Albums of the Year

Instead of a political rant, I thought I’d give my views on the albums I’ve bought this year (only counting those which were released this year, not stuff on special offer), and try to come up with some sort of ranking:

Arcade Fire – Funeral (ltd. ed)
Dramatic, noisy, quiet, Canadian. What else needs to be said?

Best track: Neighborhood (damn Yank-lish) #3 (Power Out)

Autolux – Future Perfect (ltd. ed)
Shoegazing! Because of this it automatically gets a good rating!

Best track: Turnstile Blues.

Black Rebel Motorcycle Club – Howl (ltd. ed)
They’ve stopping being a Jesus & Mary Chain rip-off (not that that’s a bad thing) and decided to become a blues band. They still sound like they’re on the smack though…

Best track: Weight of the World.

Beck – Guero (ltd. ed)
Linking up again with the Dust Brothers to make Odelay II (minus the commercial success) – yay!

Best track: Girl.

Bloc Party – Silent Alarm (non-ltd ed)
I was a bit disappointed with this album, especially after seeing how great they are live – the singles are top, but there’s a bit too much filler material. Hopefully, they’ll get into the swing of things next time round.

Best track: Helicopter (it would be She’s Hearing Voices, but they re-recorded it, instead of using the original version which came out in February 2004)

British Sea Power – Open Season (ltd. ed)
I’d actually forgotten how good this album is – they should play it more on the radio. Are you listening XFM and 6 Music?

Saying that, it needs an obvious radio-friendly (unit-shifting) track, like their debut The Decline of BSP that had Remember Me.

Best track: Oh Larsen B

The Chemical Brothers – Push the Button
After the letdown of Come With Us, comes this, which is possibly their best work, or at the very least equal to Dig Your Own Hole, even if it doesn’t quite reach the level of Surrender.

Best track: Galvanize – what a way to mark your comeback!

DJ Format – If you can’t join ‘em, beat ‘em
Old-skool daisy-age hip-hop (mo’fo!).

Best track: Ugly Brothers – true to life…

Doves – Some Cities (ltd. ed)
I was really looking forward to this one, as their first two (Lost Souls and The Last Broadcast) are fantastic. Unfortunately, like with Bloc Party, I felt a bit let down – they didn’t seem to push on like they have done before. It’s a bit more laid back, but lacks the shoe-gazing aspects of their previous work. Just hope it’s a temporary blip.

Best track: Black and White Town: living in a satellite-town it rings true.

Editors – The Back Room
Part-Joy Division, part-Doves – yay!

Best track: Munich.

Elbow – Leaders of the Free World (non-ltd ed)
More misery from the only good thing to come out of Bury (No, the Neville brothers DO NOT count)!

Best track: Leaders of the Free World.

The Fiery Furnaces – Rehearsing my Choir
Typically weird stuff from the Furnaces: a concept album about their grandma!

It takes a few listens to get into (even more than their previous one: Blueberry Boat), but, like Blueberry Boat, it’s definitely worth the effort.

Best track: it’s hard to pick one stand-out track, as they all link together so you really need to listen to the whole album.

Franz Ferdinand – You Could have it so much Better (non-ltd ed)
Expanding on their debut – I think I prefer this. I guess we do have it so much better…

Best track: You’re the Reason I’m Leaving.

Goldfrapp – Supernature (non-ltd ed)
More electro from Ms. Goldfrapp & t’other guy. Not as in your face as Black Cherry – it’s more sensual (?) – but still worth listening to.

Best track: Fly me Away.

Gorillaz – Demon Days (non-ltd ed)
Ten years ago, who would have thought that mockney-stereotype Damon Albarn would be able to successfully re-invent himself as a B-boy, not once, but twice?

Best track: Dare – it’s got Shaun Ryder sounding even more rambling than normal, which is always a good sign!

I am Kloot – Gods and Monsters
Pity they’ve been dropped – shame on you Echo.

Best track: Over my Shoulder.

Joy Zipper – The Heartlight Set
Part-shoegazing, part-Beach Boys-esque sunny-ness.

Best track: 1.

The Kills – No Wow (non-ltd ed)
Part-dance, part-smack-filled rock. Similar to their debut, but slightly more dance-y.

Best track: Good Ones.

LCD Soundsystem – LCD Soundsystem (ltd. ed)
NYC punk-dance. Leaning more to the dancier-side, unlike Supersystem.

Best track: Daft Punk is Playing in my House (despite the poor grammar: it should be Daft Punk are Playing in my House)

M. I. A. – Arular (ltd. ed)
A mixture of hip-hop, bhangra and dance.

Best track: Amazon – more of a laid-back track, but somehow it appears more dramatic in context.

Maxïmo Park – A Certain Trigger (non-ltd ed)
Mates of the Futureheads (even though MP are Geordies, not Mackems) and sound similar to ‘em. Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Best track: Apply Some Pressure – spiky stop-start guitars and easy to sign along (but not to dance) to.

Out Hud – Let us Never Speak of it Again
More NYC punk-dance, this time sounding like !!! (possibly because it’s their spin-off band).

Best track: One Life to Lead.

Rilo Kiley – More Adventurous
Like the British Sea Power LP, I’d actually forgotten how good this album is. Indie-folky-country stuff.

Best track: Portions for Foxes.

Sigur Rós – Takk… (ltd. ed)
Glacial, Icelandic, weird (possibly a repetition).

