Filthy Fuzz

How odd that the main story this morning was this:

Ian Tomlinson, the man who died at last week's G20 protests in London, was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton-wielding police officer in riot gear, dramatic footage obtained by the ­Guardian shows.


And by the afternoon we had this:

Counter-terrorist police arrested 10 young men across the north-west tonight in an operation hastily brought forward following an embarrassing security leak by a senior Scotland Yard commander.

Hmmm.

The Good Dictator Faces Impeachment?

Could the former Pakistani dictator (now President) Pervez Musharraf, be on his way out? It's about time that the West's favourite military dictator (and boy, does he have some tough competition) got what was coming to him. Question is, which way will the army swing?

Pakistan's ruling coalition parties say they will begin impeachment proceedings against President Pervez Musharraf.

Party leaders Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif made the announcement after three days of talks. They would need a two-thirds majority to impeach.

Mr Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup in 1999.

He gave up control of the army last year and his allies were defeated in February's elections but he retains the power to dissolve parliament.

Mr Musharraf has previously said he would resign rather than face impeachment proceedings but he has made no comment yet on the latest move.

The BBC's Mark Dummett in Islamabad says an impeachment would take Pakistani politics into new territory, since no Pakistani leader has faced it before.

Waterboarding Was 'Actively Sought' by US Officials

That's according to Carl Levin who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

US military officials actively sought ways to implement harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding used at Guantanamo Bay despite legal objections, a senior Democratic senator has said.

Carl Levin, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, told a hearing the US government had "twisted the law to create the appearance of legality".

"If we use those same techniques offensively against detainees, it says to the world that they have America's stamp of approval," he said in Washington DC on Tuesday.

The committee was also shown US military memos saying that the techniques should be curbed while international monitors were present.

The hearing is the committee's first attempt to discover the origins of the harsh interrogation methods used in Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba and Abu Ghraib in Iraq and how policy decisions on interrogations were agreed across the US department of defence.

The CIA has admitted it used waterboarding, which simulates drowning, on several suspected al-Qaeda leaders, while US soldiers were photographed using dogs against prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The interrogations have been widely condemned by international human rights groups.

Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator, said the Bush administration's legal analysis on detainees and interrogations following the September 11, 2001, attacks would "go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities".

That's The Spirit

Congratulations to the Bush administration for throwing their support behind the peace deal:

The Bush administration has reacted sceptically to news of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

"We'll see first of all whether there is actually an agreement," Tom Casey, a US state department spokesman, told reporters in Washington on Tuesday.

"Even if this is a true report, I think unfortunately it hardly takes Hamas out of the terrorism business," Casey added, referring to the Palestinian group that controls the Gaza Strip.

US officials have rejected contact with Hamas because they view it as a terrorist organisation.

Egypt and Hamas said earlier the ceasefire would come into effect on Thursday.


Nice one.

Boris Johnson Determined To Screw Londoners and the Daily Mail Provide 'Proof' of Nuclear Intentions of Terrorists

A couple of stories that I have picked up on from the latest issue of Private Eye (no.1212) that I think are worthy of sharing. First off, more revelations about the Boris Johnson debacle in London. Hot on the heels of Johnson's attempts to recruit former members of Shirley Porter's administration, Johnson has now added Steve Norris to the board of Transport for London. So far, so what. However, Norris has a rather chequered history in relation to transport.

Steve Norris was a director of Jarvis from 2000, and had a seat on the board at the time of the Potters Bar rail crash. Jarvis had a contract to ensure the maintenance of the line and, as a result of the crash, admitted liability for the crash after initially refusing responsibility and suggested that if the accident was a result of wear and tear, it would have been detected and fixed. After the revelation that the incident was not down to sabotage, Jarvis formally accepted "legally justified claims" and provided a provision of £3m. The company eventually wrote letters to relatives and passengers apologising for the "hurt and anger" it caused by blaming sabotage for the crash.

But it doesn't end there. According to PE, Norris sits on the board of a company called AMT-Sybex, alongside one William Hague. AMT-Sybex was a leading subcontractor to Metronet, the consortium running half of the tube PPP. In 2005, it sold Metronet a £15m computer system to list all the firm's assets. As a result of the privatisation, no-one really knew what had actualy been handed over, so a register would help to produce a schedule that would identify which parts of the rail and cabling would need fixing.

In 2006, the Tube regulator found that Metronet's costs were rising, in part due to the extra costs of the AMT-Sybex system. Despite this system, Metronet failed to get a grip on its assets and, due to problems with prices and schedules, eventually collapsed. The system was an unmitigated disaster.

