Government 'Wrong' To Drop BAE Inquiry

A stunning indictment of the British government's craven attitude towards Saudi Arabia and big business:

The high court today ruled that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) was wrong to drop an investigation into alleged bribery in a massive arms deal between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia.

The decision represents a stunning victory for Campaign Against Arms Trade and Corner House Research, which campaigns against corruption in international trade, as well as a major embarrassment for the government.

The two groups sought a review of the decision by the SFO director, Robert Wardle, to drop the investigation into allegations of bribery and corruption in contracts between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia. BAE and a Saudi national security adviser, Prince Bandar, deny the accusations.

At a two-day hearing in February, lawyers for the groups argued that the SFO's decision in December 2006 to drop its investigation into the Al-Yamamah deal was caused by Saudi Arabian pressure that amounted to diplomatic blackmail.

Tony Blair, the then prime minister, said the Saudis had privately threatened to cut intelligence cooperation over terrorism unless the inquiry was stopped.

In today's ruling, Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled Wardle "was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat".


The judge went on to comment:

"No one, whether within this country or outside, is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice."

"It is the failure of government and the defendant to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court."


This story goes to the very heart of all that was wrong with Tony Blair and his government. Fortunately for him, he has left office and has managed to collect a multitude of well payed roles within the corporate sector. This government, as it did with the Iraq war, has put the interests of a foreign power ahead of that of the UK and it's people.

Meanwhile, not all media outlets were keen to recognise the importance of this event. Only a couple of minutes into a report by a correspondent of Sky News, the channel decided to switch to a live press conference involving the parents of Madeline McCann about a new child protection system. In short, with all due sympathy to the parents, this was a pretty minor story when compared with the corrupt nature of the British government (at time of writing, it seems to have barely registered on the radar of most media outlets). Once again, the mainstream media diverts attention while our government continues to act in a corrupt manner. That they use the spectre of child abduction to do so is even more sickening.

Bush Administration Invoke Nuremberg - I Say "Bring it On"

RickB picked this up at Ten Percent and I have never laughed so hard in all my life (at the concept, not RickB!):

The Bush administration has instructed U.S. diplomats abroad to defend its decision to seek the death penalty for six Guantanamo Bay detainees accused in the Sept. 11 terror attacks by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals after World War II.

A four-page cable sent to U.S. embassies and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press says that execution as punishment for extreme violations of the laws of war is internationally accepted and points to the 1945-46 International Military Tribunals as an example. Twelve of Adolf Hitler’s senior aides were sentenced to death at the trials in Nuremberg, Germany, although not all were executed in the end.

The unclassified cable was sent by the State Department to all U.S. diplomatic missions worldwide late on Monday. [Taken from Yahoo!]

Ok, why so funny? Ok, well one of the major principles of the Nuremberg trials was as follows:

Principle Vl

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:

a) Crimes against peace:

i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

c) Crimes against humanity:

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

If the Nuremberg trials are suddenly the basis of how international criminals are prosecuted, the underlined sections make a very compelling case for Bush and Blair to stand trial for war crimes. Note from part (a), there are no exceptions and no examples when such action is justified. As such, the war in Iraq was a 'war of aggression'. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot apply the principles of the Nuremberg trials when you see fit. It either applies to all, or it does not. By using the justification of the Nuremberg trials as reason enough to execute those 'convicted', the Bush administration is also providing us with the rope from which to hang them. So yes, I accept this justification, provided you really accept every principle outlined in the Nuremberg trials. Otherwise, you might start to look like a hypocrite.

I was always taught at uni never to end with a quote, but bollocks to that I'm going to. This is what chief U.S. Prosecutor, Robert Jackson, said when he addressed the Nuremberg tribunal:

“.....we should remember that we’re handing these Nazi war criminals a poisoned chalice. If we ever sip from it we must be subject to the same principles or else the whole thing is a farce.”

Stop Blair Becoming EU President

Tipped off by the one and only RickB at Ten Percent:


Petition against the nomination of Tony Blair as "President of the European Union"

Stop the murdering bastard before it's too late.

Blair & Co-conspirators Are Being Investigated By Scotland Yard For War Crimes

ViaLandsker

Press Release: Scotland Yard to investigate Tony Blair and ex-Attorney General Peter Goldsmith for war crimes

Press Conference,
Room C, 1 Parliament Street
Tuesday 15th January 2008 3pm

John McDonnell MP, Chris Coverdale: International War Law Expert and Annie Machon of the Campaign to Make War History brief MPs and the media on allegations of war crimes committed against the people of Iraq by Britain's former Prime Minister and former Attorney General.