Best track: As with the Fiery Furnaces, it’s hard to pick out a stand-out track, as they’re as good as ach other and mostly sung in Icelandic (I think).

Supersystem – Always Never Again
(Even) more NYC punk-dance. Leaning more to the (fast-paced) rockier-side, unlike LCD Soundsystem.

Best track: Born into the World.

The Warlocks – Surgery
Sounding like BRMC did on their first album, i.e. they sound like the Jesus & Mary Chain!

Best track: Just like Surgery.

26 albums (excluding stuff that I bought on special offer) – I buy too much music!

My Top 10 Albums of 2005:

1. Arcade Fire – Funeral


2. Maximo Park – A Certain Trigger


3. LCD Soundsystem – LCD Soundsystem


4. M. I. A. – Arular


5. Fiery Furnaces – Rehearsing my Choir


6. Sigur Rós – Takk…


7. Chemical Brothers – Push the Button


8. Gorillaz – Demon Days


9. Franz Ferdinand – You Could Have it so Much Better


10. Autolux – Future Perfect

Craig Murray, pt II

Following on from the earlier post about Craig Murray’s troubles over his book, we have this transcript of fax sent 25 March 2003 (pinched from Bloggerheads) from the Foreign Office (the actual fax is here):

From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD
Linda Duffield

UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but undertook to re-read the Convention.


2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect. The nearest thing is article 15 which provides: "Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made."


3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law any statement established to have been made as a result of torture would not be admissible as evidence.

[signed]
M C Wood
Legal Adviser

There are some real sick bastards working for the government; it’s people like Mr. Wood who give the rest of us lawyers a bad reputation.

This would explain why the government went to the House of Lords to try and get torture allowed in our courts.

Craig Murray, pt I

According to Blair Watch, Craig Murray (the guy who was the UK’s ambassador to Uzbekistan) is attempting to get a book published, but the Foreign Office, i.e. Jack Straw, are trying to make him delete certain parts, including the following:

Association for Democracy in Uzbekistan – Confidential letters
Association for Democracy in Uzbekistan - Confidential letters
Confidential letters from Ambassador Craig Murray...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council Posts
16 September 02
SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism

SUMMARY

US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical policy.

DETAIL

The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that "the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim human rights record". I agree.

Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.

Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of $140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the State Department claim.

Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the security services.

Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance, but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover any of their activities or carry any of their statements.

The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not appear to presage a general change of policy.

On the latest cases of torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died in a fight between prisoners.

But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned (the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically, waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state: there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial independence would be impossible here.

Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic told me privately, there is more repression here now than in Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either cynicism or self-delusion.

This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years – but pressure is building and could ultimately explode.

I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11 divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and that Karimov is on "our" side.

If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things, like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words on New York have all been said. But last week was also another anniversary – the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in
Chile. The subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.

We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official Islamic groups.

Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new Great Game.

MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent
To FCO
18 March 2003
SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY

SUMMARY

1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focused on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.

DETAIL

2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan, about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one-party state without freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion.
It practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands. Most of the population lives in conditions precisely analogous with medieval serfdom.

3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five years.

4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid – more than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparative developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion against fundamentalism. He – and they – are in fact creating fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?

5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am saddened when the US constantly quotes fake improvements in human rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at American urging).

6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.

7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in Uzbekistan.

MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #3
CONFIDENTIAL
FM TASHKENT
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 63
OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD
LONDON, UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE

SUMMARY

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

DETAIL

4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.

5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.

6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.

7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as much to the Head of
Eastern Department.

8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting, a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I still have only gleaned that it happened.

9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.

10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry, nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan, and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there is any doubt as to the fact

11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."
While this article forbids extradition or deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present question also.

12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant. Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be plainer:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic reform.

14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable. Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the
Uzbeks give them. Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this assessment.

15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.

17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be grateful to hear Michael's views on this.

18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it has been done. That seems plainly complicit.

19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts them beyond the pale.

MURRAY

Greece/MI5

A Greek newspaper Proto Thema (can’t find a website for it) has named the head of MI6 in Greece, who’s supposed to be involved in the abduction and mistreatment of 28 Pakistani immigrants (or as the Secret Service would probably call ‘em “Fuckin’ Paki’s”). Our beloved government has banned the media from naming him, but has sent him back home.

If anyone has his name, send it to the address linked to on the top right of the screen. I'd also accept any English-langaue artuicles which name him (original or translated from Greek).

UPDATE: According to Cryptome, the guy's name is Nicholas Langman and is on the Foreign Office's Diplomatic list. Why try to stop his name being published then, if you've already released it? They also have a scan of the actual Greek paper article. The Greek version of MI5 are complaining about it.

UPDATE: Private Eye have also published his name in their latest issue (dead-tree version only).

Enjoyed the Silence

... as Depeche Mode once said.

You may have noticed that I've not posted on this thing for almost 2 weeks.

