who was held in Guant’namo Bay has begun a civil action against MI5 and MI6 over the tactics that they use to gather intelligence.

The suit has been brought by Tarek Dergoul, 29, who claims he was repeatedly tortured while he was held by the US, and that British agents who had also questioned him were aware of the mistreatment.

He wants a high court ruling that will ban the security services from “benefiting” from the abuse of prisoners being held in detention outside the UK.

If Mr Dergoul wins, it would mean that MI5 and MI6 could not interrogate British nationals while they are being held and tortured abroad.

A British citizen, he has been awarded legal aid for the case, and papers will be lodged at the high court today. They were drafted by the Rabinder Singh, QC, a leading human rights barrister from the Matrix Chambers.

According to court documents seen by the Guardian, Mr Dergoul alleges that agents from MI5 and MI6 repeatedly interrogated him while he was held and tortured in Afghanistan and then Guant’namo, and were thus complicit in his treatment. In the 13-page document to be lodged at court, he says he suffered beatings, sexual humiliation, insults to his religion, and was subjected to extremes of cold. He was released back to Britain in 2004 without charge.

Britain says it does not carry out or condone torture, but it stands accused of benefiting from inhumane treatment meted out by other countries.

Mr Dergoul is seeking damages for “misfeasance in public office” by the security services and the Foreign Office.

The court papers state: “The British government and its officials knew that the claimant was being subjected to mistreatment amounting to torture and inhumane and degrading treatment because he told them so…Accordingly the British government and its officials unlawfully sought to benefit from mistreatment of the claimant. It is averred that either the British officials knowingly unlawfully interrogated the claimant or they acted with reckless indifference to its illegality.”

(more…)

View with comments

A Letter for Gordon

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

From Stop the War

Gordon Brown will make a statement on the war in Iraq when parliament returns in October. Stop the War has begun organising a new mass campaign calling on Brown to bring all the British troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan immediately and to use his October statement to signal a break from George Bush’s foreign policy. An open letter to the Prime Minister is printed below and you can add your name online now at: http://www.stopwar.org.uk.

On Monday 8 October, Stop the War is organising a national troops out protest at Parliament, at which MPs will again be lobbied to reflect the opinion of the vast majority of people in Britain.

The latest opinion polls show that two thirds of the British people want the troops out of Iraq now and only six per cent think the war in Afghanistan is being won. Leaders of the British military have made it clear that they think the game is up in Iraq, or as Major General Richard Dannatt puts it, “We should get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems”.

OPEN LETTER TO GORDON BROWN:

Dear Prime Minister

We urge you to use your October statement to signal a break from George Bush’s foreign policy and to bring all the British troops out of Iraq immediately, regardless of US plans. It is clear the presence of British troops in Iraq is a pointless waste of life. The majority of Iraqis want them to go. Most soldiers have been withdrawn to base outside Basra where they play no active role but are coming under fire regularly and taking heavy casualties. It is time to go. The occupation of Afghanistan is sliding in to chaos so familiar from Iraq and the troops should be brought home. An attack on Iran would be a disaster for the population and would increase instability in the region.

We need a change of course.

If you would like to join us in helping to build the troops out now campaign, contact the Stop the War national office and we will explain how you can get involved: Telephone 020 7278 6694 or email [email protected]

View with comments

How much longer? How many more?

 in War in Iraq by | View Comments

Yesterday, Muqtada al-Sadr was quoted as saying of the British military presence in Iraq:

“They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced. Without that, they would have stayed for much longer, there is no doubt.”

Unfortunately for the British, the trend in casualties in Iraq does reinforce what he had to say about the situation. For the last year, the 3-month moving average for combat classified casualties has climb steadily, rising from 7 per month in July 2006 to 42 per month by the end of June this year. Total casualties for 2007 have so far reached 1246.

British casualties in Iraq

Casualty Monitor has more details and also looks at the more mixed picture arising from the statistics for the war in Afghanistan.

View with comments

Two alleged CIA rendition victims join ACLU lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary

 in Rendition by | View Comments

From ACLU

Two additional victims of the United States government’s unlawful ‘extraordinary rendition’ program joined a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a subsidiary of Boeing Company. The ACLU charges in its amended complaint that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA enabling the clandestine transportation of Bisher al-Rawi and Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah to secret overseas locations where they were subjected to torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

Full press statement can be found here

View with comments

Who’s a Terrorist?

 in UK Policy by | View Comments

According to Sky News, a former BNP candidate was jailed today for possession of a large number of chemicals including hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and hydrochloric acid, the main ingredients of TATP. This explosive acheived notoriety due to its alleged use in the 7/7 bombs and other incidents.

From Orange

A former British National Party candidate has been jailed for two-and-a-half years for possessing explosive chemicals.