Officers from Scotland Yard have commenced a criminal investigation into the deaths of Iraqi citizens killed during the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Metropolitan Police are acting in response to crimes reported by peace activists from We Are Change UK and The Campaign to Make War History. In an unprecedented step, the case was handed to the War Crimes division of the Counter Terrorism branch who are now investigating allegations of 14 criminal offences committed by Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmith and others. The offences are under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which came into effect under English common law, just two days before 9/11.

Two Members of We Are Change UK and a representative from the Campaign to Make War History were interviewed for six hours at Belgravia Police station on the 20th December 2007. Evidence was provided to the police relating to the crimes of:-

• genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to these crimes under Sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001.
• a crime against peace and complicity in a crime against peace under Articles 6 and 7 of The Nuremburg Principles.
• murder, incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• conspiracy to commit genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Video of press conference-

makewarshistory.org.uk

It's a start, I can imagine even now senior officers are being co-opted to strangle the investigation, that's if anyone is taking it seriously in the first place, but it does not have to be that way. These people lied, most deliberately in order to kill and steal. The first thing to do is report this far and wide, to force it to be taken seriously. Pressure and support for the investigation would help, how might we go about that? More in time, for now let's put this onto the agenda and into people's minds.

Lessons in Democracy No.1173a - Getting the Answer You Want From a Public Consultation

1. Announce an energy review and claim that you have an "open mind" on all the options.
2. Publicly back nuclear power option.
3. Undermine the consultation process and be forced to repeat the process.
4. Re-start consultation process but undermine opposition to nuclear plans by "distorting the evidence" and thus force them to withdraw from the process, eliminating any opposing viewpoints.
5. Encourage former trade ministers to take up positions within the nuclear power industry to lobby the government to back nuclear power.
6. Give the green light to the nuclear industry, which is filled with friends and former colleagues.
7. Lie back and laugh at how gullible the British public were to ever think that this would be approached with an "open mind".

Lesson ends.

A Few Brief Points......

Ten Percent has a post on the latest revelation regarding the Blair/Murdoch axis.

Is anyone else bored shitless of the whole self-righteous BBC bullshit being spouted by the media at the moment? Does anyone honestly believe that the Mail, Sun, ITV, Telegraph etc etc haven't done the same in the past???? Of course they have, in time they will be found out. For now, it's just another dull feeding frenzy stoked by dim-witted columnists and low grade bloggers.

UK Opts Out of Charter of Fundamental Rights

Amongst the predictable back slapping that has accompanied Blair's 'good' work on the EU treaty, some detail has been overlooked. On the BBC's website the opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights gets a passing mention, but little substantial detail on what this actually means. Fortunately, The Independent has already explained what this Charter entails:

Prohibition of eugenic practices, particularly those aiming at the selection of person. Article 3

What's at stake: Science is seeking to eradicate disabilities by genetic manipulation. It might be possible for parents to order a "designer" baby.

No one should be subjected to torture. Article 4

What's at stake: Since the invasion of Iraq, British soldiers have found themselves in the dock over the abuse of civilian detainees.

Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her. Article 8

What's at stake: A vast amount of data is stored on each of us already. From 2010, ID cards will be compulsory for anyone applying for a passport in the UK.

Everyone has the right to freedom of assembly and of association. Article 12

What's at stake: Anti-war protests prompted the Government to bring in legislation to prevent unlicensed demos within quarter of a mile of Parliament.

No one can be removed to a state where there is a serious risk of torture. Article 19

What's at stake: The Government's determination to deport terror suspects to countries with questionable human rights records.

So, nothing major then, just the protection of UK citizens from torture, protecting the right to protest and protecting our privacy. Pretty fundamental rights that should clearly be enshrined in law (unless you support torture and totalitarian tendencies of course). And what does Blair have to say about his success?

"This deal gives us a chance to move on. It gives us a chance to concentrate on the issues to do with the economy, organised crime, terrorism, immigration, defence, climate change, the environment, energy - the problems that really concern citizens in Europe."

Yes, because in a continent with a history of totalitarian dictatorships, we are more concerned about crime and money than governments infringing our basic civil liberties. Perhaps Blair is right, maybe protecting UK citizens from torture by the state and protecting our right to protest against a totalitarian regime is less important than the economy. Interesting that he also claims that citizens are more concerned with organised crime. I just love the idea that citizens should be protected from the criminal activities of their peers, but not of their elected officials. Because that is the fundamental point at the heart of this issue. The opt-out enables the UK government to place the rights of UK politicians ahead of the rights of UK citizens. Still, as the BBC claim:

EU treaty good for UK, says Blair

They just forgot to add the word 'politicians'.

