From The Independent

By Nigel Morris and Ben Russell

Politicians of all parties are racheting up the pressure for a criminal investigation into the leak of secret information about police anti-terror raids.

Labour MPs joined Conservative and Liberal Democrat demands for a full police inquiry as Downing Street conceded that detectives would have to act if further evidence emerged about the unauthorised briefing.

Peter Clarke, the country’s most senior anti-terror police officer, provoked uproar after he denounced “misguided individuals who betray confidences” about raids in Birmingham three months ago.

He opened a row over spin by suggesting that the culprits were trying to “squeeze out some short-term presentational advantage” by giving secret information. The Tories have seized on a report that an aide to John Reid was behind the leak…

I was dismissed as Ambassador to Uzbekistan when one of my diplomatic telegrams was leaked to the Sunday Times. The telegram complained of our continual receipt, via the CIA, of intelligence obtained by torture in Uzbekistan. It detailed London meetings which had approved this policy, referred to the CIA flying people to Uzbekistan and handing them over to the Uzbek intelligence services, and explained the illegality of this activity.

Interestingly the Financial Times decided to publish only a tiny fraction of this information, which was explosive back then in October 2003, as extraordinary rendition had not yet hit the headlines. But the leak was enough to get me sacked, and to institute a formal leak inquiry. Once it became plain that I was not the leaker, the inquiry was quietly stopped.

I have therefore been more sensitive than most to the Government’s continued habit of leaking “Intelligence” when it suits it. My objection has largely been that the government does this in order to exaggerate the threat of terrorism and instil fear, which they view as helpful in rallying popular support to the “War on Terror”.

I was therefore furious when I saw a headline “Al-Qaeda planning Big British Attack” in the Sunday Times of 22 April. So furious I have been carrying the cutting in my pocket all the way to Moscow, until I got the chance to blog about it. I see in the interim the opposition have started making a related point.

The Sunday Times journalist, Dipesh Gadher, claims to have seen a Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) report which justifies the terror stirring headline.

But JTAC reports are almost always Top Secret, and are always classified. Unless Gadher made it all up, he and whoever showed it to him, and his Editor, are all guilty of a serious criminal offence. They should be jailed for many years under the Official Secrets Act.

This is especially true as two gentlemen are currently being tried under precisely that draconian legislation, for possessing the minute of the meeting where George Bush proposed to Tony Blair the bombing of Al-Jazeera TV.

The truth is that both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service act in these matters in a way that is blatantly political. There is no even-handed administration of justice here. If a pro-war antagonist leaks information to whip up public opinion, no action is ever taken. Let me be plain – there is nothing in law that says that secret material can be leaked if it supports the government. Yet they do it all the time.

By what right was David Shayler jailed, but Dipesh Gadher and his informant not even looked at?

Government members and supporters do what they like. But should anyone else follow suit, the full wrath of the Establishment crashes on their head. Even, as in my case, when they didn’t actually do it.

The administration of justice is not impartial in the UK.

BBC Online has details of this breaking story but, interestingly, at the time of this posting, they were excluding one of the the most interesting quotes made by Peter Clarke on the leaking of information to the press for “short term presentational advantage”.

This clear attack on Whitehall spin doctors and their masters is taken up by Radio 4 on their Today programme this morning. The discusion can be heard online here.

From BBC Online

The UK’s counter-terrorism chief has condemned as “beneath contempt” people who leak anti-terrorism intelligence. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke of the Metropolitan Police said there were a “small number of misguided individuals who betray confidences”.

By doing so, they had compromised investigations, revealed sources of life-saving intelligence and “put lives at risk” during major investigations.

DAC Clarke also warned of a damaging “lack of public trust” in intelligence.

Reuters has the full quote:

“What is clear is that there are a number, a small number I am sure, of misguided individuals who betray confidences. Perhaps they look to curry favour with certain journalists, or to squeeze out some short-term presentational advantage.”

From BBC Online

The file on the police investigation into “cash-for-honours” allegations has been handed over to prosecutors. It contains the findings of a year-long probe focusing on whether anyone was nominated for peerages or other honours in return for donations or loans.

The probe was subsequently widened to look into whether there was any attempt to pervert the course of justice. The Crown Prosecution Service will now decide whether anyone should be charged. All involved deny wrongdoing.

When the nation basked in new hope as the Conservatives were defeated on 1 May 1997, I never thought I would say this.

Given the choice between dancing on Margaret Thatcher’s grave and dancing on Tony Blair’s, and not allowed to do both, I would dance on Blair’s.

Which would you do?

Below is an article from The Argus on Norman Baker MPs campaign over the death of David Kelly.

I was convinced that Kelly was murdered from the moment I heard of his death. Since then we learn that so much that was put out was simply untrue, particularly about having ingested a lot of painkillers. It is very difficult indeed to die of slashed wrists in the open air and, as Baker notes, the paramedics at the scene were adamant there was not enough blood. The points Baker makes are all good. But for me, it has always been highly improbable that a chemical weapons specialist could not have killed himself with less pain, had he wanted to.