Robert Cottage, 49, was cleared after two trials of conspiracy to cause explosions but had earlier pleaded guilty to amassing the chemicals. Police discovered a huge stockpile of chemicals and food at his home in Colne, Lancashire last September.

Officers mounted the operation after Cottage’s wife told a social worker she was concerned about the substances and her husband’s belief that immigrants were swamping Britain.

The court heard that Cottage feared the country was on the brink of civil war. He appeared at Manchester’s Crown Square Court to be sentenced in relation to the charge of possession.

From The Muslim News

A former British National Party (BNP) candidate and a dentist were cleared of plotting explosions on July 12, despite being accused of possessing the largest sum of chemical explosives of its type ever found domestically in Lancashire….

Former BNP candidate Robert Cottage, of Colne, and David Jackson, of Nelson, had stockpiled chemicals they bought on the internet and discussed using them to cause explosions.

The record haul included the discovery of a rocket launcher, a nuclear biological suit, BB guns, gas masks two 56 kilogram bags of sugar, a box of mini flares, 34 gas canisters, a selection of pellets and an air pistol. Officers also found a series of printed bomb recipes from The Anarchis’s Handbook, downloaded from the internet.

Lancashire police were forced to deny accusations the trial would have been handled differently if one of the terrorism suspects had been Muslim.

View with comments

Court of Appeal Issues Secret Rulings on Deportation and Torture Case

 in Rendition by | View Comments

From Amnesty International

On 30 July 2007 the Court of Appeal of England and Wales gave judgment in an important test case concerning the appeals of three Algerian men against their deportation to Algeria on “national security” grounds. The judgment is in two parts: an open judgment, and a closed, i.e. secret, judgment not disclosed to the appellants, their lawyers of choice or the public.

In each of the three cases the Court of Appeal ruled that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) should reconsider them. In two of the three, the Court of Appeal reached this conclusion on grounds that are secret. Amnesty International considers that it is doubly disturbing that these two men not only were not told the UK authorities’ case against them, but will not now be told the grounds on which the SIAC is to reconsider that very case. The principle that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done seems to have been turned on its head.

For the full statement go here

View with comments

British map in Iran crisis ‘inaccurate’

 in War and Iran? by | View Comments

From news.com.au

A BRITISH map of the northern Gulf where Iran seized 15 naval personnel in March was not as accurate as it should have been and Britain was fortunate Iran did not contest it, a review into the crisis said.

The parliamentary report also said Britain’s Foreign Office should name the person who let two sailors sell their stories to the media, a decision widely criticised for handing a propaganda coup to Britain’s enemies and embarrassing serving troops. The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) said the Foreign Office’s overall approach could not be faulted, but it said efforts should have been made to contact key Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani sooner.

Iranian Revolutionary Guards seized 15 British personnel in the northern Gulf in March sparking a 13-day standoff that ended when Iran’s President freed them, a day after Larijani spoke to a senior adviser to then Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Mr Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, is regarded as a pragmatist more amenable to exploring a bargain with the West than hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Britain first applied to speak to Mr Larijani seven days into the crisis. Britain insists the personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters on a UN-backed mission when they were seized. Iran says the British sailors had strayed into its territory.

A British Ministry of Defence map published during the crisis showed a territorial water boundary extending from the Shatt al-Arab waterway that separates Iran and Iraq out to sea. However experts say no maritime boundary between the two countries has been agreed and the line was based on a 1975 land boundary that could have shifted over time if the centre of the waterway had moved due to natural causes.

‘We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that the map of the Shatt al-Arab waterway provided by the Government was less clear than it ought to have been,’ the report said.

‘The Government was fortunate that it was not in Iran’s interests to contest the accuracy of the map.’

‘Uncertainties’

Britain and Iran provided different coordinates for the location of the capture. The report did not make a definitive conclusion on the accuracy of the map or whether the sailors were in Iraqi or Iranian waters.

It quoted Martin Pratt, director of research at the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University, as saying that if the British coordinates were correct, it was difficult to see how Iran’s claim could be legitimate.

‘Nevertheless, there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition in the area to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters,’ he was quoted as saying.

He said the map was ‘certainly an oversimplification’ and could be regarded as ‘deliberately misleading’.

The Foreign Office said it was pleased the report praised its overall approach. It was considering some recommendations and leaving others for the Ministry of Defence to address. The Ministry of Defence also said it would study the report.

Compiled by members of parliament, the report said it was ‘wholly unsatisfactory’ that a previous report into the affair had been unable to say who was responsible for authorising payment for the stories of the personnel after they were freed.

‘We recommend … the (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) set out who specifically took the decision to authorise the naval personnel to sell their stories to the media,’ it said.

See also:

Fake Maritime Boundaries

Iraq/Iran Maritime Boundaries

Location location…

View with comments