Gaza Descends Into Chaos - Courtesy of the Western Powers

With the ongoing violence in Gaza, the usual suspects have been quick to claim that the current events have nothing to do with the EU and the US. Instead, the blame falls squarely at Hamas' feet. While it is true that both sides are involved in a never ending cycle of violence that must be condemned, the roots of this problem trace right the way back to the West. As usual, the right-wing press take an overly simplistic approach to the situation. The Daily Telegraph (the bastion of British conservatism) took a typical line on events:

The appalling barbarity currently unfolding in Gaza, where gunmen from the militant Palestinian Islamic group Hamas are attempting to eliminate physically their secular Fatah rivals, has led to the inevitable accusations that Israel and its Western allies are ultimately responsible for the bloodshed.

The fact that the latest outburst of violence was started, and is being sustained, by Hamas's attempts to eradicate any hint of opposition to its radical Islamic agenda is conveniently overlooked.

Instead those who claim to have the Palestinians' best interests at heart insist the violence is the result of the refusal of Israel and its supporters - i.e. America - to negotiate with the democratically elected Hamas government on a lasting political settlement of the Palestinian issue.

The word 'simplistic' hardly does the leader justice. And then, what a surprise, we have Melanie Phillips wading in with some typical intellectual bankruptcy:

If Israel kills Palestinians in its attempt to defend its civilians from being blown up in pizza parlours or pulverised by rocket attack, the media descends into an instant frenzy of (unjust and distorted) condemnation. But presented with this orgy of Palestinian violence in Gaza, there is little more than an embarrassed shuffling of feet. The Independent ventures bravely into these treacherous waters by blaming everyone other than the Palestinians for reducing them to economic desperation — this despite the fact that since sanctions were imposed on Hamas, the amount of funding going into Gaza has actually doubled, if not trebled. What it is to be a newspaper of moral principle, eh?

Putting aside her failure to grasp that sometimes, just sometimes, Israel might do something wrong, it is the penultimate point that raises an eyebrow. 'The amount of funding has doubled'? What could this mean?? Before looking any further into the claims that we have nothing to do with this mess, here is what Abu Amr (an independent voice in the Palestinian authority, belonging to neither Fatah or Hamas) has to say on the current situation:

"If you have two brothers, put them in a cage and deprive them of basic and essential needs for life, they will fight," Abu Amr told a news conference in Tokyo. "We need to undo the very problematic situation that mainly others have created."

Abu Amr, an independent in the Palestinian government, blamed the fighting on the deprivations forced upon Palestinians.

"We really live in a cage," he said. "People cannot move in Gaza. They can't travel. There's no work. There's no normal life."

"If Gaza disintegrates, subsequent negotiations with the Israelis would be jeopardized," Abu Amr was quoted as saying by a Foreign Ministry official who briefed reporters afterward. "The situation is extremely grave."

This is a far more realistic representation of what is going on in Gaza, by a man who is independent of both factions. The Palestinian people have been the victim of untold suffering since they chose to elect Hamas. Over 2.4 million Palestinians live under the poverty line as a result of sanctions imposed by the US and the EU in response to their democratic judgement. The region stands on the brink of economic collapse whilst the West pats themselves on the back for the good work they have done. Yes, those in power knew this was going to happen, they planned for it. Rice claimed back in October last year:

the economic boycott on the Hamas-led Palestinian government is effective and the international community will continue to maintain the boycott.

And so it has proved. The economic boycott has led to the desperate situation that Abu Amr refers to. The Palestinian people have been the victim of a concerted effort by the West to undermine any sense of democracy in the region. In desperation, they have turned on each other. And what of this aid that Phillips refers to? Well, as usual, Phillips only tells half the story. Aid has increased quite dramatically over the past 18 months, however Phillips fails to explain just what type of aid increased. The aid has not been humanitarian, rather it has been military in nature. Since last year, the US government has funnelled millions of dollars to Fatah's defence forces, as they predicted a split between Hamas and Fatah. The US has played a very active role in current events. According to a report in The Observer at the time:

US cash is reportedly being used to set up training facilities for Abbas's special guard, Force 17, in the West Bank town of Jericho and in Gaza.

Furthermore, the report claimed that:

Officially the US has put up some $42m to bolster Hamas's political opponents ahead of possible early Palestinian elections, with officials saying the programme is aimed at promoting alternatives to Hamas, which caused a sensation when it won power in January.