As a result of Steve Norris' record regarding transport, it seems a little odd that Boris Johnson would want to put him in such an influential role in London, particularly as we are supposed to be witnessing the birth of the 'New' Conservatives. Guess they ain't so different after all. Corporations and shareholders first, general public a very distant last. [Much of the above is copied verbatim from Private Eye, who do not actually publish stories to the net yet - as far as I am aware. If you want to find out more, I suggest you seek out the latest issue.]

One other interesting story involved this headline and picture from the Daily Mail:

A terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack

A story to strike fear into the minds of any discerning Mail reader (does such a thing exist). However, it appears this story is not what it seems:

A piece of concept art of a decimated Washington, D.C. from Bethesda Softworks post-apocalyptic RPG Fallout 3 (PC, PS3, 360) has been circulated through a handful of news publications, reported as terrorist propaganda after an intelligence contractor said the image was used in al Qaeda-related videos.

The artwork was released as part of Bethesda's early promotional campaigns for Fallout 3, which takes place in and around the Washington, D.C. area decades after a nuclear catastrophe. The image appeared on the Daily Mail's website under the headline "Al-Qaeda's terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack."

"This is the apocalyptic scene terrorists hope to create if they ever get their hands on a nuclear bomb... posted on an Islamic extremists' website yesterday," wrote the Mail's Barry Wigmore.

The image also appeared on the Australian news outlet News.com.au, citing terror watchdog organization SITE Intel as having released the image "which reportedly appeared on an Islamist forum."

Though several members of the press have since pointed out the gaffe, neither the Daily Mail nor News.com.au have updated their stories with corrections or retractions of the claim.

Interestingly, according to Private Eye, if you try pointing this out in the comments thread on the Mail website, they will refuse to publish it. Still, I guess they made their point and scared enough people (conveniently just a few days before the 42 days vote, hmmm).

Interrogators At Guantanamo Told To Destroy 'Handwritten Notes'

Yet more evidence of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Bu$h administration:

Guantanamo Bay interrogators were told to destroy handwritten notes in case they were called to testify on detainee treatment, a military lawyer alleges.

The lawyer, Lt-Cmdr William Kuebler, said the instructions were contained in a Pentagon operations manual.

He said this apparent destruction of evidence at the prison camp stopped him from challenging alleged confessions in the case of his client, Omar Khadr.

He would use the document to seek a dismissal of the charges, he said.

Mr Khadr - a Canadian - is the only Westerner still held at the jail.

The 21-year-old is accused of killing a US soldier and wounding another during a battle in Afghanistan in 2002.

Mr Khadr was 15 when he was captured during the firefight at a suspected al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan.

He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison if convicted.

Two weeks ago, Canada's Supreme Court ruled the Canadian government had acted illegally by handing over documents from an interview with the suspect by its own intelligence services a year after his capture.

Israeli Terrorist Escapes Justice.....For Now....

And what would have happened if the man in question was a Muslim one wonders?

A notorious Israeli mercenary has successfully appealed to the European court of human rights to postpone his extradition from Russia to Colombia, where he faces an 11-year jail sentence for training rightwing paramilitaries and a private army for the drug barons of the Medellín cartel.

Yair Klein, 64, a reserve lieutenant colonel in the Israel defence forces (IDF)and a veteran of the six-day and Yom Kippur wars, has done business with armed groups in Latin America and Africa for 25 years. He has spent nine months in a Moscow prison but last week the Russian supreme court ordered that the extradition go ahead. Klein's Russian lawyer turned to the human rights court for a temporary stay on the grounds that he could suffer ill-treatment if sent to Bogotá. There were also concerns about the fairness of the 2001 trial, which sentenced him in absentia. During the hearing he said: "Extradition to Colombia would mean a death sentence."

While the court deliberates - which could take months - Klein's supporters in Israel, who consider him a war hero, will continue to campaign for his return. His Israeli lawyer, Mordechai Tsivin, said: "In Israel his arrival would be great joy."

Yet another example of the Israeli government's support for terrorism. Perhaps their activities are not surprising when considering that their biggest backer is the world's biggest terrorist state.

The Role of The West in the Establishment of Hamas

Despite dominating the world media for many years, many aspects of the Israel/Palestine conflict remain hidden from view. Quite often, contemporary events are not placed in context. No background is given, no explanation is outlined. Large chunks of the history of the conflict are ignored or cast aside as irrelevant. As is the case in reporting of many events across the world, what is left out is nearly always as interesting as what is left in.

Take the rise of Hamas, for example. Hamas is frequently referred to as a terrorist organisation that has a destabilising influence across the Middle East. Western critics often refer to the organisation as an impediment to peace rather than an aid. However, the history of Hamas is clouded in mystery and obscured from any discussion relating to progress in the region. It is, of course, obscured for very good reason - it underlines the duplicity of Western foreign policy within the region. A duplicity that goes some way to explaining why the conflict is so complex and remains some distance from resolution.