There's nothing important to blame: part-Xmas-related work/family things, part-buying a Gamecube & spending my time playing on that, and part needing time to replenish the bile. A down-sde of this is that I'm a bit out-of-touch with current world events: I didn't know the following:

• A US judge had banned "Intelligent Design" as it violated the First Amendment,
• Iraqi elections which have created a theocracy... (yay!), or
• A big carol service/demonstration within 1 km of parliament, without prior aproval (and so was illegal),
• The Canadian Supreme Court says that group sex in private clubs is legal
• The US Government has severe problems with due process "One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.
• Bolivia is the latest S. American country to vote for someone not backed by the Yanks (expect a coup next year), as CNN says it is a "nightmare" result,
• The stupidest political quotes of the year (being US-biased, it doesn't include Poodle's "There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq"),
• The FOIA blog had a response to their request over their Al-Jazeera memo request: the govt admit they have info on it, but say they won't release it as it's exempt under s.27 FOIA 2000, which refers to confidential information which could piss off other countries (which shouldn't be a reason at all).

My next post (which I've been working on for a while) won't be a political rant (!), but will be about the different albums I've bought during this year, giving my views & recommendations on them and then coming up with (or at least trying to) a list of what I think has been the best of the past 12 months (some you will have heard of, some you may have heard of, some you probably won't!).

Who is this aimed at?

A quote from an official at the Israeli Foreign Ministry over the Iranian President’s Holocaust comments:

"The combination of extremist ideology, a warped understanding of reality and nuclear weapons is a combination that no one in the international community can accept."

As I wrote on Whatever it is I’m Against it: This could apply to so many countries.

No inquiry into bombs

Bliar’s not going to have an inquiry into the London bombs, on the grounds that "we would end up diverting a massive amount of police and security service time and I don't think it would be sensible", instead we’ll have a “definitive account” of what happened, i.e. what they want us to think happened. Relatives of the victims are opposed to the idea and will keep on campaigning for one.

I know this is a complete long-shot, but I don’t think it’ll mention the problems with the train times that the bombers supposedly boarded.

Move along, nothing to see here…

Israel plans Iran attack for March

Ariel “Little Mermaid” Sharon wants an attack on Iran by March.

Once again I refer you to the start up time of the Euro-denominated Iranian oil bourse (see this article for more), after all: money talks.

Torture quotes

I was reading yesterday's House of Lords judgement on torture and thought I'd quote some enlightening parts:

One of the first acts of the Long Parliament in 1640 was... to abolish the Court of Star Chamber, where torture evidence had been received, and in that year the last torture warrant in our history was issued. (p. 6)

"Once torture has become acclimatized in a legal system it spreads like an infectious disease. It saves the labour of investigation. It hardens and brutalizes those who have become accustomed to use it." Sir William Holdsworth (quoted on p. 7)

The prinicple agsint using forced evdience has spread to other legal systems (although the ones listed are based on English law):

"Rochin v California: “States in their prosecutions respect certain decencies of civilized conduct”

The People (Attorney General) v O’Brien, the Supreme Court of Ireland held... that "to countenance the use of evidence extracted or discovered by gross personal violence would... involve the State in moral defilement.” (p. 10)

There can be few issues on which international legal opinion is more clear than on the condemnation of torture. Offenders have been recognised as the “common enemies of mankind” (Demjanjuk v Petrovsky) Lord Cooke of Thorndon has described the right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment as a “right inherent in the concept of civilisation” (Higgs v Minister of National Security), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has described the right to be free from torture as “fundamental and universal” (Siderman de Blake v Argentina) and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (Mr Peter Koojimans) has said that “If ever a phenomenon was outlawed unreservedly and unequivocally it is torture” (p. 28)

Article 12 of the 1975 Declaration on Torture: “Any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may not be invoked as evidence against the person concerned or against any other person in any proceedings.” (p. 30)

Article 15 repeats the substance of this provision, subject to a qualification: “Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.”

The additional qualification makes plain the blanket nature of this exclusionary rule. It cannot possibly be read, as counsel for the Secretary of State submits, as intended to apply only in criminal proceedings. Nor can it be understood to differentiate between confessions and accusatory statements, or to apply only where the state in whose jurisdiction the proceedings are held has inflicted or been complicit in the torture. It would indeed be remarkable if national courts, exercising universal jurisdiction, could try a foreign torturer for acts of torture committed abroad, but could nonetheless receive evidence obtained by such torture. (p. 30-1)

In the United States.. it had been said to be “unthinkable that a statement obtained by torture or by other conduct belonging only in a police state should be admitted at the government’s behest in order to bolster its case”: LaFrance v Bohlinger.

In their work on The United Nations Convention against Torture (1988), p 148, Burgers and Danelius suggest that article 15 of the Torture Convention is based on two principles: “The rule laid down in article 15 would seem to be based on two different considerations. First of all, it is clear that a statement made under torture is often an unreliable statement, and it could therefore be contrary to the principle of ‘fair trial’ to invoke such a statement as evidence before a court... In the second place, it should be recalled that torture is often aimed at ensuring evidence in judicial proceedings. Consequently, if a statement made under torture cannot be invoked as evidence, an important reason for using torture is removed, and the prohibition against the use of such statements as evidence before a court can therefore have the indirect effect of preventing torture.” (p. 32)

Lord Bingham also states "I am not impressed by the argument based on the practical undesirability of upsetting foreign regimes which may resort to torture. This is an exercise which could scarcely be carried out without investigating whether the evidence had been obtained by torture, and, if so, when, by whom, in what circumstances and for what purpose. Such an investigation would almost inevitably call for an approach to the regime which is said to have carried out the torture." (p. 39), as well as saying "But the English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years, and that abhorrence is now shared by over 140 countries which have acceded to the Torture Convention. I am startled, even a little dismayed, at the suggestion (and the acceptance by the Court of Appeal majority) that this deeply-rooted tradition and an international obligation solemnly and explicitly undertaken can be overridden by a statute and a procedural rule which make no mention of torture at all." (p. 40)

As Lord Caswell says "[By not resorting to torture, a country] will uphold the values encapsulated in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel in Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v Israel: “Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the rule of law and recognition of an individual’s liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day, they strengthen its spirit and its strength and allow it to overcome its difficulties.” (p. 80-1)

Operation Mirrorball follow-up

A follow-up to a previous D-Notice about an arms dealer called Viktor Bout.