There remains no evidence at all that Kelly did want to die.

The Argus – 2007-04-13

The greatest British conspiracy theory of the modern age was unveiled this week. Lewes MP Norman Baker set out in detail for the first time why he believes the secret service murdered the Government scientist Dr David Kelly.

MILES GODFREY and KATYA MIRA report on a one-man crusade for the truth which has catapulted an unassuming Parliamentarian into the international spotlight.

It was the start of 2006 and the time was right to bring down the British Government. In March last year Norman Baker, serial thorn in the side of the establishment and by his own admission “not the Prime Minister’s favourite person”, resigned his role as a frontbench MP for the Liberal Democrats.

It was a typically low-key announcement, timed to coincide with the anointment of the party’s new leader Sir Menzies Campbell.

The time had come, the MP said, for a new man to take over. But to those who knew Norman Baker, the decision to resign was made for another reason.

It would allow him more time to do what he does best: investigate, challenge, push, probe – specifically into the death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly. He was about to embark on an amazing investigation into the murky world of secret service agents, national security and the death of the man who very nearly halted the start of the war in Iraq.

If he could prove conclusively that members of the Government had conspired to get rid of Dr Kelly, it would have been – and still could be – the biggest single scandal this country has ever known.

The official report into the death of Dr David Kelly concluded he committed suicide after a row between the BBC and the Government over the “sexed up” dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction thrust the normally private scientist into the glare of the limelight.

But Mr Baker didn’t believe a word of it. He said at the time: “The public out there can smell a rat and they don’t think it’s finished business either.”

The scientist’s death was, the MP said, just too convenient, too riddled with inconsistencies and so unlike a man like Dr Kelly.

His year-long investigation culminated on Wednesday night at a meeting at which he proclaimed Dr Kelly had been murdered and set out his evidence. Mr Baker told a packed community hall in Lewes: “I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that this could not be suicide. The medical evidence does not support it and David Kelly’s state of mind and personality suggests otherwise. It was not an accident so I am left with the conclusion that it is murder.”

He told of how the world’s leading WMD expert had spent the morning before his death sending “upbeat emails” and even booking himself a flight to Iraq from his rural home in Southmoor, near Oxford.

Mr Baker questioned the cause of death – a haemorrhage caused by cuts to the ulnar artery in the wrist.

He said such wounds were “matchstick thick” and hidden, difficult to get to, as well as rarely leading to death.

The knife said to have been used was a gardening pruner Dr Kelly had kept since childhood – an unlikely and blunt choice.

Paramedics have said he had lost little blood and was “incredibly unlikely” to have died from the wound they saw.

Police said 29 tablets of the painkiller Coproxamol were missing from his home but all that was found in Dr Kelly’s stomach was the equivalent of one fifth of a tablet.

The MP told The Argus: “It has taken more than a year to investigate and it has been an incredible and fascinating journey which has taken a large number of twists and turns.

“I have met experts on weapons of mass destruction in Brussels and uncovered more evidence about the lies the Government told about weapons of mass destruction before the war.”

Along the way Mr Baker has had personal run-ins with high-profile Government figures, not least Tony Blair.

He said: “I wouldn’t say it has been easy, certainly the Foreign Office has done a lot to put obstacles in my way and other people have too. It has been hard work but at the same time it has been extremely worthwhile.”

He has also been hugely encouraged by the public, who he claims can see Dr Kelly’s death for what he says it was. Mr Baker said: “There is a world in Westminster and the rest of the world and I think most people in the public world can see that Dr Kelly was murdered.

“He was the world’s foremost expert on weapons of mass destruction who could single-handedly destroy the Government’s case for war so it was no wonder he was killed. “It may have also been intended as a message to other people out there who speak to the press when the Government doesn’t want you to. “I was appalled at his death and at the Hutton Inquiry into it. It was a procedural disaster from start to finish and I felt compelled to look into it.”

Mr Baker has signed a book deal to explain in greater detail his findings on Dr Kelly’s death and he expects to publish it later this year.

But the MP insists he will continue to investigate.

He has nagging doubts about the official line taken over the recent Navy hostages taken in Iran and over the death of Robin Cook, the MP who resigned in protest at the Iraq war.

He said: “Robin Cook was on Ministry of Defence land, I believe, when he died and certainly I have doubts over what happened.”

There are those, of course, who doubt Norman Baker’s theories.

But for every person out there who does there are an equal number for whom the MP has become a beacon of truth in an increasingly murky world.