Arab nationalism was seen as a threat to Western hegemony throughout the region in the 1950s and 60s. Suddenly Arab leaders were gaining confidence and seeking to reclaim their resources. Underpinned with a nationalist, secular ideology, these leaders declared their refusal to bow to Western demands. The rise of Gamal Abdal Nasser in Egypt and the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, gave many Arabs hope that they were about to witness a new era of dignity and freedom. This, of course, scared the West. A populist movement that sought to reclaim its natural resources? They could see that the emergence of Arab nationalism would have a massive impact on oil supplies and thus a situation could emerge whereby the Arab nationalists would hold all the cards, rather than the West. Alongside his nationalist agenda, Nasser also played an important role in the establishment of the PLO, a secular organisation reflecting Nasser’s own particular brand of Arab nationalism. If the PLO were to be successful in negotiating a deal with the Israelis, it would have been a massive victory for Arab nationalism and would have represented a serious threat to Western hegemony. Being the Palestinians sole representative on the world stage, it also united the Palestinian people, at least until the establishment of Hamas in 1987.

However, Nasser was not without his enemies within his own country. Despite initially supporting Nasser’s coup, The Muslim Brotherhood became disillusioned with Nasser’s secularist brand of politics and, in 1954, an attempt was made on his life. After the failed assassination attempt, the Islamists who were not rounded up and arrested subsequently left to settle in Saudi Arabia where they were welcomed as an important bulwark to the rise of ‘godless Communism’. The Saudi regime was particularly disturbed by the rise of Nasser as it threatened their fundamentalist form of government and consequently threatened their influence in the region. If an alternative form of government were to gain momentum, the Saudi regime would surely fall. Consequently, during this period, the Saudi government (alongside its ally the US) continued to provide financial backing to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood continued to agitate in Egypt and engaged in ‘radical activity’ led by one Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Under Yassin’s leadership, longtime Muslim Brotherhood activists were simply redirected from promoting Islamic observance to engaging in violent anti-Israel activities. Yassin had, by this stage, established his violent anti-Israeli credentials and was clearly pursuing a more radical Islamic course compared to the more secular PLO. However, this did not prevent the Western powers from pursuing a course of engagement with Yassin and his colleagues in the Brotherhood.

During the 1980s, Yassin focused on developing a ‘charitable organisation’ within Gaza that developed a network of social-welfare organizations, mosques, and schools. It was also at this time that the US and Israel provided financial support to Yassin and his organisation, despite Yassin’s previous anti-Israeli agitation in Egypt. Ostensibly, his organisation was supported as a counter-balance to the PLO and its secular Arab nationalism, which was seen as a massive threat to Western hegemony in the region (due to the loss of control of natural resources). According to Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, Israel:

"...aided Hamas directly -- the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization)."

A resurgence of Arab nationalism in the region was of deep concern to the United States and the growth of a radical Islamic organisation would be a useful counter-weight to the rise of nationalist secularism. This was further demonstrated by the support of radical Islamists in Afghanistan (including Osama Bin Laden) during the conflict with the Soviet Union. With a radical alternative to Arab nationalism, the Arab people would remain divided and consequently allow the US to maintain influence in the region. As one former CIA official put it, Israel's support for Hamas :

"...was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative."

Furthermore, according to US officials:

....funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel. The PLO was secular and leftist and promoted Palestinian nationalism. Hamas wanted to set up a transnational state under the rule of Islam, much like Khomeini's Iran.

Consequently, whether it was intentioned or not, it would appear that the growth of Hamas as a power bloc within the region was directly attributable to the United State and her allies. Concerned by the growth of Arab nationalism and the problems that would cause for the West in the region, the US threw in its lot with radical Islamists who would prove to be a useful barrier to the rise of Soviet supported, secular regimes within the region. Despite the background of Yassin in Egypt, both Israel and the US had no problem with supplying funds and offering their support to Yassin’s ‘charitable organisation’. Thus the combination of Israel and the US managed to ensure that the Palestinian people were divided between a secular organisation prepared to do business with Israel (the PLO recognised Israel in 1993 as part of the Declaration of Principles), and a radical Islamic organisation that took a less compromising position regarding peace in the region. And yet, the covert support by the US government for radical Islamic groups over the years has remained firmly outside of the scope of the mainstream media’s assessment of the situation in the Middle East. Yet how can we understand the situation in the Middle East if we do not understand how it was created? The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is tied to the West’s attempts to assert hegemony throughout the region and ensure it remains the dominant force on the global stage. Ironic that the forces they utilised to ensure their dominance are now the very forces that threaten to demolish it.

Immigration and The Daily Mail - Hypocrisy in Action

Lots of 'scary' headlines about the latest immigration figures in the national press. The Times took a suitably alarmist stance:

A record number of foreigners were granted British citizenship last year, according to Home Office figures published today.