The Green Ribbon did an FoIA to the Ministry of Defence & their response seems to verify the original story.

Guess a D-Notice must've been served...

Civil liberties

Over the past two days there's been two important court decisions from a civil rights perspective:

1. Yesterday, an anti-war protestor was convicted for protesting within 1 km of Parilament without prior approval (Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005). What's worse is the Magistrate said the statute didn't violate the Human Right Act! She was given a conditional discharge. Let's hope it gets overturned on appeal... See also the other links in the Illegal Protest special report, as well as the always informative Parliament Protest blog. I've previously told Distillated that the reason we need jury trials is for laws like this - no jury is ever going to convict someone of protesting their government, especially when it's a peaceful protest, while a Magistrate will convict someone, as they just look at the law itself, not the wider aspects. This probably explains Labour's war on jury trials.
2. Today the House of Lords ruled 7-0 (see here for judgement) that "evidence" gained from torture can't be used in UK courts (thank fuck!). It shows how much society's standards have dropped that this case ever had to get to the Lords.

7/7 trains FoIA

I've previously said there is some dispute as to the exact times over the train times that were used by the alleged bombers on 7th July. A Freedom of Information request has been made over the exact times that the trains set off.

It was rejected as the Met Police claim the information is already in the public domain.

The blog has made previous efforts to obtain the information via the Home Office & Department of Transport, with some success, but not enough to complete their queries (which is why they asked the Met Police).

The Antagonist has more on the subject.

Iran preps to sell oil in Euros

In the past I’ve said that Iran plans on selling its oil in Euros (€), instead of the standard US$.

Well the ability to buy Iranian oil in is one step closer:

The Chairman of the Majlis Energy Commission, Kamal Daneshyar said here, on Friday, that preparatory measures have been taken to sell oil in euros instead of dollar, adding that such a measure is quite positive and should be taken as soon as possible.

As for the probable consequences of such a decision, Daneshyar said that when such a measure is taken, the United States would soon realize that it is not the one who can always inflict economic damages on the Islamic Republic and that Iran can also get even with it.

Daneshyar who also represents Mahshahr in the Majlis noted that prior to this the way was not paved for undertaking such a program, adding that fortunately the present government possesses the necessary management bravery to prepare the ground for taking such a measure.

Doesn’t say for certain when it’ll happen, just a case of when not if though (as long as the US/UK/Israel don’t bomb the shit out of it first…).

Remember, the USA officially is bankrupt (over $8 trillion in debt, as of 1st December). The only reason anyone buys US$ is because oil is demoninated in it (and so you have to have US$ in order to buy it). If the world changes to Petro-€ standard, then, according to the US Navy's Center for Contemporary Conflict, it would lose somewhere between 20-40% of its value (as countries would have to swap their US$ reserves for €s)!

Memo campaign in the Times

The Al-Jazeera memo campaign’s had a mention in today's Times, which has this comment:

The bloggers’ strategy could complicate the position of Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney- General, who warned the media not to publish the document. Being seen to send hundreds of ordinary people to prison over the matter could prove politically suicidal for the Government.

They’ve stumbled upon our motive! However, this is the Labour “Let’s ban people from protesting within 1 km of Parliament & arrest people for shouting ‘Nonsense’ at Jack Straw” Party we’re talking about…

Which is more accurate?

This is a very good satire (AVI format)/more accurate version of the government’s official ID cards propaganda video (for which they spend £72,000 on 250 DVDs!) done by someone at my old university.

Memo update

Latest news on the Al-Jazeera memo: according to Blair Watch, there are two memos, i.e. the one in the Times from last year & the one in the Mirror from last week are different & that the two people on trial are charged over only one of ‘em.

As Blair Watch say:

If what was reported by the BBC on 17th November, prior to the Mirror story is correct; that Keogh and O'Connor are being prosecuted over the leak of the document 'Iraq in The Medium Term' as published in the Times [May 2004], and not for leaking the source of the Mirror article then the Bliar and his official spokesman would be leaving themselves wide open by describing the Mirror story as 'sub-judice'.

If the Mirror is correct in it's assertion that Keogh and O'Connor are being charged over the source of their story [the transcript], then the story reported by the BBC about them being charged over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo was a construct, a 'beard' to cover up the existence of the document referred by the Mirror.

This means our government must have pre planned and disseminated the lie [or spin if you prefer]; that Keogh and O’Connor were being prosecuted over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the medium term' memo.

To cover up the existance of the 'Lets bomb Al-Jazeera' transcript?A plan derailed by the Mirror obtaining a copy and publishing it's story.

The BBC ran the story about Keogh and O'Connor's prosecution on the 17th of November.The Mirror state they approached the Government with their story about Bush wanting to Bomb al-Jazeera 24 hours before publication, on the 22nd of November.

