John McCain - More of the same?

It would certainly appear so. After all, much like Bush, John McCain is enthrall to the oil industry. Bush and McCain may not like each other very much (and many people don't seem to like either of them), but you could barely get a fag paper between the two of them (nb. US readers, fag=cigarette, not some offensive term for homosexuals). Expect more of the same attempts by the US to control oil supplies across the globe if McCain comes to power (God forbid - although the alternative ain't exactly on a different plain).

Since 1989, McCain has received around $700,000 from the oil industry. Furthermore, McCain has worked :

....tirelessly to advance the interests of the oil industry. For example, McCain’s tax plan gives the top five oil companies $3.8 billion a year in tax breaks. McCain meanwhile has voted against reducing dependence on foreign oil, has twice rejected windfall profits tax for Big Oil, and has voted against taxing oil companies to provide a $100 rebate to consumers. If that were not enough, McCain also made a risky political decision recently to back new offshore oil drilling in the US.

Vote McCain, and you most definitely get more Bush (in terms of the President, not women you misogynist fool). But it doesn't end there. What about McCain's supposedly superior experience in international affairs? Ok, put aside his comments about Iraq and Pakistan sharing a border. And don't mention his acknowledgement of the state of Czechoslovakia (ceased to exist in 1993). Despite these gaffes, McCain has a very serious agenda on the international stage, particularly as a result of his relationship with the International Republican Institute (IRI). And just what are his links to the IRI?

Since 1993, McCain has served as Chair of the outfit, which is funded by the U.S. government and private money. The group, which receives tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year, claims to promote democracy world-wide. On the surface at least, IRI seems to have a rather innocuous agenda including party building, media training, the organization of leadership trainings, dissemination of newsletters, and strengthening of civil society.

The hottest country in which IRI currently operates is Iraq. According to the IRI’s own web site, since the summer of 2003 the organization “has conducted a multi-faceted program aimed at promoting the development of democracy in Iraq. Toward this end, IRI works with political parties, indigenous civil society groups, and elected and other government officials. In support of these efforts, IRI also conducts numerous public opinion research projects and assists its Iraqi partners in the production of radio and television ads and programs.”

Furthermore, the IRI has been instrumental in events in Haiti. Funding from the IRI was used to foment a violent coup in Haiti against the leadership of Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Funding was also used to support opposition parties in the country, and an IRI representative persuaded the opposition parties to avoid compromising with Aristide. It is highly unlikely that Senator McCain was unaware of these events, although it is equally hard to say that he authorised them. However, with such a background in backing violent coups against democratically elected governements, he is perhaps perfectly placed for the role of US president. And, should that day arrive, it doesn't take a genius to work out which country will be first in the firing line. Somewhere rich in oil perhaps?

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.

Inquiry Into Death of Baha Mousa

Good news for the family of Baha Mousa, but one wonders whether the outcome will be entirely just:

Lawyers for the family of an Iraqi civilian who died in the custody of British troops claimed a victory after the Government announced a public inquiry into his death.

Four-and-a-half years after Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old hotel receptionist, died while detained by soldiers from the 1st Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment, Defence Secretary Des Browne said holding an inquiry was "the right thing to do".

The head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, said the inquiry - to be headed by a senior judge - needed to establish whether his death was the result of the "misguided" actions of a few individuals or a wider "systemic" failure.

However ministers indicated they would resist demands by lawyers for the family that it should also look at other cases involving alleged mistreatment by British soldiers.

Whose money is on it being down to 'a few individuals'??

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.

Iraq War Blogswarm - The War on Women in Iraq

On March 12th 2004, George and Laura Bush gave a press conference regarding "Efforts to Globally Promote Women's Human Rights" at the White House. President Bush used this opportunity to comment upon the rights of women across the globe and, particularly, in the Middle East. During the press conference, President Bush said the following about the position of women in post-Saddam Iraq:

Iraq has a different history, and yet a different set of challenges. Only one year ago -- only one year after being liberated from an incredibly ruthless person and a ruthless regime, Iraqi women are playing an essential part in rebuilding the nation. They're part of the future of the country.

Every woman in Iraq is better off because the rape rooms and torture chambers of Saddam Hussein are forever closed. He is a barbaric person. He violated people in such a brutal way that some never thought that the spirit of Iraq could arise again. We never felt that way here in this administration. We felt that people innately love freedom and if just given a chance, if given an opportunity, they will rise to the challenge.