Just over 164,600 people were given citizenship —- the highest number of applications granted in any year.

The seven per cent increase in persons given citizenship followed a fall in the previous year.

Since 1997 when Labour came to power almost 2 million people have been awarded citizenship, the figures show.

An estimated 591,000 people entered the country, ten per cent up on the previous year, meaning net migration into the country was about 190,000. The overwhelming majority —- 86 per cent —- of immigrants were non British citizens.

“This continued the trend of high immigration to the UK experienced since 1998,” said the Office for National Statistics which published the International Migration figures.


Mmm, scared yet? How about this (watch out for the meaningless statistic):

The number of migrants granted UK citizenship reached an all-time record last year as separate figures revealed more than 200,000 Britons moving abroad.

A raft of statistics released by Whitehall revealed 164,635 foreign nationals were granted UK passports in 2007 - the equivalent of one every three minutes.

The figure is up seven per cent on the previous year and takes the total since Labour came to power to almost 1.2m.

Did you spot it? Incidentally, that last extract is repeated in the Daily Mail. And the good old Express? Why, they are suggesting the figures aren't reliable and are actually much higher:

MINISTERS have no idea how many immigrants are coming to Britain, according to a damning report by MPs.

The official statistics are “totally inadequate” for grasping the scale of population changes, the Parlia-mentary investigation has concluded.

As a result, public services are in danger of collapsing because the lack of reliable data means the Government is incapable of planning ahead.

None of these papers really touch on why there is a rise in immigration (the Daily Mail doesn't even mention where they are from). After all, that would mean treating readers like intelligent individuals instead of mindless zombies. According to the National Statistics website the majority of asylum seekers come from: Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Iran and Eritrea. Notice any connection there? Two countries have been devastated as a result of our military adventures. These two countries have become increasingly dangerous as a result of our interference. Consequently, it seems quite right and proper that as we fucked their countries, they should come here to enjoy the freedom and democracy we have failed to deliver over there. If we bomb the shit out of their utilities and make their daily lives almost impossible, who can blame them for coming here?

As for the others, presumably the mainstream media are suggesting we send back asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Despite the fact that the very same media outlets have been exposing how dangerous life is in Zimbabwe. So what is it to be, eh? Help the people of Zimbabwe, or turn our backs on them? It wasn't so long ago that the Daily Mail ran a headline screaming:

Don't Zimbabweans have human rights?

Make up your minds chaps. Either you want the people of Zimbabwe to have asylum here, or you do not. Which is it going to be? Just how deep is your concern for the people of Zimbabwe? Is it simply political opportunism? Fear-mongering? Or a genuine desire to protect their human rights? I think we know the answer.

Bush Attacks Obama - Making Political Capital from Holocaust

What better way to make political capital out of the death of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis, than to make the following remark (in Israel no less) on Obama's foreign policy:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before."

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Nothing like a good genocide to utilise a bit of cheap point scoring, eh? Although having said that, it is a bit of a cheek come from a member of a family that gave a fair amount of assistance to the Nazis. Somewhere, 11 million Jews weep.

Besides which, appeasement is very different to talking to your enemies. Appeasement implies giving in to demands. Talking most certainly does not.

World's Leading Terrorist State Accuses Venezuela

Perhaps this week's 'it would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the US is run by loonies' moment comes from a CNN report regarding the latest US terror report. According to CNN:

Venezuela's associations with terror states, Iran's meddling in Iraq and the resurgence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan top the concerns in a new State Department report on terrorism threats in countries around the world.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is not cooperating with U.S. anti-terror efforts and has "deepened Venezuelan relationships with state sponsors of terrorism Iran and Cuba," the annual report says.

The report notes Chavez's "ideological sympathy" for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and the Colombian-based National Liberation Army, which "regularly crossed into Venezuelan territory to rest and regroup."

While the report says it "remained unclear to what extent the Venezuelan government provided support to Colombian terrorist organizations," it notes that Venezuelan weapons stocks have turned up in the hands of Colombian terrorist organizations.

It's the last paragraph that is particularly interesting. American weapons are often found in the hands of terrorists in Colombia which, by their own reckoning, means that the American government is 'providing support to Colombian terrorist organisations'. Worse still, US backed terrorists are responsible for far more murders than other 'terrorist organisations' in Colombia. So I guess, from an impartial perspective, one could argue that the US is a greater terrorist threat than Venezuela. Which is hardly in any doubt when one sees the terror that the US government brings to the world.

Waterboarding

Afghanistan Heading Back to Pre-Invasion State

"Kabul has seen a wave of liberal, unwelcome influences of late. There are women dressed immodestly, prostitution can be found openly and even alcohol is available on the market. Our job is to protect the Afghan people from being exposed to this un-Islamic way of life and poor morals."