This was four days after we 'learned' via the BBC that Keogh and O'Connor were to be charged with the leak of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo.
If this is the case, the Mirror story did not precipitate the lie [spin] that was reported either wittingly or unwittingly by the BBC on the 17th November, it exposed it.

If we accept Peter Killfoyle's word (and I do) that the Times article and the Mirror article are from different sources, then Keogh and O'Connor cannot be facing charges over both leaks.Either way we are being told lies by our government, and either wittingly or unwittingly by the mainstream media.

Memo FoIA request

The FoIA blog has put in a FoIA request for the Al-Jazeera memo & has got a reply back within a day… maybe they’re responding to public pressure…

There’s also an opinion piece in the Guardian over the situation.

More Parliament protests

Some more people have been arrested for an unauthorised protest within 1 km of Parliament.

Two women were arrested on Friday 25th November while holding a bell-ringing ceremony outside Parliament to remember the estimated 100,000 people who had died since the beginning of the war in Iraq.

However, according to Indymedia UK (at least some of) the police don't seem to support the law:

One policeman was heard saying 'I wish I could join you. I wish I could do what you're doing. This is filthy. This is very hard for all of us'.

The women were taken to Charing Cross Police Station but later released without charges. As well as being reluctant to arrest, the Police also seemed concerned at the possibility of two more people challenging the new laws.

This may explain the lack of action when I put a new sign up in the "Designated Area"... I wonder if they've mentioned their concerns to the head of the Met Police Sir Ian "Give us more powers for your own good" Blair?

Civil disobedience can make any law unworkable, as seems to be happening!

Time to move on...

I've previously mentioned that the Serious Organised Crime Act was created to victimise an anti-war protestor who's camped outside Parliament.

Well from Bloggerheads, comes this:

Britain's most persistent anti-war demonstrator was today ordered to quit his protest. Parliament Square protester Brian Haw has been served with a legal notice to dismantle his makeshift peace camp opposite the House of Commons. Ministers expect him to be gone by August.... Mr Haw's removal would end demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament for the first time in 350 years. [i.e. since before the Civil War when we had a war-mongering leader who thought he had a divine right to rule the country & no-one could tell him otherwise... Wait a minute... that seems strangely familiar. Why?] The Home Office brought in special laws last month overturning the centuries-old right of people to challenge their elected representatives outside Westminster. They claimed the measures were needed for security reasons.

"Security reasons", yeah right! It's to embarrassing seeing him every day reminding everyone what you've done & you can't handle it.

So much for having a democratic right to speak out & protest about the actions of your government... Guess it only applies if you're supporting the government.

Religion vs Freedom of Speech

The govt have published their "Racial and Religious Hatred Bill".

I'm opposed to it for the following reasons:

• It's my right to slag-off Christianity


• Religion is different to sex/race/sex orientation in that you can change your religion, but it's kinda hard to change your race


• The govt unfortunately appears to be pandering to religious-freaks who want to stop any criticism of them (see the hassle Christian groups caused with the BBC's showing of Jerry Springer: The Opera & the subsequent dismissal of their complaints).


• Religion is just an idea - ideas are there to be challenged, if you can't take my criticism, then that means those beliefs are very poorly thought out. There's no reason for people to end up in prison because you're easily offended (are make out that you are offended…). Let's hope someone challenges it under the Human Rights Act 1998 as being disproportionate & a breach of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression), which would force to govt to change it.
  

"But ministers insists it will not ban people - including artists and performers - from offending, criticising or ridiculing faiths."

Yeah, right! All Labour know is to stifle criticism & dissent at all costs - see the Serious Organised Crime & Police Act 2005 which bans "Any person [from demonstrating] in a public place in the designated area" (section 129), which means Parliament. There is an anti-war demonstrator (Brian Haw, who stood in the election as an Independent) who's been there for 4 years, so it appears that this section has been designed specifically with him in mind.

More on the memo

More on the Al-Jazeera bombing memo from the Independent on Sunday

"Some people will think this is heavy-handed," said a senior Whitehall source. "What people are bound to say is that we are being inconsistent in dealing with this case. They are bound to ask why we are pursuing this case, and not others."

The innocent (government) has nothing to fear…

Some have argued that if the text of the memo at the heart of the present row were published, it would show that Mr Blair, contrary to the claims of Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington, had used his influence to restrain American behaviour in Iraq. But events in Fallujah and beyond do not give much sign that the US ever heeded any British expression of concern about its methods of dealing with the insurgency.

Not only is the Prime Minister's authority in Washington in question, but Iraq has also eroded his ability to push through his policies at home. It is in this context that the Government's crackdown on leaks is being viewed. With open disagreements growing inside the Government on a host of issues - just in the past week, these have included pensions, nuclear power, education policy and flu jabs - a firmer approach is needed to stop the flow of confidential documents, some believe.

The government needs to promote its heavy-handedness in order to pre-empt further leaks…

It remains to be seen whether the Government seeks to prevent the five-page document becoming public during the OSA trial, but it could not have focused more interest on the case unless it published the whole transcript, as Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, and others are demanding in a parliamentary motion.

But they’ve ballsed-up: by threatening to jail anyone who publishes it, they’ve drawn more attention to it, than it (possibly/probably?) deserves.

The Sunday Times also has ideas about why the government has chosen to act how it has:

Bush had endorsed Ariel Sharon’s plan for the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. But the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees to land seized by Israel since 1948 was blocked. The plan was met with fury in the Arab world. It also angered Blair as it ended two years of diplomatic efforts by the British on the “road map” to Middle East peace.