Not only have they been providing military funding to Fatah, they have been funding opposition parties as well. Imagine the storm this would create in America if Iran began funding an opposition party. I'm guessing that the hypercritical right would be up in arms about such a development.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Western powers have played a major part in this conflict. The American government has repeatedly attempted to undermine a democratic government and has refused to even entertain the idea of holding talks with them. It has provided military funding to Fatah, whilst upholding sanctions that hurt the Palestinian people. Is it really any surprise that the two factions would turn against each other in these conditions? Of course not. The American government made its intentions clear right from the start, it would do everything in its power to ensure that the Hamas government collapsed and was replaced with a compliant authority that is willing to become yet another US franchise in the region. While there is no doubt that the murders are at the hands of both Hamas and Fatah, there is also no doubt that the environment for this conflict was created by America and the EU. The failure to acknowledge this simple fact is either dangerously short-sighted or plainly irresponsible.

*According to the BBC, Abbas has dismissed the Hamas led government declaring that:

"I [Abbas] have issued the following decree: the sacking of Prime Minister Ismail Haniya."

This would be the same Haniya who was subject to an assassination attempt by Abbas' Fatah party. I'm guessing a few people will be rubbing their hands with glee at this news. Meanwhile, the suffering continues for the Palestinians.

Iraq Facing Collapse

In their latest report on Iraq, entitled 'Accepting Realities in Iraq', Chatham House has claimed that Iraq is on the verge of collapse. According to the report, written by Gareth Stansfield, there is:

....not 'one' civil war, but many civil wars and insurgencies in the country and current realities have to be accepted if new strategies for solutions are to be found.

The report also adds that:

Iraq has fractured into regional power bases. Political, security and economic power has devolved to local sectarian, ethnic or tribal political groupings. The Iraqi government is only one of several ‘state-like’ actors. The regionalization of Iraqi political life needs to be recognized as a defining feature of Iraq’s political structure.

So, what do we get from our belove leaders? Speeches about mistakes? Apologies? Commitment to withdrawal from Iraq? No, the same old platitudes. According to the BBC:

Mr Blair insisted he would take the same decision again to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with America in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks.

And so, the legacy is confirmed. The final collapse of Iraq is Blair's lasting legacy to the Middle East. He's sure going to be busy when he becomes a roving ambassador to the Middle East, what with two new countries to deal with.

And what of the Iraq war apologists? Well, as always, Mad Mel comes up trumps. Commenting on an interview with John Bolton (a former Cunt of the Week), Mel affirms his rebuttal of John Humphrey's assertion that America had ‘destroyed everything’:

Bolton told him sharply that this was totally untrue, that various Iraqi ministries had remained functioning, and that although undoubtedly America had made grievous mistakes in Iraq, that fact did not invalidate toppling Saddam in the first place.

Furthermore, according to the spokewoman for the far-right, Bolton's argument was based on:

....truth, rationality, sense of proportion and intellectual honesty.

Mmmm, there was me thinking it was based on bullshit. I'm really beginning to suspect that Mel is addicted to class A drugs of some kind. The woman is clearly hallucinating, like all apologists for the war who refuse to see what is blatantly obvious to even the most simple minded folk.

The full report: 'Accepting Realities in Iraq' by Gareth Stansfield.

The Blairite Legacy

As their seems to be a national obsession with defining what the Blair Legacy™ is, it seems only fair that I should also have a crack at what people will remember about Blair. Of course, it would be easy for me to just copy and paste what a thousand other commentators have written, but that would be just plain lazy. It would also be very easy to spend the entire post using the situation in Iraq with which to beat Teflon Tony. However, no matter how angry this decision made me, there are countless other examples of why this man has been such a disaster for this country and, in particular, for left-wing progressive politics in general.

Firstly, I want to take you back to 1997 and the general election. Now, I have to confess something to you. Something that seems to annoy many left-wing people I have encountered via this medium. However, it is something that I am proud of. I never voted for Tony Blair. There I said it, this is where you start hurling abuse at your monitor for my failure to vote for the only electable, left-wing candidate. As I said, however, this is something of which I am proud to say. I know this will sound a little 'I told you so', but I had bad feelings about Blair right from the very start. I was coming up to the end of my final year when the election campaign was underway, and I was looking forward to playing a part in my first general election (it's rather like the first time you go out on a date - only the end result is even more crushingly depressing than you might have feared). A friend and I watched some of the pre-election bullshit (sorry, I mean campaign) and we were both agreed - we couldn't trust Blair. At that stage it was for very superficial reasons. Remember the devil eyes poster by the Tories? Well, that was exactly what we thought of Blair - the only disappointment being that it was the dreaded Tories that had come up with such an appropriate image for our future Prime Minister. We were also very suspicious of the actual content of what he said, but it was the smile and the eyes that made me think that he had sold his soul to the devil (as it now seems). So, regardless of the consequences of not voting for the only credible opposition to the Tories, I voted Lib Dem. Not much better but at least it wasn't Blair.