Now some people reading the above quote might think that it originated from post-Soviet Afghanistan. It sounds like the early rumblings of the Taliban regime that was to ravage the country for many years. In fact, the above quote is a little more recent. Very recent. In fact, the above quote is lifted from today's Guardian.

Despite the high ideals of bringing 'freedom and democracy' to a country that has been afflicted by wave upon wave of imperialism over the years, Afghanistan is actually turning back the clock. In recent weeks, the Afghan government has attempted to ban popular Indian soap operas and, more seriously, the high court has confirmed the death sentence of nearly 100 people. In terms of the crackdown on the media, The Guardian reports:

Last week parliament tried to stop several private TV channels from broadcasting a number of Indian soap operas. But many stations, including the popular local Tolo TV, are defying the ban. The ministry of information and culture issued a "final warning" to Tolo and Afghan TV to stop broadcasting the Indian soaps by April 29, saying that "otherwise they will be referred to the judiciary".

To make matters worse (as if that was possible), US puppet and former consultant to Unocal, President Hamad Karzai, has sided with the conservatives in this latest tussle. Far from bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, Karzai seems intent on returning the country to it's previous repressive state. That the Americans seem willing to go along with this is hardly surprising. Back in October 2006, former senator Bill Frist (a Republican no less) called on the Taliban to be brought into the Afghan government. No sooner had the US proclaimed high ideals about the future of Aghanistan, than it returns the country back to it's pre-war state. For the people of Afghanistan, they have once more become the victims to the imperial ambition of others.

Pentagon Watching Chevron's Back?

After four visits from Chevron in the past ten days, now MOA is 'privileged' to receive a visit from the Pentagon. Could they be looking out for Chevron in the light of the recent appointment of one William Haynes?



I guess it helps to have friends in high places.

Uribe's Cousin Arrested in Colombia

(With thanks to RickB at Ten Percent for his multi-MOA linked post on the same subject.)

The Colombia/terrorist state story has taken yet another disturbing twist. It has emerged that Mario Uribe Escobar, President Uribe's cousin, has been arrested due to alleged links to right-wing paramilitaries. From the BBC:

A cousin and key ally of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has been arrested over alleged ties to paramilitary groups.

Mario Uribe Escobar, who stepped down as a senator last October, denies accusations of criminal conspiracy.

He went to the Costa Rican embassy in Bogota seeking asylum, but his request was turned down.

As he left the embassy, he was taken into custody and driven away in a police jeep.

Mario Uribe is one of the most prominent figures arrested over alleged paramilitary links.

A jailed former paramilitary leader, Salvatore Mancuso, has alleged that he met Mario Uribe several times and was asked by him to support his senate campaign in 2002.


This is merely the latest revelation in a long series of revelations regarding the Colombian government's links to terror (far more than any so-called terrorist state proclaimed by Bu$h). A Colombian government that the UK and the US continue to fund and arm, despite continuous human rights abuses (watch this slideshow for more). It is time for the West to cease arming this nation that is clearly a failed state in the hands of a group of terrorists who have no qualms about murdering thousands of citizens to protect their position in power. It is time that a true terrorist state was confronted for it's crimes against humanity. With the US in it's corner, what are the chances of that?

William Haynes Chevron

(Apologies for the poor grammar in the headline, there is a reason.)

Well, someone at Chevron certainly is keeping their eye on blogs posting about Ecuador, Chevron and William Haynes. In the past week, I have had no less than four visits from someone holed up at Chevron HQ (lucky old me). Generally speaking, they appear to use the search term that I have used as the title of this post, which then leads them to this lovely little post I wrote on the connection between William Haynes and the 'war on terror'. One wonders how many other visits they will pay to this blog in the near future.

In honour of my new found friends at Chevron, I would like to dedicate the following short animation to their tireless work in Ecuador. You deserve it chaps, no really.

What's The Link Between Chevron, Guantanamo and Ecuador?

So, at long last the mainstream media appears to be catching up with reality of torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghriab. Whilst stories surrounding the extent to which those closest to Bush were aware of the new policy regarding torture has been doing the rounds on the internet for some time, it is only now that it is being taking seriously by one of the 'quality' newspapers in the UK. The Guardian's Weekend magazine prints an extensive excerpt from Philippe Sands' Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty And The Compromise Of Law which explores Donald Rumsfeld's authorisation of previously illegal interrogation techniques. Although Rumsfeld's name sticks out like a sore thumb, there is one other name that repeatedly surfaces in this expose: William J Haynes II. Yes, the very same William J Haynes II who has recently been employed by Chevron.