Three women now serve on the Iraqi Governing Council -- you just heard me praise one. The historic document that was written recently guarantees the basic rights of all Iraqis, men and women, including freedoms of worship, expression and association. The document protects unions and political parties and outlaws discrimination based on gender, ethnic class and religion. It's an amazing document that's been written.


Certainly, no-one would deny the brutality of Saddam's regime and its scant regard for the most basic human rights. However, there still remains the question of gender equality in Iraq and Bush's claims about the improvement and the protections that have been put in place for women in Iraq. Before examining the present situation for women in Iraq, it is worth examining the situation of women in Iraq before the invasion.

Life Before Invasion

In 1970, the Iraqi government enacted the Iraqi Provisional Constitution which formally guaranteed equal rights to women and enshrined the rights to vote, own property and run for political office (unless indicated via hyperlinks, all information comes from Human Rights Watch). Women in Iraq had, in actual fact, been the envy of women across the Middle East thanks to the rights that were protected by the constitution. Furthermore, unlike many Arab neighbours, the government passed a compulsory education law mandating that both sexes attend school through the primary level. Laws were also passed that ensured the protection of women within the workplace and guaranteed maternity rights as well as alterations to the divorce proceedings. When Saddam came to power in 1979, many of these laws were consolidated. In 1980, women attained the right to run for office and, in 1986, Iraq became of the first countries to ratify the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Furthermore, as a result of the national literacy campaign, approximately 75% of Iraqi women were literate, a figure favourable compared to other staes in the region. However, these improvements in gender equality diminished shortly after the first Gulf war.

After Saddam's defeat at the hands of the first Bush government, and with his grip on power weakening, attempts were made to consolidate power by seeking to attract the support of Islamic groups within the country. This courting of traditional Islamic groups within Iraq subsequently saw a marked decline in women's rights within Iraq. Many of the advancements that were made after the Iraqi Provisional Constitution, were rolled back. After massive legislative changes affecting the rights of women, the UN reported that an estimated 4,000 women and girls had been the victims of "honor killings" and, due to legislation passed in 1990, men were immune from prosecution for such killings. So, after initial progressive measures by the Ba'ath party, the situation did indeed begin to deteriorate. But has the situation really improved in Iraq after the invasion by 'coalition forces' in 2003?

Two Steps Back

The first opportunity that the 'coalition' had to distance the 'new' Iraq from the final years of the Saddam regime, was the introduction of a new constitution. This constitution was hailed as a breakthrough for equality across Iraqi society. Sadly, like much of the advances that the coalition claimed, this was nothing more than a fraud. When the constituion was hanging by a thread in 2005, the American government chose to back down over their opposition to an Islamic state and supported a group of relious conservatives who sought to destroy the talks unless Islam was the primary source of law. The American government, through it's ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, proposed that Islam be named a primary source and supported a wording which would give clerics authority in civil matters such as divorce, marriage and inheritance. As a result of these developments, "dozens of women gathered in central Baghdad to protest against what the organiser, Yanar Mohammad, feared would be a 'fascist, nationalist and Islamist' constitution. 'We are fighting to avoid becoming second class citizens,' she said'. The constitution effectively imposed religious restrictions on women's rights and individual rights, which gave the document a decidedly conservative bent on personal and social matters. Despite it's high ideals for the people of Iraq, the American government had failed the Iraqi women who longed for a progressive Iraqi society. In fact, life has become increasingly dangerous for women in Iraq.

Women Burnt to Death

Peter Beaumont, of The Observer, recently exposed the reality of life in Iraq for the majority of women:

Iraqis do not like to talk about it much, but there is an understanding of what is going on these days. If a young woman is abducted and murdered without a ransom demand, she has been kidnapped to be raped. Even those raped and released are not necessarily safe: the response of some families to finding that a woman has been raped has been to kill her.

Iraq's women are living with a fear that is increasing in line with the numbers dying violently every month. They die for being a member of the wrong sect and for helping their fellow women. They die for doing jobs that the militants have decreed that they cannot do: for working in hospitals and ministries and universities. They are murdered, too, because they are the softest targets for Iraq's criminal gangs.

Iraq's women live in terror of speaking their opinions; of going out to work; or defying the strict new prohibitions on dress and behaviour applied across Iraq by Islamist militants, both Sunni and Shia. They live in fear of their husbands, too, as women's rights have been undermined by the country's postwar constitution that has taken power from the family courts and given it to clerics.