Not long after the election, I began to realise that Blair was preparing to be the very thing I feared he might become - the spawn of Thatcher. And here is where his legacy begins. Barely two months after the election, on a wave of 'goodwill', Blair did the unthinkable. He introduced top-up fees. Essentially, he opened higher eduction up to market forces. Now, I know it is a controlled market at the moment, with no flexibility to set varying fees and thus create 'competition' and 'choice', but the foundations are certainly there. Besides, education is a right, not a privilege. Any attempt to put a price on education, makes it exclusive to those that can afford it. Surely this was the antithesis of a socialist government? Was this the Tory party in disguise? Of course it was. And as they have proved ever since, the re-branding of Labour as 'New' Labour might as well have been labelled Tory 'Lite'. Furthermore, under Blair's Labour party, the divide between the rich and the poor has become even wider. Who would have thought that this would be possible with a Labour government? It is very clear who truly inspired Blair.

Not long after the introduction of tuition fees, Blair then showed how close he was to big business. In October 1997, Blair decided to exempt Formula One from the ban on tobacco sponsorship. It then emerged that the decision was not as simple as was first thought. It transpired that Blair had accepted a £1 million donation from Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone before the general election. As part of his defence, Blair claimed that:

"I don't believe I have been tarnished - no ... I am a pretty straight sort of guy."

Aaah, hindsight eh? Again, the suspicions about his support of the business community (not to mention the accusations of being bought by business leaders), raised serious questions about where this country was heading under Blair. First, restricting universal, free education, then seemingly bowing to the will of big business. Were we in fact seeing a Tory 'Lite'? A government with roots in Thatcherite economics? A centre-right Labour party?

There then followed a series of scandals as Blair became embroiled in a culture of sleaze. This was turning into the Major years all over again. Blair resorted to spinning himself out of every mess he found himself in. However, many people were starting to see through the culture of spin that Blair had created around him. As one commenter put it on the BBC website in 1999:

Tony Blair and the New Labour Party now represent nothing more than the sneering face of New Thatcherism. How else can one describe a party which embraces privatisation of core public services (through the PFI), cynical pre-election tax cuts ahead of real investment in schools and hospitals (and New Labour is proud of the fact that it spends less on public services than any British government in 40 years), an "ethical" foreign policy which sees British weapons sold to some of the most opressive regimes in the world?

Privatisation became a massive priority for Blair over this period. The NHS and the education system both became prime targets for Blair's infatuation with PFI. Blair's determination to get the private sector involved in public services was the clearest indication yet of his passion for Thatcherite economics. Despite the protestations of unions and some backbenchers, Blair continued down the course of privatisation. In fact, one might say that privatisation was re-invigorated by Blair throughout his premiership.

Then there was his disastrous foreign policy. Not only has the war in Iraq itself proven to be such an unmitigated disaster, the conduct of Blair and his government in the run-up to the invasion led to numerous high profile scandals. First, and most importantly, was the death of Dr David Kelly. Dr Kelly was Andrew Gilligan's main source for the claim that the 45 minute claim was exaggerated by Alastair Campbell. After his subsequent hounding by the government, Dr Kelly was found dead on Harrowdown Hill, having apparently committed suicide (although this has been disputed by some doctors). Perhaps one of the most shocking events of Blair's tenure, the sense of distrust of Blair over this was exacerbated by the revelation that Alastair Campbell and Cherie Blair had signed a copy of the Hutton report (which investigated Kelly's death) that was subsequently put up for auction. When questioned on the auction, Blair merely answered:

"I do not believe that any offence to anyone was intended".

Progressive? I guess not. Up until this point I had deep reservations about Blair's government. The events surrounding the death of Dr Kelly simply re-affirmed what kind of government we were dealing with here. A ruthless, hard government, that would steam-roller opponents in the most callous way possible. Perhaps it is no surprise that a man like Alastair Campbell would be central to just such a regime.

After the events of September 11th, Blair announced that the UK would stand 'shoulder to shoulder' with the US. It didn't take long to find out what this meant. Blair refused to speak out about many issues that concerned progressives around the globe. Guantanamo was ignored, renditions were permitted, Iraq was invaded, Israel's actions in Lebanon were effectively endorsed and a strategy of pre-emptive strikes was put forward. Blair was leading the country into a new and dangerous direction. No longer would the British government concern themselves with international law, now it would be a case of following the lead of Bush and the White House. Human rights were wilfully discarded as part of the fight against terrorism that Blair and Bush put at the centre of their ideologies. Out went any remaining semblance of socialism, and in came neo-conservatism. Blair had clearly lined himself up with the far-right, who were willing to accept Blair as an ideological partner. Was anymore proof needed that Blair had abandoned the progressive left and was making a play for the conservative right? Was it really a surprise given Blair's underlying conservative (and indeed, Thatcherite) tendencies at the very beginning of 'the project'?