Sands' piece makes a pretty damning case against Haynes. Sands writes:

....in the Pentagon, an event took place for which there was no comment, no fanfare. With a signature and a few scrawled words, Rumsfeld reneged on the tradition of valour to which Bush had referred. Principles for the conduct of interrogation, dating back more than a century to President Lincoln's famous instruction of 1863 that "military necessity does not admit of cruelty", were discarded. He approved new and aggressive interrogation techniques that would produce devastating consequences.

The document had been drafted a few days earlier by the general counsel at the Defence Department, William J Haynes II (known as Jim Haynes), Rumsfeld's most senior lawyer. The Haynes memo was addressed to Rumsfeld and copied to two colleagues: General Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the most senior military official in the US, and Doug Feith, under-secretary of defence for policy and number three at the department.

Yes, Haynes was the man responsible for the policy of torture and human rights abuses that the Bush administration employed across the globe. But to what extent did Haynes approve of new interrogation techniques?


[Attached to the memorandum] was a list of 18 techniques of interrogation, set out in a three-page memorandum.

These techniques were new to the military. Category I comprised two techniques, yelling and deception. Category II included 12 techniques, aiming at humiliation and sensory deprivation, including stress positions, such as standing for a maximum of four hours; isolation; deprivation of light and sound; hooding; removal of religious and all other comfort items; removal of clothing; forced grooming, such as shaving of facial hair; and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs, to induce stress.

Finally came Category III. These methods were to be used for only a very small percentage of detainees - the most uncooperative (said to be fewer than 3%) and exceptionally resistant individuals - and required approval by the commanding general at Guantánamo. In this category were four techniques: the use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact", such as grabbing, poking and light pushing; the use of scenarios designed to convince the detainee that death or severely painful consequences were imminent for him or his family; exposure to cold weather or water; and, finally, the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of suffocation. This last technique came to be known as water-boarding, described on a chat show by the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as a "dunk in the water" and a "no-brainer" if it could save lives.

The Haynes memo recommended "blanket approval" of 15 of the 18 techniques, including just one of the four techniques listed in Category III: mild, non-injurious physical contact. However, he did not reject the others, nor did he advise that they were contrary to the Geneva conventions. Rumsfeld signed his name next to the word "Approved", and added his comment at the bottom of the page: "I stand for eight to 10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to four hours?"

'Blanket approval'. Not 'contrary to the Geneva convention'. Haynes essentially gave the administration the go ahead to indulge in torture on a scale never seen before. Haynes is culpable for one of the greatest crimes against humanity since the Second World War. And now, he has been enlisted to work on legal matters with Chevron. Legal matters that may well include the dispute with Ecuador regarding the alleged damage to the local environment. A dispute that has led to allegations of intimidation of key players in the prosecution (see Chevron in Ecuador label). A dispute that has been subject to a massive smear campaign by Chevron. One does not have to consider for long what Mr Haynes might bring to the dispute. Perhaps new techniques that will encourage the prosecution to drop it's case? One thing can almost be guaranteed. Haynes will explore avenues that will push the boundaries of the law in Chevron's favour. However, as Sands points out, there is still an opportunity for Haynes to receive the justice he deserves:

In June 2006, the Supreme Court overturned President Bush's decision on Geneva, ruling it to be unlawful. The court confirmed that Common Article 3 applied to all Guantánamo detainees. It was as simple as that. Whether they were Taliban or al-Qaida, every one of the detainees had rights under Common Article 3 - and that included Mohammed al-Qahtani.

The majority opinion, reaffirming the "minimal protection" offered by Common Article 3, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens. One of the Justices went even further: Common Article 3 was part of the law of war and of a treaty that the US had ratified. "By Act of Congress," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote pointedly, "violations of Common Article 3 are considered 'war crimes', punishable as federal offences, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel."

Justice Kennedy's remark put the issue of war crimes on the American political agenda. Individuals who had contributed to a violation of Common Article 3 would know that they were at risk of criminal investigation and prosecution. Even more ominously, it underscored the risk of being investigated outside the US.

Parties to the international Torture Convention are required to investigate any person who is alleged to have committed torture. If appropriate, they must then prosecute - or extradite the person to a place where he will be prosecuted. The Torture Convention is also more explicit than Geneva in that it criminalises any act that constitutes complicity or participation in torture. Complicity or participation could certainly be extended not only to the politicians and but also the lawyers involved in the condoning of the 18 techniques. After all, the scheme applied to al-Qahtani was devised by lawyers, reviewed by lawyers, overseen by lawyers.

Haynes could yet be prosecuted for his abuse of the most basic of human rights. These final few paragraphs might also explain one other aspect of the situation in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr is seen as a real threat to US power in the region. A threat that needs to be crushed in order for the US plan to be fully carried out. What, perhaps, makes this even more crucial is the realisation that should al-Sadr wield any power in Iraq, the consequences could be very serious indeed for various members of the Bu$h clique. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that leading members of the current administration could face extradition to Iraq for their flagrant abuse of the Torture Convention at Abu Ghraib. This, from their point of view, cannot be allowed to happen. Consequently, it is vital for al-Sadr to be portrayed as a dangerous Iranian proxy (ridiculous considering the extensive links between the current Iraqi government and Iran) by the Western establishment (politicians and the media). The thought of Western leaders being exposed as war criminals would be too much for the Western system of government to contend with.