He adds:

After a month-long investigation, The Observer has established that in almost every major area of human rights, women are being seriously discriminated against, in some cases seeing their conditions return to those of females in the Middle Ages. In areas such as the Shia militia stronghold of Sadr City in east Baghdad, women have been beaten for not wearing socks. Even the headscarf and juba - the ankle-length, flared coat that buttons to the collar - are not enough for the zealots. Some women have been threatened with death unless they wear the full abbaya, the black, all-encompassing veil.

Similar reports are emerging from Mosul, where it is Sunni extremists who are laying down the law, and Kirkuk. Women from Karbala, Hilla, Basra and Nassariyah have all told The Observer similar stories. Of the insidious spread of militia and religious party control - and how members of those same groups are, paradoxically, increasingly responsible for the rape and murder of women outside their sects and communities.

There have also been reports of women being burnt to death as punishment for adultery or other offences relating to marriage. From The Guardian:

They lie in the Sulaimaniyah hospital morgue in Iraqi Kurdistan, set out on white-tiled slabs. A few have been shot or strangled, some beaten to death, but most have been burned. One girl, a lock of hair falling across her half-closed eyes, could almost be on the point of falling asleep. Burns have stretched the skin on another young woman's face into a fixed look of surprise.
These women are not casualties of battle. In fact, the cause of death is generally recorded as "accidental", although their bodies often lie unclaimed by their families.

"It is getting worse, especially the burnings," says Khanim Rahim Latif, the manager of Asuda, an Iraqi organisation based in Kurdistan that works to combat violence against women. "Just here in Sulaimaniyah, there were 400 cases of the burning of women last year." Lack of electricity means that every house has a plentiful supply of oil, and she accepts that some cases may be accidents. But the nature and scale of the injuries suggest that most were deliberate, she says, handing me the morgue photographs of one young woman after another. Many of the bodies bear the unmistakable signs of having been subjected to intense heat.

"In many cases the woman is accused of adultery, or of a relationship before she is married, or the marriage is not sanctioned by the family," Khanim says. Her husband, brother or another relative will kill her to restore their "honour". "If he is poor the man might be arrested; if he is important, he won't be. And in most cases, it is hidden. The body might be dumped miles away and when it is found the family says, 'We don't have a daughter.'" In other cases, disputes over such murders are resolved between families or tribes by the payment of a forfeit, or the gift of another woman. "The authorities say such agreements are necessary for social stability, to prevent revenge killings," says Khanim.

In October the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (Unami) expressed serious concern over the rising incidence of so-called honour crimes in Iraqi Kurdistan, confirming that 255 women had been killed in just the first six months of 2007, three-quarters of them by burning. An earlier Unami report cited 366 burns cases in Dohuk in 2006, up from 289 the year before, although most were not fatal. In Irbil, the emergency management centre had reported 576 burns cases since 2003, resulting in 358 deaths.

In fact, since the invasion in 2003, honour killings have increased year upon year.

Iraqi Women Feel Threatened

Women for Women recently published their report entitled 'Stronger Women, Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report'. Their survey of women in Iraq produced some interesting results:

Hope for the Future

• 85.0% of respondents described the situation in Iraq as bad or very bad, and 88.8% expressed a great deal of concern that they or someone living in their households would become a victim of violence.
• Only 26.9% of respondents expressed optimism for the future, saying they thought the overall situation would get better in the year ahead. While there continue to be pockets of optimism throughout the country, and the overall situation may be on a slow ascent, the situation remains volatile, and the long-term sustainability of any improvements still remains to be seen.

Security
• 71.2% of respondents said they do not feel protected by U.S./U.K. soldiers and 65.3% of
respondents said that, overall, the presence of U.S./U.K. security forces in Iraq is
making security in the country worse.
• 67.9% of respondents stated that their ability to walk down the street as they please has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion.

Violence Against Women
• 63.9% of respondents stated that violence against women is increasing. When asked why,
respondents most commonly said that there is less respect for women’s rights than before,
that women are thought of as possessions, and that the economy has gotten worse.

Economy and Infrastructure
• 68.3% of respondents describe the availability of jobs as bad and 70.5% said that their families are unable to earn enough money to pay for daily necessities.

Social Services
• 76.2% of respondents said that girls in their families are not allowed to attend school, and 56.7% said that girls’ ability to attend school has gotten worse since the U.S. invasion.