So where does that leave us? Well, it seems clear to me that Blair's overriding legacy is consolidation. Consolidation of the very things that the Conservatives put in place over 18 years. In fact, in some areas, one could argue that the Blair has gone further than even the Conservatives would dare (particularly in regard to creeping privatisation in the NHS etc). He has proven to be an ally and a close friend to the business community. He has developed conservative allies across the globe. Bush, Aznar, Merkel, Berlusconi and now, Sarkozy have all been friends to Blair. It would be fair to say, that he has tried to distance himself from progressive left-wing leaders across the globe. In terms of foreign policy, he has put this country at risk like never before. His foolishness has cost the UK dear in terms of respect. Iraq and Lebanon have seriously damaged our abilities to conduct diplomacy throughout the Middle East, if not the world. By aligning himself with the neo-conservatives, Blair has shown how he views the world. Democracy is something that must be imposed. It does not grow organically from grassroots movements. It is brought to the people by blood and guns. Blair's legacy has been the shift in UK politics to the centre-right. When politicians talk of the 'centre-ground', they mean centre-right. It is this policy that pushed the Conservatives further to the right, and that dis-enfranchised millions of people who were left without a credible alternative to the voices of the establishment. This will be Blair's legacy. The consolidation of Thatcherite economics and the almost fatal blow to socialism. Thanks to Blair, the true legacy that will linger, will be the legacy of Margaret Thatcher - seventeen years after we thought we had seen the back of her.

(And I haven't even mentioned cash for peerages..., BAE or the recent Official Secrets prosecution.)

Keogh and O'Connor in Jail

Ok, I admit it, I have been amazingly slack on this story:

Two political staff have been jailed for leaking a secret memo about talks between George Bush and Tony Blair.

Civil servant David Keogh, 50, from Northampton, was found guilty of two offences under the Official Secrets Act and jailed for six months.

The memo recorded Oval Office talks between Mr Bush and Mr Blair about Iraq in 2004, the court was told.

Luckily, RickB has been much more on the ball than I have. Another nail in the coffin of Blair's legacy.

Change in the Air???

Encouraging signs have been emanating from the Middle East. Indications suggest that two of the destabilising forces in the region could be on the verge of losing their leaders. It would appear that the pressure is really starting to grow on both Olmert and Ahmadinejad from within their own countries. In Olmert's case it is hard to see how he can continue to hold on to power much longer. Already embroiled in corruption scandals, he has now been accused of incompetence in the Winograd Report. For Ahmadinejad, the forces of the opposition are starting to gain momentum and his disastrous policies look likely to seal his fate.

The Winograd Report, put together by a government appointed committee looking into the second Lebanon war, has been scathing of Olmert's handling of the crisis. The partial report accuses Olmert of "severe failure" in exercising judgment, responsibility and caution during the outset of the war. According to the report, Olmert acted hastily in leading Israel to war without a comprehensive plan. He was also criticised for failing to consult military experts before rushing into war. From Haaretz:

"The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs."

Olmert was also censured for failing to "adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing."

"All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence." [my emphasis]

Despite the strong criticisms levelled at Olmert, he is refusing to stand down. In a live television address, he said:

"It would not be correct to resign and I have no intention of resigning."

Luckily, Olmert has some friends in very high places. In response to the report, Tony Snow claimed that George W Bush:

"works very closely with Prime Minister Olmert, and thinks that he's essential in working toward a two-state solution. The president remains committed to it."

Of course, the war with Lebanon had the full backing of Bush and Blair, who refused to call for a ceasefire as innocent people were killed in the ongoing conflict.

Despite this backing, it seems clear that the pressure is going to mount on Olmert until the inevitable occurs. The families of those who died will clearly need some serious questions answered by Olmert. What with this report, and the ongoing corruption scandals, it looks like time is running out for Ehud Olmert.

As for Ahlmadinejad, it also looks like the end is near for the West's favourite bogey man. According to a report in today's Guardian:

A grand coalition of anti-government forces is planning a second Iranian revolution via the ballot box to deny President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term in office and break the grip of what they call the "militia state" on public life and personal freedom.

It would appear that opposition forces are coming together to ensure that his reign collapses sooner rather than later. Centred on the former president, Mohammad Khatami , the opposition intends to capitalise on the President's growing unpopularity to win control of the Majlis in the upcoming general elections. According to opposition spokesmen, the goal is to:

bring down the fundamentalist regime by democratic means, transform Iran into a "normal country", and obviate the need for any military or other US and western intervention.