The Observer publish a column by me in their “My week” series.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story/0,,2052388,00.html

It is interesting to compare what they published with what I submitted. Shortened for length, obviously, but the editing makes it look like my comments on alcohol were a jibe at Muslims, when in fact they were a jibe at Nick Cohen. It is perhaps understandable that the Observer have taken out criticism of their long-standing columnist and new neo-con pin-up. Slightly more worrying that they didn’t think my attack on the appointment of an appalling New Labour hack as chairman of the BBC was worth printing:

Anyway, here is what I originally wrote:

Nadira is studying a postgraduate acting course at Drama Studio London, an acting school of very high reputation. They have just broken up for Easter, and I go along to their end of term karaoke party. I feel inspirited by these young people. I would like to sing but Nadira only took me along after I promised I wouldn’t. Interestingly they all choose songs from my generation, not theirs. I learn that a song I have heard on a hundred radios, but didn’t know the title, is called ‘La Isla Bonita’ or sometimes, on this karaoke machine, ‘La Isla Bontia’. Does the Guardian do karaoke machines? Anyway one line in this song had always startled me. ‘I fell in love with some dago’ had always seemed a strange thing to sing, even in less politically correct times. I now see on the machine it was San Pedro she fell in love with: presumably a place not a holy old fisherman.

I also discovered that the Abba line from Super Trouper is not the improbable ‘Since I called you last night from Tesco’ but rather ‘Glasgow’.

Which is, of course, even less romantic.

I have spent a great deal of the week dashing between television and radio studios to give interviews about the Iran captives. I used to be head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign Office. In the first Gulf War I lived, quite literally, in an underground bunker working in the Embargo Surveillance Centre. I worked with Naval staff and was very heavily involved in the real time direction of Gulf interdiction operations. So I really know about this stuff.

There were farcical elements to the whole incident. Neither the British, Iraqis nor Iranians could say whose waters they were in, as the boundaries have never been agreed outside the Shatt-al-Arab. The military failure was due to the fact we have nothing in the area between a warship and a rubber dinghy; it reminded me of the Cod War with Iceland all over again (we lost that one too). Still less can I understand why we have warships attempting to collect Iraqi vehicle excise duty. These patrols, maintained at enormous expense to the British taxpayer, have made precisely zero seizures of significant quantities of explosives or guns. Up the Gulf by ship is not how the insurgents are supplied. The looting of thousands of tonnes of munitions from the disbanded Iraqi army was enough to keep them going for many years.

An extraordinary thing is the disconnect between the BBC presentation and what ordinary people can see. I think I can honestly claim that, unless you happened to catch me being interviewed, nothing else in hundreds of hours of BBC TV coverage would give a stranger the slightest clue that the majority of British people do not think our troops and Navy should be there in the first place. I am genuinely sorry for the ideal of these young people, but nobody can pretend it was a patch on extraordinary rendition to an Uzbek dungeon, on Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib or the regular beating of Iraqi prisoners by British troops, of which the hideous murder of Baha Musa is just one very bad example. There was infinitely more focus on the rejoicing families of our returned captives than there was thought for the grieving families of the four men and women just killed. Having sent those young people to their useless deaths, Blair’s only thought was to use them to bang the drum further for war against Iran,

Ask yourself – when is the last time you saw an anti-war voice, as opposed to a pro-war “military” or “security” expert, asked by the BBC to comment on a Middle East development? Yet the majority of people in this country are against the war. If they want an ex-diplomat, they go for pro war cheerleaders Pauline Neville Jones or Christopher Meyer, even though eight out of ten ex British Ambassadors are against the war.

Amazingly, Sky News is much more open to dissent, and gives much fairer representation to anti-war voices, than the BBC. I see that a New Labour apparatchik and mate of Gordon Brown has just been appointed to chair that august body. There would be no danger now of any unfortunate outbreak of the truth on the BBC, as when Andrew Gilligan told the nation there were no Iraqi WMD.

Lunch with Michael Winterbottom and Andrew Eaton to discuss the latest developments in producing the film of Murder in Samarkand, the book of my time in Uzbekistan. Paramount are funding the project and it is good to discuss filming locations and casting with a pretty open budget. There has been a change of writer since we last met, and Michael himself has drawn up the ‘treatment.’ We agree that the drama has to be griping, the sex erotic and the humour hilarious. Michael has a passion for authenticity which could cause problems. He is very insistent, for example, that Uzbeks should play Uzbeks and Russians play Russians. I point out that this is no problem provided we can find actors with no objection to be executed or murdered by their governments once the film is shown.

Steve Coogan is to play me. He is, of course, not nearly good looking enough. But then, who is?

This week I read ‘An Honourable Deception’ by Clare Short, and ‘What’s Left’ by Nick Cohen. I confess to being a fan of Clare Short. Unfortunately her on/off resignation did huge damage to her standing, and probably to the sales of this book. That is a great pity because what it has to say about the sickness at the heart of New Labour is quite devastating.

Let me summarise Nick Cohen’s book for you. ‘If you are against eating Muslim babies, you are a supporter of Islamofascism. If you are perturbed by Guantanamo Bay, you would not have fought in the Spanish Civil War, are probably a fan of Hitler and have no right to call yourself a Liberal. Neo-Conservatism is the New Left.’