Colombian Lies About Ecuador and Venezuela - Part of Wider US Campaign?

The situation is continuing to escalate in South America. Ecuador and Venezuela have now, according to the BBC, cut all ties with the Colombian government, expelling all Colombian diplomats. Unsurprisingly, the Colombian government have embarked on a massive smear campaign (aided, no doubt, by the US) to damage the reputations of both Chavez and Correa. The following is taken from the International Herald Tribune:

Venezuela and Ecuador sought Monday to make Colombia pay a high price for killing a leftist rebel leader in the Ecuadorean jungle — expelling its diplomats, ordering troops to the border and cracking down on trade across the border.

But Colombia quickly struck back, revealing what it said were incriminating documents seized from the rebel camp that suggest its neighbors have been secretly supporting the leftist rebels' deadly insurgency.

Colombia's national police chief stood by its attack that killed Reyes, and said that documents recovered from his laptop showed Venezuela's leftist government recently paid $300 million to the rebels, among other financial and political ties that date back years, and that high-level meetings have been held between rebels and Ecuadorean officials.

And this shocker: Colombia says some documents suggest the rebels have bought and sold uranium.

"When they mention negotiations for 50 kilos of uranium this means that the FARC are taking big steps in the world of terrorism to become a global aggressor. We're not talking of domestic guerrilla but transnational terrorism," Gen. Oscar Naranjo said at an explosive news conference.

But here is the killer:

Naranjo didn't give any details on when, where or from whom the uranium was allegedly bought. He provided no proof of the payment and wouldn't release copies of the documents, which he said are "tremendously revelatory" and are being examined with the help of U.S. experts.

No prizes for guessing what the US experts might deduce. Of course, most of what Colombia alleges must be taken with a pinch of salt. The Colombian government has a long history of involvement with human rights abuses and paramilitary activity and can hardly be taken seriously when accusing others of dubious activity.

It has also emerged that the Colombian government has also seriously compromised efforts by the French government to release one of the hostages, Ingrid Betancourt. Betancourt is a former Colombian presidential candidate who also holds French nationality and has been the subject of negotiations between the French government and the FARC. The French government's contact had been Raul Reyes, until his murder by the Colombian military. The murder of this key contact has made efforts by the French government to release her even more desperate. French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner told French Inter radio on Monday:

"It is bad news that the man we were talking to, with whom we had contacts, has been killed. Do you see how ugly the world is?"

Ugly indeed when the Colombian government invades sovereign territory to assassinate a key contact for the release of a hostage.

Furthermore, it has also emerged that the Colombian account of events leading up to the murder of Reyes were stretching the truth somewhat. It would appear that the FARC had not launched any attack on Colombia from the camp in Ecuador, contradicting claims by the Colombian government. The following is lifted from a piece on ZNet by Decio Machado:

Images, testimonies of resident and of three guerrillas found alive, ballistic reports and Ecuadorian military intelligence demonstrate the heap of lies of the Colombian President, Alvaro Uribe. According to the Colombian version, the Front 48 of the FARC was being pursued on indication that Reyes would be present in a small settlement called Granada, near the Ecuadorian frontier but still in Colombian territory.

The Colombian Defence Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, indicated that during the operation the Colombian armed forces had been attacked from a FARC camp situated 1,800 metres from the border in Ecuadorian territory. The Colombian air force then located and attacked the guerrilla camp, taking into account the order not to violate the Ecuadorian air space. The Colombian armed forces later went in to ensure control of the place, leaving the Colombian police in charge till the arrival of the Ecuadorian army.

Investigations on the part of the Ecuadorian authorities show there was no combat on the side of the FARC unit which was attacked. With the exception of three of them keeping guard, the 18 killed were asleep in their undergarments; none of the guerrillas had the opportunity of fighting or surrendering. The arms in the camp were piled up. They did not have the chance even to reach for their rifles and grenades; they were massacred while asleep.

The testimonies of the residents of the area, as also the large craters on the camp ground, show that four bombs were launched from Colombian aircraft that entered Ecuadorian territory. According to the investigations of the military intelligence, these were launched from the south of the camp, which is to say that the aircraft had intruded more than 10 km into Ecuadorian territory when the attack began.