According to Anthony Seldon, Blair’s biographer, who has interviewed those briefed on the meeting, this marked a “significant” setback for Blair. The prime minister was also said to be angered by the US failure to consult him on their private negotiations with Sharon. However, in public Blair remained supportive of Bush.

There were disagreements, but not over bombing a TV station, but over how to resolve the Israel-Palestine problem. They also think it contains other juicy details:

The White House meeting is thought to have covered how the British were secretly liaising with Iranian “diplomats” in Baghdad in the hope that they would mediate with the Shi’ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iran is now suspected of funding and training insurgents in southern Iraq, so the disclosure of any evidence that Blair was prepared to negotiate with them in 2004 would be embarrassing.

This part of the discussion also revealed information about British and American intelligence sources in Iraq and military strategies. It is this material that the government is most concerned to prevent leaking into the public domain.

Iraq Motion/email to MP

I sent this email to my MP, Kitty Ussher:

Dear Ms. Ussher,

I was wondering if you would be kind enough to support this Early Day Motion (http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29437&SESSION=875) as I feel that it would be good for the whole of the UK if we are able to find out how we were led to war with Iraq, as we would be able to put it behind us once and for all.

Yours sincerely,

I wonder what reply I’ll get off her “people” this time? (I still haven’t had a reply to my 2nd email, yet…)

The history of ID cards

Jon Agar, lecturer at Cambridge University’s Department of History and Philosophy of Science, has done a brief history of ID cards in the UK.

This is the Executive Summary:

• The first national register (1915-1919), and accompanying identity card, was a failure, and the second (1939-1952) a partial success. The success of the second system was secured by analysing the causes of the failure of the first.


• Universal registration systems have repeatedly been proposed as solutions to short-lived moral panics [e.g. terrorism]. But there is little evidence that national registers effectively resolve such panics.


• Public indifference or hostility to identity cards was managed by building 'parasitic vitality' into the second experience. In particular, the system of national registration was intimately connected to the system of food rationing. Without similar 'parasitic vitality', contemporary proposals can be expected to struggle to win acceptance [i.e. you have to have one or else].


• However, such interconnection encourages the phenomenon of 'function creep': eventually the pattern of disclosure and use of personal information is markedly different from that originally declared.


• The last National Register, while relatively simple to operate and dependent on manual technology, was only marginally judged value for money when subjected to sympathetic but critical analysis.


• Meanwhile, a large part of the effectiveness of the simple cards lay in their very simplicity: the lack of information contained permitted a cheap and effective check system.


• Even so, the historical record also reveals the diverse unofficial, including criminal, uses of identity cards.


• The latest proposals seem to resemble the first national register more than the second. Policymakers would do well to follow their predecessors and learn from the past [or, rather, lets hope they don’t].
  

It’s only a brief article, but is quite informative…

Memo

This is the article that was in the Mirror on Monday, which the government are trying to ban:

PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.

But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.

The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.

A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.

"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.

"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

A Government official suggested that the Bush threat had been "humorous, not serious".

But another source declared: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.

"I hope the Prime Minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war."

Bush disclosed his plan to target al-Jazeera, a civilian station with a huge Mid-East following, at a White House face-to-face with Mr Blair on April 16 last year.

At the time, the US was launching an all-out assault on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.

Al-Jazeera infuriated Washington and London by reporting from behind rebel lines and broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers, private contractors and Iraqi victims.

The station, watched by millions, has also been used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to broadcast atrocities and to threaten the West.

Al-Jazeera's HQ is in the business district of Qatar's capital, Doha.

Its single-storey buildings would have made an easy target for bombers. As it is sited away from residential areas, and more than 10 miles from the US's desert base in Qatar, there would have been no danger of "collateral damage".

Dozens of al-Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.

To have wiped them out would have been equivalent to bombing the BBC in London and the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq War itself.

The No 10 memo now raises fresh doubts over US claims that previous attacks against al-Jazeera staff were military errors.

In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre.

The memo, which also included details of troop deployments, turned up in May last year at the Northampton constituency office of then Labour MP Tony Clarke.

Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh, 49, is accused under the Official Secrets Act of passing it to Leo O'Connor, 42, who used to work for Mr Clarke. Both are bailed to appear at Bow Street court next week.

Mr Clarke, who lost at the election, returned the memo to No 10.

He said Mr O'Connor had behaved "perfectly correctly".

Neither Mr O'Connor or Mr Keogh were available. No 10 did not comment.

The Wayne Masden Report has this to say:

WMR will be more than happy to publish the Al Jazeera bombing memo or any other classified British government memo in whole or in part. E-mail to waynemadsendc@hotmail.com. The web makes the Official Secrets Act a true "paper tiger."]

Keogh passed the memo to Leo O'Connor, an assistant to former British Labor MP Tony Clarke. Both Keogh and O'Connor face charges of violating Britain's quaint and arcane Official Secrets Act. However, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) translator and analyst Katharine Gun had similar charges against her dropped when it became apparent that her trial on the leak of a Top Secret National Security Agency (NSA) directive to GCHQ to begin surge surveillance of UN Security Council members prior to a 2003 vote on an Iraq war resolution would embarrass the Blair government. Neither were their criminal sanctions as a result of the leak of the "Downing Street Memo," marked Secret and Strictly Personal - UK Eyes Only, that pointed to premeditation between Bush and Blair to justify the war against Iraq.