And that is the key. The change that is necessary can be achieved without intervention from the West. In fact, it is very likely that any moves by the West will lead to a very hostile response by the Iranian people and a subsequent rise in support for Ahmadinejad's hardline policies. Given the West's background in the region, through support of the Shah, the Iranian people are very wary of Western influence and any attempts to influence the country should be resisted at all costs. Despite the eagerness of Bush and Blair to see another bombing campaign in which hundreds of thousands of people will die, the best solution is to allow the natural progression of Iranian politics to bring about a softening in rhetoric. Intervention is not the answer to the problem.

With the growth of opposition movements in Israel and Iran, there is hope that the end of days is coming for two leaders who have done much to damage their countries in the eyes of the world. It is hard to be optimistic in this part of the world, but maybe there is a glimmer of optimism amongst the darkness.

Further information: The main findings of the Winograd partial report on the Second Lebanon War, Inside the struggle for Iran and Reformists prepare to take on Ahmadinejad and his militias.

David Keogh & Leo O’Connor Are Heroes

In domestic reporting of this case it seems our MSM is going to pussy foot around the case, David Keogh and Leo O'Connor leaked a memo that showed Bush wanting to bomb the Al Jazeera TV stations HQ (in Qatar, not in Iraq, ie. he wanted to attack a civilian target in a whole other country) and discussion of the blitz on Fallujah. In other words they leaked evidence of the planning of war crimes:-

"My concern is that the only conspiracy surrounding this was a conspiracy to level Fallujah," said Mr Kilfoyle. "He [Mr Blair] would say 'conspiracy theory'. That's been the American line and now he's adopting it. But if it is so fantastical, why are they prosecuting these two people this week?

"I am in no doubt that there was a mention of Fallujah. I was made aware of the contents by Mr Clarke. He and I sat down and talked about the contents of it because he was seeking my advice on what to do with it-

Blair is now doing his masters bidding like a good 51st client state bitch and trying to fuck these public spirited men over in closed court. If you want to follow this case you will need to use overseas media and some trusty blogs:-

LONDON: An ex-government official and a political researcher went on trial Wednesday for allegedly leaking a classified memo in which U.S. President George W. Bush reportedly referred to bombing Qatar-based broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

David Keogh, 50, a former government encryption specialist, and ex-parliamentary researcher Leo O'Connor, 44, are accused of violating Britain's Official Secrets Act.

Keogh is alleged to have passed the memo to O'Connor, who in turn placed it in a file he handed to his boss Tony Clarke, then a legislator who had voted against Britain's decision to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The document, marked "Secret-Personal" was intended to be restricted to senior officials and written by an adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair's staff.

Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper previously has reported that the memo revealed details of a conversation between Bush and Blair at the White House on April 16, 2004.

According to the newspaper, Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar. The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed on whether Bush's suggestion was serious.

Blair has said he had no information about any proposed U.S. action against Al-Jazeera, and the White House called the claims "outlandish and inconceivable."

Prosecutor David Perry said the record of the leaders' meeting was sensitive and was concerned with policy toward Iraq.

He said contents of the memo would not be read in open court. Because of the sensitive nature of the details, the document would be seen by jurors and discussed in a private session, closed to the press and public, Perry said.

Perry told the court that the meeting between Bush and Blair took place while the Coalition Provisional Authority still was acting as administrator in postwar Iraq — "against the background of the insurgency in Iraq at a time when British citizens, both military personnel and civilians were in that country."

Discussions ranged over a number sensitive issues, he said, and included "information about this nation's defense interests and this nation's international relations."

Blair's foreign policy secretary drafted a memo about the meeting that later was circulated to officials in London, Washington, the U.N. and Iraq — including Britain's MI6 spy agency.

Keogh worked at a government communications unit that handled sensitive documents and intelligence, passing them on to British diplomats based overseas via secure methods.

Perry said Keogh received a faxed copy of the memo on April 16 and made his own copy of the document, later passing it to O'Connor. Clarke, no longer a lawmaker, alerted authorities when he discovered the memo among paperwork from O'Connor.

Prosecutors have not yet outlined how O'Connor allegedly passed the memo to Clarke. He has denied handing it over, telling police it may have been given to the lawmaker because of his critical views of the Iraq invasion.

Officials later were able to use scientific tests — examining folds and markings from fax machines — to establish that the leaked memo had been a copy handled by Keogh, Perry said.

Keogh denies two charges of making a damaging disclosure of part of a government document. O'Connor denies a charge of making a damaging disclosure of a document passed to him illegally.-

This prosecution does not serve the people it serves the state, so come on jury members, tell 'em to get fucked, innocent verdicts all round. Then straight to the Media to tell them all about the case and the memo.