There, now you don’t have to read it. Believe me, I have done you a favour.

I have never been much attracted to Islam myself as my hobbies are drinking whisky and chasing women. Contrary to Cohen’s argument, the very many British Muslims I know, some of them very radical, have no problems with my lifestyle or any intention of imposing their religion on the rest of the UK.

I think the fight against neo-puritanism is very important. The mineral water at lunch crew are a fundamental threat to civilisation. I have always maintained stoutly that it is possible to drink a great deal without any impairment of the mental faculties. I fear Cohen’s book may be disproving that.

I am making arrangements to get to Ghana for the funeral of my friend, Hawa Yakubu. Hawa was a woman of quite extraordinary influence across West Africa. She was on the closest terms with almost every major African Head of State over thirty years. I recall late one night we were struggling with ideas in the negotiations for the Sierra Leone peace treaty, and she simply phoned President Obasanjo of Nigeria at 2am to ask him to put pressure on Charles Taylor. It says volumes about Hawa that he was delighted to be awoken by his old friend.

Hawa did huge amounts for women’s development, for African integration, for conservation, and for the poverty-stricken West African Savannah Belt. She was completely non-corrupt and leaves no personal fortune. Her influence was absolutely vital in helping Ghana become a democracy after Rawlings. She never held more than junior ministerial office because she found it too limiting. One of the most positive influences bringing hope to modern Africa, she is mourned by an extraordinary number of powerful people on several continents. It says much of our modern remoteness from African affairs that no British media have noted her passing.

Good Friday is Nadira’s birthday. Foxy, our cat, gave birth to four kittens. Last year on Nadira’s birthday Foxy gave birth to one, Chocolate, who we still have. Nadira goes all gooey-eyed on me and insists we must keep the kittens. I point out that our long-suffering landlord, Mr Dash, has already put up with two cats when our lease clearly states that we are allowed no pets.

‘But you don’t have any money to pay the rent anyway, so why would he worry about a few kittens?’ Nadira asks. I don’t see how to argue with that.

Rachel from North London has been setting the scene for coming media coverage of new information on what was known and done about the London 7/7 attacks, both before and after. She is also calling on readers to sign the Downing Street petition for a public enquiry into the events.

“And then I started to follow a trail. I read, I researched, I found out more and more and more. I talked to people. I listened. I made it my business to know, as much as I could find out. Why? I didn’t want to let anyone down, by not being as briefed as I could be.

But what I found out was devastating. First, whispers, rumours. Then, facts, and I checked, and followed up, and I sat with what I knew, and sometimes I cried. And I bit my lip and waited…

It was, and is, not just about a failure of intelligence, but a failure to use intelligence. A failure of imagination. A misguided belief in a ‘Covenant of Security’, that was never security; that was a lie.

And for me, it is about the screaming I hear, still, in the darkness, when I sleep.

That might have been avoided, knowing what I know, what they knew, what we will all know, soon. And so I wait, and I write, and I wish, for what is coming soon…”

This is of course not the first attempt to build public and political momentum for an enquiry. However, it sounds as if April will probably see a new chapter in our understanding of what happened and why.

Much has been said about the injunctions, or attempted injunctions, against the BBC and Guardian, to prevent the publication of information relating to Lord Levy’s alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice in the cash for honours enquiry.

For the benefit of bemused non-British readers, in the UK the media are not allowed to publish the details of any potential evidence in a criminal trial, in case the jury are prejudiced by media reports before they enter the jury box.

Most other countries see no need for such restrictions. I have mixed thoughts about the system, though like all media restriction it is in danger of being made redundant by the internet and other new technologies. It is no longer a question of controlling a handful of presses and broadcast channels.

But what is undeniable is that in Britain today there is no attempt at fairness in the application of this principle. Senior New Labour figures are entitled to the full protection of this law. Is the same consideration applied to Muslims accused of terrorist offences?

The answer is a resounding no. Instead we receive a constant drip-feed of supposedly terrifying information, from police, Home Office and security services, sometimes open and sometimes just named as, for example, “Police sources”. So in the case of the so-called “liquid bomb plot”, such sources were only too keen to tell us under whose bed suicide videos had been found, near whose home were bottles containing hydrogen peroxide, who had a map pf Afghanistan, and a whole welter of such information. This was spun all over our front pages for a fortnight.

Where was Lord Goldsmith and his concern for the right to a fair, unprejudiced trial then?

I heard Louise Christian, a lawyer involved in the defence of a number of such cases, speak on precisely this point in January. She recalled a local newspaper printing a front page photo of two of her clients the day before their trial, with the banner headline “Terror sisters”. That is not permitted under our law – but it is one of the many protections of the rights of citizens that no longer in practice applies to Muslims in the UK.