These newest revelations point to several issues. Current and former members of the British government are as rebellious over the neo-con takeover of their government as are their American counterparts with regard to their own government. The fact that Bush would entertain bombing an ally and an independent news media operation points to his current mindset. Bush made his statement to Blair at the same time others in his White House were contemplating a pre-election attack on Iran's nuclear sites. Bush and his coterie of advisers are the most dangerous regime in the world today, a group of people who have their hands on triggers of weapons of total destruction (WTDs).

UPDATE: Bliarwatch have a list of everyone who's signed up to publish it.

Found this on DU:

... on Wednesday's Channel 4 News, Jon Snow said the Sunday Times published large parts of the Bush-Blair "bomb Al Jazeera' memo on that day. I can't find anything on the website, but then they might well have removed it after the threat of the Official Secrets Act.

There's a link to the C4 piece in General Discussion here. The mention of the Sunday Times is about 9 minutes into it.

Anyone have a copy of the Sunday Times from 20/11/05?

Ricin Ring update

Earlier this year I said that the Guardian had removed an article from its website over the failed ricin-ring plot.

Spy Blog have an update which links to official Guardian version over what happened – the DID have a D-Notice; however, as Spy Blog point out they are only advisory, not mandatory. Also, the Guardian admit that no Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate was handed out by the court, which is the normal way to restrict reporting, which, in this case, was due to naming witnesses:

Despite several requests, the MoD and the Crown Prosecution Service failed to provide the Guardian with a copy of the order. However, its lawyers spoke to the prosecution and defence lawyers in the case, who confirmed that the judge had granted an unopposed application to protect the identity of Porton Down witnesses. Apparently, they were not named in open court and they were screened from the jury when they gave evidence. No order was posted in the court press room - the usual practice with reporting restrictions - and Mr Campbell was not at court.

As Spy Blog mention it’s interesting that this happened in the run up to the election & it worth pointing out that the Guardian didn’t mention the PII certificate.

Basra

1. Yesterday, British troops, amongst other things, stormed a prison in Iraq which was holding 2 soldiers who'd been arrested for shooting Iraqi police.

These are the two guys arrested:
















Thing is, when I looked in the paper this morning, their faces were blurred... probably due to this (from Rigourous Intuition, the comments of which are very interesting):

Reuters appended a note to each photo over the wire: "ATTENTION EDITORS - THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT REQUESTS THAT THE IDENTIFICATION OF THIS MAN IS NOT REVEALED, EITHER VIA PIXELLATION OF THEIR FACES OR BY NOT PUBLISHING THE PHOTOS."

2. According to Daily Kos, BBC World Service originally said the men (SAS guys) were driving a car full of "full of explosives and bomb making equipment." Which would explain the blurring... Antiwar say a similar thing, with a quote from Xinhua:"

'Two persons wearing Arab uniforms opened fire at a police station in Basra. A police patrol followed the attackers and captured them to discover they were two British soldiers,' an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua. The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said."

Antiwar continue:

By "Arab uniforms" they no doubt mean traditional Arab dress, long flow-y Lawrence of Arabia drag, but as for the explosives .... I'm not sure how much truth there is in this report, but the source doesn't necessarily rule it out. After all, what were those two Brit Special Forces types doing out of uniform -- and seemingly gone native? They were apparently riding around Basra, with whatever it was they had in their car: explosives, surveillance devices, or maybe just candy to hand out to children....

3. A commentary on WIIIAI includes mentioning this act violates international law by the soldiers being undercover; while another one here asks why were the soldiers dressed in Arabic clothes? So much for Iraq being a "sovereign nation".

4. Now the Iraqis are calling for us to leave! Some people are just so ungrateful...

5. More comments on Rense, including This report give crediblity to the 'conspiracy theorists' who have long claimed many terrorist acts in Iraq are... initiated and carried out by US, British and Israeli forces.

6. See also this.

I've always said the term "conspiracy theorist" is just a way of attacking someone's credibilty, when their statements cannot be proven wrong. A "conspiracy theory" is just what you get when you combine facts, logic & rational thinking, which makes holes in the official version.

Operation Mirrorball

From the Yorkshire Ranter (TYR), the London Evening Standard had an article which has gone down the Memory Hole (probably via a D-Notice as it makes the government look bad). Here it is in full:

HOW CAN BRITAIN STILL USE THE MERCHANT OF DEATH?

Today the UK will promise to curb arms traffickers. But the MoD is hiring planes from a dealer linked to Bin Laden.

By Andrew Gilligan. Evening Standard, Monday, 9th May 2005.

Victor Bout [sic] is the most notorious arms trafficker in the world. Linked to Osama bin Laden by the British government, linked to the Taliban by the US government, he was described by a New Labour minister as a "merchant of death" who must be shut down.

Yet an Evening Standard investigation has found that, just two months ago, a Victor Bout company was hired by that very same British government to operate military flights from a key RAF base.

Bout, a 38-year old Russian, owns or controls a constellation of airlines that have smuggled illegal weapons to conflict zones for the past 15 years. He has been named in countless official investigations and reports - the most recent only last month. The authorities in Belgium, where he used to work, have issued a warrant for his arrest. In 2004, the US froze his assets and put him on a terrorist watch list [not that they stopped him flying to and from Baghdad, TYR].