More Orgasmic Fury

Interesting piece from Mel 'I get horny over World War III' Phillips (although there appears to be no acknowledgement of Easter - is she getting all politically correct all of a sudden???). Here's a few hints as to how her argument is as weak as her previous attempts at constructing an intelligent polemic:

1) Replace the word 'Iran', with the word 'America'.
2) Replace the words 'sailors' or 'Royal Marines' with the words 'David' and 'Hicks'.
3) Replace the word 'Britain' for 'Australia'.
4) Replace the words 'Tony' and 'Blair' for 'John' and 'Howard'.

And then compare with her glowing comments on that bastard Howard.

Possible ICC Investigation of Blair?

How the hell did I miss this one?? Guess it's because I don't read the Telegraph. On Saturday, the paper reported that:

Tony Blair faces the prospect of an International Criminal Court investigation for alleged coalition war crimes in Iraq.

The court's chief prosecutor told The Sunday Telegraph that he would be willing to launch an inquiry and could envisage a scenario in which the Prime Minister and American President George W Bush could one day face charges at The Hague.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo urged Arab countries, particularly Iraq, to sign up to the court to enable allegations against the West to be pursued. Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations said that his country was actively considering signing up.

A Bad Day for the Establishment

Wow, quite a day for sleazy politicians. First there was this story from The Guardian:

Detectives are investigating whether Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, urged one of Tony Blair's most senior aides to shape the evidence she gave to Scotland Yard, the Guardian has learned.

Police have been investigating whether Ruth Turner, the prime minister's director of external relations, was being asked by Lord Levy to modify information that might have been of interest to the inquiry. Officers have been trying to piece together details of a meeting they had last year. Ms Turner gave an account of it to her lawyers and this has been passed to police.

It is this legal document and the exchange between Ms Turner and Lord Levy that has been at the heart of the inquiry in recent months, and which prompted the focus to shift from whether there was an effort to sell peerages to whether there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

And then, in the US:

The downfall of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, one of the leading figures in the Bush administration, was complete today.

The man who had swaggered around the White House as chief of staff to the vice-president, Dick Cheney, was today subdued as he listened to the verdict in Courtroom 17 of the US district court, on Constitution Avenue, within walking distance of his former office.
Libby had appeared confident when he appeared in court to hear the verdict. But as he was found guilty on the first of five charges he blinked and appeared surprised. As each verdict was announced, the blinking became more pronounced.

And so ended the political career of one of the Bush ideologues, part of the original neo-conservative group, known as the Vulcans, who advocated an aggressive foreign policy, in particular the invasion of Iraq.

Corruption? At the heart of the UK and US governments? Who would have thunk it? They seemed so trustworthy.

BBC Gagged by Government

From The Guardian:

The BBC was banned last night from broadcasting fresh allegations in the cash for honours investigation.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, obtained an injunction to stop the BBC proceeding with a news story for the 10 O'Clock News after a two-hour hearing in chambers at the royal courts of justice in London.

The BBC could only say last night that it had been prevented from broadcasting a story which it believed was a "legitimate matter of public interest" about an hour before the bulletin went on air.

Two things come to mind. Firstly, does this mean a prosecution is imminent? Secondly, why should we allow the government to censure the press? Don't we live in a society that allows free speech? Isn't that what our leaders keep telling us in the great 'War on Terror'? And if the call for censorship is to prevent prejudicing a court case, why isn't similar action taken against the tabloid press when they print various accusations in the run-up to a court case? I guess it is because this goes to the very core of the corrupt regime that rules over us. The people must not learn the truth.

Private Equity - Another Blairite Legacy?

Tony Blair recently claimed that:

"Britain is one of the number one places in the world for private equity, and I think the private equity market brings a lot of benefits to our economy".

Read this article by John Harris in today's Guardian, to see why private equity is so destructive. This is just the latest in a long list of examples of the Labour Party abandoning the working classes in favour of the forces of capitalism.

Poodle to Bite the Hand That Feeds It?

From The Guardian:

The Department for Trade and Industry has taken the unprecedented step of asking Ofcom to examine the public interest ramifications of BSkyB's purchase of a 17.9% stake in ITV.

Don't expect the government to censure Murdoch's ever expanding empire. After all, Murdoch has a very special relationship with Blair.

Iraqi Cabinet Agrees Draft Oil Law

From Al Jazeera:

Iraq's cabinet has agreed a draft law which would regulate how the country's oil wealth would be shared between its ethnic and sectarian communities.

The law, which will now be sent to the parliament for approval, will also set out terms regulating how foreign oil firms will be able to operate in Iraq.

As the Independent on Sunday reported, the law proposes handing over exploration and production contracts for up to 32 years - far longer than most deals between companies and governments. With the US linking it's backing of the Iraqi government with this new law, there is no doubt it will be rushed through parliament and Bush will get what he wanted from the start: OIL.