Meanwhile, I am stunned that last week Sir Ian Blair, head of the Metropolitan police, shared the top table at a Jewish community dinner with Lord Levy. Blair is the head of the police force that has arrested Levy, removed his passport and, from the actions of Lord Goldsmith this week in seeking to suppress information that may be used at the trial, is likely to charge him shortly with an imprisonable offence.

It cannot possibly be right for the head of the Metropolitan Police to be hobnobbing socially with a prominent alleged criminal. And this is the ultra-sensitive Ian Blair, whose concern for social form is so acute that he demanded an offical report when a female Muslim police officer refused to shake hands with him. The report presumably explained that many Muslim females do not shake hands with men.

Ian Blair and Levy are of course both close members of the Prime Minister’s social and political circle. It is by no means the first time that they have dined together. In July 2005 the two of them ran up a ‘140 ($270) bill at a London restaurant, which Sir Ian Blair charged to the taxpayer. There was no investigation into Levy at the time, but his being dead sleazy was hardly a secret.

Ian Blair’s explanation of that charge to the taxpayer was that Levy was a representative of the Jewish community. Now, there are many eminent and worthwhile people in London to whom that description applies, but I don’t think that Levy holds any community posts. He is no more a representative of the Jewish community than I am of the Scottish community. Besides, how many one to one ‘140 meals has Ian Blair had with a representative of the Muslim community? Or the Irish, Iranian, Kurdish, Turkish, Polish, Palestinian or Greek communities? Other than ultra-rich New Labour supporters who happen to have that background?

So Ian Blair and Levy have form. In current circumstances it was a gross error of judgement for Ian Blair to sit at a top table with Lord Levy. Levy should have realised that himself and made his excuses, but nobody could mistake Lord Levy for a gentleman. Therefore Blair should have made an excuse and left. As it is, some of the smell has rubbed off. Ian Blair should resign.

Iraq, Rendition, the Saudi Arms Deal, and Cash-for-Honours – has there ever been a British Prime Minister facing so many simultaneous scandals combined with the realistic prospect of criminal litigation?

While the Cash-for-Honours affair is certainly not the most serious and is in reality relatively trivial, it does seem to offer the best hope for effective legal action. While it would obviously be a travesty of justice if Blair was to only called to legal account over this issue, it is worth remembering that Al Capone was finally brought down on a charge of income tax evasion. The biggest fish sometimes have to be caught with the smallest hook.

The Scotsman: Downing St not above law warn police

POLICE chiefs last night publicly warned the Labour Party that “no one is above the law” as the cash-for-honours inquiry erupted into open warfare between Downing Street and the Met.

After senior Labour figures lined up to criticise the “theatrical” arrest of Tony Blair’s aide Ruth Turner, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority launched an unprecedented counterattack, suggesting the party was trying to “manipulate” and “pressurise” officers.

Len Duvall – in remarks believed to reflect growing fury within Scotland Yard – urged those who had questioned the conduct of police to “reflect on what they have said”…..

BBC Online: OECD ‘concerns’ over Saudi probe

There are “serious concerns” about the UK dropping a fraud probe into a Saudi arms deal, says the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The OECD, which drew up an anti-bribery treaty signed by Britain, has been investigating the Serious Fraud Office decision announced last month. Prime Minister Tony Blair the decision to end the probe was taken in the interests of national security.

The OECD has said it will take “appropriate action” against the UK.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said this could mean an investigation into how the decision was taken, which would mean “further embarrassment” for the UK.

He told BBC News 24: “I think a government other than Mr Blair’s would feel severely embarrassed by criticism of this kind. After all this is a convention which Britain has signed and for us to be seen in breach of an international obligation of this kind is deeply damaging to our reputation.” …

Update 19.01.07 Britain rebuked for dropping bribe inquiry

By Anatole Kaletsky in Times Online

It has been another awful week for Tony Blair, perhaps even worse than the mid-summer meltdown triggered by his fatally misjudged support for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. First there was the craven surrender to Saudi Arabia’s demand for the suspension of Britain’s anti-corruption laws if they impinge on the personal finances of Saudi princes. Next came the derisive rejection of Mr Blair’s latest effort to ‘kick-start the Middle East peace process’ by every leader in the region. This was followed by the devastating report from Britain’s leading foreign policy institute, explaining how the Prime Minister had subordinated national interests to his unrequited love affair with President Bush. Then to cap it all, Britain’s supposed ally, the Iraqi Vice-President, commented that Mr Blair had been ‘brainwashed’ and ‘blackmailed’ by Mr Bush.

Nobody much cares any longer if Mr Blair rushes towards political perdition, but will his few remaining months in office sabotage the prospects of future Labour governments for years to come? The Chatham House report about the ‘disaster’ of Mr Blair’s foreign policy is surprisingly sanguine about the willingness of future prime ministers to change course: ‘His successor(s) will not make the same mistake. For the foreseeable future, whoever is prime minister, there will no longer be unconditional support for US initiatives in foreign policy.’