But between 6 and 9 March this year, according to official Civil Aviation Authority records, two Victor Bout charter flights took off from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The cargo was armoured vehicles and a few British troops. The client was the Ministry of Defence.

The charters were operated by an airline called Trans Avia. It was named as one of Mr. Bout's front companies by the Government itself - in a Commons written answer on 2 May 2002. The Government cannot claim ignorance of Bout's dubious links. The Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane reassured MPs: "The UK has played a leading role in drawing international attention to Bout's activities, initially in Angola and Liberia and more recently relating to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda".

A specialist aviation journal reported that the "al Qaeda link" was Bout's role in supplying bin Laden with a personal aeroplane - in the days before September 11, when he had a little more freedom of movement. Could Trans Avia have gone legit since then? Not according to the United States Treasury Department. Only two weeks ago, on 26 April, the Treasury "designated" Trans Avia as one of 30 companies linked to Bout, "an international arms dealer and war profiteer". Bout "controls what is reputed to be the largest private fleet of Soviet-era cargo aircraft in the world", says the Treasury press release. "The arms he has sold or brokered have helped fuel conflicts and support UN-sanctioned regimes in Afghanistan, Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Sudan. Notably, information available to the US government shows that Bout profited by $50 million by supplying the Taliban with military equipment when they ruled Afghanistan."

The story doesn't end there. Another two flights were made in the same three days of March by an airline called Jet Line International, also from RAF Brize Norton. A further three flights were made at the same time from another base, RAF Lyneham. The destination was Kosovo. The client, once again, was the Ministry of Defence.

Yet Jet Line, too, is a company that has been accused of close connections to Bout. According to the authoritative US newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, it appeared on a list of Bout companies circulated by the State Department to US diplomatic posts around the world.

"There is no doubt at all about the links between Jet Line and Bout," says Johan Peleman, the researcher who wrote the UN report. "It's one of his most important assets." Intelligence agencies say the same thing. Jet Line's office address in its base at Chisinau, Moldova, is the same as that of Aerocom, a company exposed by the United Nations as involved in sanctions-busting and arms-smuggling to the brutal rebels of Liberia. According to the UN, Aerocom was involved in the illegal smuggling or attempted smuggling of more than 6,000 automatic rifles and machine guns, 4,500 grenades, 350 missile launchers, 7,500 landmines, and millions of rounds of ammunition in breach of a UN arms embargo.

Tracking down the registration numbers of the sanctions-busting aircraft, it turns out that the Jet Line aircraft that flew the MoD flights in March were previously registered to Aerocom. They are in fact the same planes.

Bout's activities have helped cause quite literally thousands of deaths in many of the worst places in the world. Born in 1967, he served in the Soviet air force and then military intelligence, where he developed a gift for languages. When the USSR broke up, he "acquired" a large fleet of surplus or obsolete aircraft, which he used to deliver arms and ammunition also "acquired" from old Soviet stockpiles. That weaponry fuelled some of the most savage wars in Africa. Charles Taylor's insurgent guerrillas used Bout weapons to destroy Liberia. In Sierra Leone, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) used Bout weapons to terrorise the country, seize the diamond mines, and chop off their opponents' hands.

None of our business? Well, the RUF's Bout-supplied weapons were almost certainly used to attack British troops engaged on the Sierra Leone peacekeeping mission in 2000.

Bout's planes would arrive at obscure African airstrips, loaded with weapons, then leave heaped with diamonds, coltan - vital for making mobile phones - and other precious minerals in return. "He was apolitical," said one UN official. "He would fly for anyone that paid." Bout's willingness to go places that no-one else would go made him the market leader in the arms-trafficking business. Little wonder, therefore, that the then Foreign Office minister Peter Hain said "The murder and mayhem of Unita in Angola, the RUF in Sierra Leone, and groups in Congo would not have been as terrible without Bout's operations." He was truly "a merchant of death", Hain said [and for a long time I respected Hain for it, too - TYR].

Bout used to operate from Ostend, in Belgium, where a shabby hotel in the city centre acted as his informal marketplace. There was a flight departures screen in the hotel bar, so he could keep track of his planes' movements. Then he was forced to retreat to Sharjah, in the United Arab Emirates - and after September 11, to Moscow, where he controls his empire through front companies such as Trans Avia. "You are not putting facts. You are putting allegations," he tells journalists on the rare occasions they manage to get through on his Russian phone number. [Actually, the quote comes from his surprise appearance on Ekho Moskhy radio in 2002 - TYR].

Britain has been embarrassed by dodgy airlines before. Last year, the Department for International Development promised a full investigation after the Standard exposed its use of Aerocom on an aid flight to Africa. The problem is that few reputable carriers want to fly to Kosovo, Iraq, Darfur or some of the places where the government needs transport. And the airline brokers used by Whitehall seem to have learned surprisingly few lessons from past embarrassments.

In a statement, the Ministry of Defence said the fact that its broker "seems to have used an aircraft in Jet Line International livery" was not the same as saying that the MoD itself had contracted Jet Line. But, whatever hairs the MoD may choose to split, the payout - for Mr. Bout - is the same.

Today and tomorrow, at the MoD's vast procurement headquarters in Bristol, defence officials are holding a special conference with human rights groups and arms trade campaigners. The purpose is to persuade them that the government is serious about cracking down on the scourge of arms trafficking.

One good way to start might, perhaps, be to stop putting British taxpayers' money into the pockets of the worst arms trafficker in the world."