After the bombing from these aircraft, several ‘Supertuscan’ helicopters of the Colombian air force came in and from these the attack on the FARC camp in Ecuadorian territory continued. The helicopters landed special commandos who finished off the injured guerrillas. As the bullet wounds in the bodies of the majority of the guerrillas show, many of them were piled up in a part of the camp and killed from behind. Even the photographs taken by the Colombian government of Raul Reyes’ body show he had a shot on the left side of his face.

Information coming from Ecuadorian military intelligence indicates that the country’s air space was not only violated on the dawn of March 1 but also that on the dawn of March 2 there was another incursion of the helicopters with night vision equipment to pick up members of the armed forces and Colombian police still in Ecuadorian territory. The position of the trees brought down by the bombardment, the multiple bullet holes on them, as also the position of the bodies, demonstrate that while the FARC was guarding the camp on the northern side facing the Colombian frontier, the air incursion happened from the south, which indicates that the Colombian air force intruded without permission or notification, contravening all international norms about Ecuadorian air space.

The testimonies of the area’s residents indicate the attack lasted from approximately after midnight till six in the morning of March 1. The precision of the attack also shows the use of important military technology which puts on the table the possibility of the participation of the United States in the massacres, at least in spotting the guerrilla unit.

It would certainly appear that the US has it's hands all over this one. What with the combination of military intelligence/hardware and the 'experts' who are analysing documents at the scene that supposedly link Venezuela and Ecuador with what the US calls a 'terrorist organisation', could we possibly see a widening of the 'war on terror'?? Could the United States be on the verge of turning it's attention back on to it's own backyard and launching a new vicious campaign to turn back the "pink tide" sweeping South America?? Perhaps this re-assertion has become more desperate as a result of Ecuador's recent decision not to renew the agreement with the US to utilise the Manta air base as part of the Plan Colombia strategy. Whatever, the US government is clearly concerned about it's weakening hegemony in the region and is prepared to step up efforts to ensure it is the dominant player in the region once more.

See also:

Ecuador Rising - Hatarinchej - The people of Ecuador are rising up to refound their country as a pluri-national homeland for all. This inspiring movement, with Ecuador's indigenous peoples at its heart, is part of the revolution spreading across the Americas, laying the groundwork for a new, fairer, world. Ecuador Rising aims to bring news and analysis of events unfolding in Ecuador to english speakers. [Added to blogroll]

UPDATE

It now appears that President Uribe is calling for Chavez to be charged by the International Criminal Court for "financing genocide". Yes, you did read that correctly. The President of a country in which paramilitaries are free to roam the country and murder trade unionists with impunity is attempting to have Chavez prosecuted for genocide. Perhaps if the ICC is to look into Uribe's ridiculous claims, it might also take serious action against the Colombian government for allowing union members to be murdered with impunity.

Lotfi Raissi - A Warning

From the BBC:

A pilot wrongly accused of training the 9/11 hijackers is entitled to claim damages, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Judges said evidence suggested "serious defaults" in the decision to detain Lotfi Raissi in prison for nearly five months after a US extradition request.

In giving the court's judgment, Lord Justice Hooper said: "The public labelling of the appellant as a terrorist by the authorities in this country, and particularly by the CPS, over a period of many months has had and continues to have, so it is said, a devastating effect on his life and on his health.

"He considers that, unless he receives a public acknowledgement that he is not a terrorist, he will be unable to get his life back together again."

The Algerian pilot was arrested under the Terrorism Act at his home in the UK soon after the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.

He was held under an extradition warrant issued at the request of the US government, which accused him of having trained the 19 hijackers.

The US alleged he attended flight training and used a flight simulator at a training school in Arizona at the same time as 9/11 hijacker Hani Hanjour.

Mr Raissi remained in Belmarsh Prison for four-and-a-half months until he was granted bail. The Crown Prosecution Service, which was representing the US, had objected to bail.

So, what do we learn from this:

* That an extension of detention powers will lead to many other such cases.
* The press are willing to believe the lies emanating from those in power and prepared to destroy a man's reputation before due process.
* That the interests of a UK citizen are secondary to that of the United States.
* If Raissi had been arrested after 2003, he would have been sent to the US, no questions asked. An innocent man would possibly face the death penalty.

I guess there aren't too many surprises here, however, this just underlines quite how dangerous the government's proposed 'anti-terror' laws really are. This verdict should send a message loud and clear: we are on a slippery slope and we need to do something about it.

The Bag Was Left Open......And Out Came the Cat. Someone Kill The Cat.

Britian's outgoing intelligence chief believes there is a danger of exaggerating the threat posed by al-Qaeda at the expense of equally significant security issues, such as global warming.

There was a danger, he said, of over-emphasising the spectre of international terrorism, which could play to al-Qaeda's advantage and divide communities.

'What we shouldn't do is play into al-Qaeda's hands by exaggerating the extent and nature of the threat they present globally. This focus is not smart when it comes to dealing with people who are trying to make us think that they are the greatest threat.'