If only things were so simple. With every day that passes, Gordon Brown, through his silence on foreign policy, is closing off the options which should be available to the next prime minister. Having failed to hint at any objections to the conduct of the Iraq war or to Washington’s Middle East policies, Mr Brown is starting to get personally locked into the Blair-Bush axis. If he remains silent on foreign affairs much longer, Mr Brown will find it difficult to undertake the radical shift in British diplomacy that many of his supporters have been expecting and which Chatham House now describes as inevitable and necessary for Britain’s national interest.

The difficulty of executing a foreign policy U-turn if Mr Brown takes over, presumably sometime in June, will be greatly exacerbated if events in Washington and the Middle East continue to accelerate at their present pace. The problem is not just that the security situation in Iraq is deteriorating, but that the Bush-Blair duo are ruling out sensible options and creating new enemies almost every time they open their mouths.

(more…)

Chatham House is a widely respected think tank on international affairs. A new report from its Director describes the root failure of Tony Blair’s foreign policy as his inability to influence the Bush administration in any significant way.

The invasion of Iraq was a ‘terrible mistake’ and the absence of a UN Security Council Resolution authorizing the use of force drove a ‘horse and cart’ through Blair’s earlier, self-proclaimed, doctrine of international community. The post-invasion ‘d’b’cle’ has undermined British influence internationally and over crucial issues including a two-state solution in the Middle East. A distancing of the UK from the US and a closer relationship with Europe are requirements of post-Blair foreign policy. However, the UK will have to work to be taken more seriously by its European partners.

Read the report here

By Rajeev Syal in Times Online

Downing Street aides and Labour officials involved in the cash-for-honours inquiry are being investigated on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, The Times has learnt.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has advised detectives to look into suspected attempts to hamper the nine-month investigation. Some e-mails and documents have yet to be handed over to the police while others have apparently “disappeared”. Some individuals are suspected of colluding over evidence.

For full article go here

Update 20.12.06: Smear campaign against cash-for-honours policeman

Google “Rashid Rauf – mastermind”. On the first page of results you will find CBS, the BBC, the Times, Guardian and Mail all describing Rauf last summer, on security service or police briefing, as the “Mastermind” behind the “Liquid terror bomb plot”. So the fact that a Pakistani court has found there is no evidence of terrorism against him cannot be lightly dismissed by the cheerleaders of the plot story.

Rashid Rauf still faces other charges, including forgery, and what is touted as possession of explosives, although what he actually possessed was hydrogen peroxide, which is not explosive. As hydrogen peroxide is readily obtainable without limitation from any chemist or hardware store in the UK, why you would source it in Pakistan to blow up jets in Britain was never very convincing. The Pakistani court perhaps felt so too.

Rashid Rauf has much to answer. He is still wanted in the UK over the murder of his uncle some years ago – a crime which, like the alleged forgery, had no apparent terrorist link. None of which adds to the credibility of the evidence he allegedly gave the Pakistani intelligence services about the liquid bomb plot in the UK.

A second and simultaneous development is even more compelling evidence that this massive scare was, as I said at the time, “More propaganda than plot”. Thames Valley police have given up after five months scouring the woods near High Wycombe where the bomb materials were allegedly hidden. They told the Home Office on 12 December that they would only continue if the government were prepared to meet the costs; they wished to get back to devoting their resources to real crimes, like armed robbery and burglary.

Remember this was a plot described by the authorities as “Mass murder on an unimaginable scale” and “Bigger than 9/11”. There have been instances in the UK of hundreds of police officers deployed for years to find an individual murderer. If the police really believed they were dealing with an effort at “Mass murder on an unimaginable scale”, would they be calling off the search after five months? No.

Which brings us to the lies that have been told – one of which concerns this search. An anonymous police source tipped off the media early on that they had discovered a “Suitcase” containing “bomb-making materials”. This has recently been described to me by a security service source as “A lot of rubbish from someone’s garage dumped in the woods”. You could indeed cannibalise bits of old wire, clocks and car parts to form part of a bomb – perhaps you could enclose it in the old suitcase. But have they found stuff that is exclusively concerned with causing explosions, like detonators, explosives or those famous liquid chemicals? No, they haven’t found any.

Wycombe Woods, like the sands of Iraq, have failed to yield up the advertised WMD.

The other “evidence” that the police announced they had found consisted of wills (with the implication they were made by suicide bombers) and a map of Afghanistan. It turns out that the wills were made in the early 90s by volunteers going off to fight the Serbs in Bosnia – they had been left with the now deceased uncle of one of those arrested. The map of Afghanistan had been copied out by an eleven year old boy. All of which is well known to the UK media, but none of which has been reported for fear of prejudicing the trial. I am at a complete loss to understand why it does not prejudice the trial for police to announce in a blaze of worldwide front page publicity that they have found bomb-making materials, wills and maps. Only if you contradict the police is that prejudicial. Can anyone explain why?

While the arrest of 26 people in connection with the plot was also massively publicised, the gradual release of many of them has again gone virtually unreported. For example on 31 October a judge released two brothers from Chingford commenting that the police had produced no credible evidence against them. Charges against others have been downgraded, so that those now accused of plotting to commit explosions are less than the ten planes the police claimed they planned to blow up in suicide attacks.

Five British newspapers had to pay damages to a Birmingham man they accused, on security service briefing, of being part of the plot. Only the Guardian had the grace to publish the fact and print a retraction.

A final fact to ponder. Despite naming him as the “mastermind” behind somethng “bigger than 9/11”, the British government made no attempt to extradite Rashid Rauf on charges of terrorism. That is not difficult to do – the Pakistani authorities have handed over scores of terrorist suspects to the US, many into the extraordinary rendition process, and on average the procedure is astonishingly quick – less than a week and they are out of the country. But the British security services, who placed so much weight on intelligence from Rashid Rauf, were extraordinarily coy about getting him here where his evidence could be properly scrutinised by a British court. However MI5 were greatly embarassed by Birmingham police, who insisted on pointing out that Rauf was wanted in the UK over the alleged murder of his uncle in Birmingham. Now he was in custody in Pakistan, shouldn’t we extradite him? So eventually an extradition request over that murder was formally submitted – but not pursued with real energy or effort. There remains no sign that we will see Rauf in the UK.

I still do not rule out that there was a germ of a terror plot at the heart of this investigation. We can speculate about agents provocateurs and security service penetration, both British and Pakistani, but still there might have been genuine terrorists involved. But the incredible disruption to the travelling public, the War on Shampoo, and the “Bigger than 9/11” hype is unravelling.

You won’t read that in the newspapers.

Craig Murray

The BBC carried two pieces yeaterday that suggest the liquid explosive Terror Plot is looking rather less robust than has been previously suggested…

UK ‘plot’ terror charge dropped

A Pakistani judge has ruled there is not enough evidence to try a key suspect in an alleged airline bomb plot on terrorism charges. He has moved the case of Rashid Rauf, a Briton, from an anti-terrorism court to a regular court, where he faces lesser charges such as forgery.

Pakistan has presented Mr Rauf as one of the ringleaders behind the alleged plan to blow up flights out of London. The British authorities say they foiled it with Pakistan’s help in August. They say proceedings against suspects arrested in Britain will go ahead.

‘Explosives’

The arrest of Rashid Rauf in Pakistan triggered arrests in the United Kingdom of a number of suspects allegedly plotting to blow up transatlantic flights. The Pakistani authorities described him as a key figure. But an anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi found no evidence that he had been involved in terrorist activities or that he belonged to a terrorist organisation.

As well as forgery charges, Mr Rauf has also been charged with carrying explosives. But his lawyer says police evidence amounts only to bottles of hydrogen peroxide found in his possession. Hydrogen peroxide is a disinfectant that can be used for bomb-making if other chemicals are added.

The BBC’s Barbara Plett in Islamabad says the judge’s decision has reinforced the already widespread scepticism there about the airliner plot. Several commentators said the threat was deliberately exaggerated to bolster the anti-terror credentials of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and that it helped to demonise British Muslims of Pakistani origin.

The Crown Prosecution Service in the UK said the dropping of charges against Mr Rauf in Pakistan would “make no difference” to the case against the men charged in Britain.

‘Suspected conspiracy’

In August, the British government requested the extradition of Mr Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani origin who returned to Pakistan four years ago, in connection with a 2002 murder. Scotland Yard declined to discuss which murder case the request related to. The government in Pakistan, which has no extradition treaty with the UK, said it was considering the request.

Rashid Rauf was arrested in Pakistan earlier that month over the alleged plot to blow up US-bound aircraft, Pakistan’s foreign ministry said.

He has been described by Pakistan’s government as a “key person” in the “suspected conspiracy”. The August arrests led to increased airport security around the world, causing major disruption. Passengers on many flights were forbidden to take liquids aboard aircraft.

Terror search ends amid cash row

Scotland Yard anti-terror officers are to stop a search of woodland linked with the alleged airliners bomb plot amid a dispute over funding. Thames Valley Police, which was guarding the woods near High Wycombe, Bucks, had said it might pull the plug over spiralling costs.

The force demanded the Home Office cover the ‘8m cost. Plans for either military personnel or fencing to be used to seal the site are understood to have been rejected. The search operation started after the alleged plot was uncovered in August.

Thames Valley Police are thought to have threatened to “walk away from the scene” if it did not get some financial assistance from the Home Office. The Home Office said its request was still being considered.

Pension reserves option

It is thought Thames Valley may have to dip into pension fund reserves to ensure the force has enough money to cover any unexpected costs next year, if the Home Office turns down its request for extra funding. Last month, the local force ended its search of Kings Wood and moved onto the Booker Common area.

Ch Supt Graham Bell, from Thames Valley Police, had described the Kings Wood search as “one of the most intensive large-scale searches I can remember”. The alleged plot sparked a massive security operation at Britain’s airports and MI5 raised the attack threat level in the UK to critical – its highest.

The authorities believed the targets were both US and UK airlines flying to all parts of the US.

See also The UK Terror plot: what’s really going on?

Quotes can turn up in the most unexpected places.

Is this just a make over or are parts of the Tory party really re-writing their script?

I continue to view Cameron’s new touchy-feely conservatism with a measure of distrust until proven otherwise. But nevertheless, this is quite an astonishing statement to come from the Conservatives, and goes beyond anything even Robin Cook said about how Embassies should conduct themselves. It would be both churlish and foolish to do anything other than stand and give William Hague a hearty cheer.

Craig

From BBC Online

Tories demand human rights focus

International human rights have been relegated by the Foreign Office, the Conservatives’ commission on human rights has said.

Shadow foreign secretary William Hague called for a government minister to be appointed to concentrate on the issue. Publishing the first annual report of the commission, Mr Hague said human rights would be central to Conservative foreign policy. He also called for ambassadors to be more “proactive” in championing them.

Mr Hague said: “Currently it depends to a large extent on the individual ambassador or diplomat. It should be a requirement of the job, and outstanding service should be rewarded and recognised.

“Embassies should become freedom houses. Ambassadors should provide dissidents with a platform, and – where appropriate – should be willing to join pro-democracy demonstrations.”

The report highlighted the case of Craig Murray, the British ambassador to Uzbekistan who was removed from his posting after speaking out about torture in the country.

National interests

Mr Hague said: “We have the privilege of living in freedom. But with that privilege comes the responsibility to use our liberty to speak up for those who are denied it. “It is not only morally right that we should speak for the oppressed; it is also in our national interests to do so.

“Dictators do not make the best allies. Freedom and prosperity go together.”

The commission, chaired by MP Gary Streeter, said ministers’ dual responsibility for both trade and human rights created a conflict of interest. The commission plans a “substantive consultation” with human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as a review of the arms trade.

The report details 18 countries monitored during the past year, and ranks them on freedom, rule of law and human rights violations. Burma had the most violations, while North Korea was the worst violator of freedom and rule of law.

‘Killing and torture’

Others near the top of the list for violations were Tibet, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, Cuba and Belarus. The commission called for further reform of the United Nations, describing it as “the only club in the world in which a country can frequently violate the rules with little or no penalty.”

Among instances of human rights abuses, the report mentioned “the killing and torture of civilians and the displacement of up to 25,000 villagers in Burma’s Karen district in the course of 2006 alone”.

It also highlighted “the 200,000 political prisoners incarcerated in North Korea’s jails, who are the victims of a regime which is known to arbitrarily imprison up to three generations for the transgression of a single individual”.

Back in March TomPaine.com published an article by Katherine Gun which still makes interesting reading.

Katharine Gun was a translator at the Britain’s communications spy agency, General Communications Headquarters. In 2002, she leaked a top-secret memo to a British newspaper, revealing the U.S. was spying on U.N. Security Council members before their vote on the Iraq war.

Where are the whistleblowers about Iran?

It is exactly three years since the United States and Great Britain invaded Iraq, and a little over three years since Martin Bright and his colleagues at the London Observer quietly tested the veracity of an e-mail passed to them anonymously, whilst I nervously waited to see if the e-mail I leaked would appear in a newspaper. All this for the purpose of slowing down, if not derailing, a war that many felt was being rushed into by gung-ho politicians Bush and Blair…

Go here for the full article

By Stewart Tendler in TimesOnline

The police marksmen who killed Jean Charles de Menezes may have lied about the death of the Brazilian during the botched operation, the High Court was told yesterday.

They had claimed that Mr de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket when, in fact, he had on a denim one. They also claimed that they had shouted a warning, but none of the other passengers on the London Underground train heard them.

The details of the policemen’s claims were revealed as the dead man’s family began an application for a judicial review into the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute anyone over the shooting in July 2005.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot seven times in the head by two officers after he was wrongly linked with the bungled terrorist attacks on the London transport system the day before.

Opening the family’s case, Michael Mansfield, QC, told Lord Justice Richards, sitting with Mr Justice Forbes and Mr Justice Mackay, that the decision not to charge any officers was ‘a violation’ of the human rights of the de Menezes family. He said that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights required an adequate trial or inquiry to ‘deter life-endangering conduct in future’.

Jonathan Crow, QC, for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, called the family’s human rights argument unsustainable. He added that, as far as a prosecution was concerned, a ‘judgment call’ had to be made.

The hearing continues today.

Previous postings on the killing of De Menezes:

28/07/05 – Perpetual War Justifies Everything

17/08/05 – The killing of Jean Charles de Menezes

19/04/06 – The shooting of de Menezes: inquiry witness on a collision course

04/06/06 – Met chief could face charge over Menezes

13/09/06 – De Menezes family brand promotion of officer ‘slap in face’