Political Participation
• 70.2% of respondents thought that the citizens of Iraq have not been given a chance to contribute their input on the future of Iraq, and 52.0% did not know if Iraqis had the right to participate in the political process.
• 43.6% of respondents did not think that the circumstances of women were being considered by those making decisions about Iraq’s future. However, in the Central Iraq cities of Fallujah, Samarra and Rawa, the number jumps to 75.1% of respondents saying they did not think women’s circumstances were being considered.
• 72.7% of respondents said that in the future there should be one unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad, and 88.6% of women thought that the separation of people along ethnic/religious/sectarian lines was a bad thing. However, only 32.3% of respondents thought there would in fact be one unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad in five years. This is another indication that women do not feel as though their opinions are being considered in decisions about their country’s future.


Compare this to the recent poll conducted by the BBC. Despite the above statistics, a poll recently conducted by the BBC (alongside other media outlets) proudly proclaimed that Poll suggests Iraqis 'optimistic'. The evidence for this perceived optimism? According to the poll, 62% of those polled claimed that security in the local area is good. This contrasts starkly with the findings of the report published by Women for Women. And yet, in the run-up to the anniversary of the disastrous invasion, the BBC sees fit to put a positive spin on the situation in Iraq. This should really come as no surprise given the situation the BBC has found itself in post-Hutton. The government has clearly put the BBC back in its place and the organisation is playing the role of government propagandist.

Government Complicit in Abuses

The Iraqi government, alongside coalition forces, has also played a massive role in endangering women in Iraq. Prime Minister al-Maliki’s response to one twenty year old woman’s allegations of rape by Iraqi Special Forces, underlines the lack of respect shown for women in this new Iraq. After initially calling for an investigation into the allegations, Maliki’s government reversed its position, labelling the woman a liar and wanted criminal and stating it would instead “reward” the officers involved. Maliki accused the woman of fabricating the rape in order to undermine the ‘security sweep’ in Baghdad. He then released her name (which gave away her religious identity - Sunni), which had profound implications for her given that the Iraqi police force is dominated by Shiites. In behaving in such an irresponsible manner, Maliki showed that this new government was not concerned with women’s rights and that, although the ‘rape rooms’ no longer officially existed, sexual assault was still part of the make-up of Iraq. So much so, that a US State Department assessment conducted during 2005 and 2006, found that brutality was “rampant in Iraq's police force, with abuses including the rape of female prisoners”. The report added:

“…female detainees are often sexually assaulted. According to the documents, the commander of a detention centre in the Karkh neighborhood of the capital raped a woman who was an alleged insurgent in August. That same month, two lieutenants tortured and raped two other female detainees.”

[article here: http://tiny.cc/Z4yzA – source is subscription only but referred to here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/09/le.01.html]

And yet, Bush claims that women in Iraq are better off than ever before. Can you see the difference?

A Better Iraq?

So, here we are, five years on from the illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. An invasion that was supposed to bring greater freedom and a new sense of equality for women in Iraq and what have we now? A situation far more dangerous than people previously imagined. Women are being persecuted and murdered as a matter of course. In a country where women were equal partners in Iraqi society, now they are treated as second class citizens. Over 60% of Iraqi women feel that violence against them is increasing and, with increasing numbers of women burnt to death or victims of honour killing, it is not hard to see why. It is hard to see how anyone can seriously claim that women are better off in Iraq after the invasion of 2003. Clearly they are not. And they are not alone in Iraq. Homosexual men and women have also seen increased persecution in Iraq since the fall of Saddam.

The United Nations has recently taken the opportunity to remind the Iraqi government and the United States of their obligations regarding the persecution of women in Iraq. In particular, the report points out the rise in women being burnt to death as well as the increase in female circumcision, particularly in areas of Kurdistan. After five years of occupation, it seems hard to believe that such practices are continuing when promises of increased gender equlaity were being made in the run-up to the invasion.

There is no doubt that women in Iraq have seen a massive assault on their liberty and freedom over the last five years. Violence and oppression have become regular features of their continued struggle in Iraq. There are many other disturbing consequences of the illegal invasion in 2003, the Iraq Oil Law to name but one, but there is a real danger that the plight of women in Iraq will be forgotten in amongst the propaganda from the 'coalition'. They may talk of the massive improvements for women in Iraq, the reality is quite different.

For more information see the following:

MADRE - Sister organisation to The Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq

Act Together - A group of UK-based Iraqi and non-Iraqi women. Formed in 2000 to campaign against the economic sanctions on Iraq and, since late 2001, also campaigned against the US/US invasion of Iraq. Focus is on the occupation and the support of independent grassroots women’s initiatives in Iraq.

WAFDI - The Women's Alliance for a Democratic Iraq - an international non-partisan and not-for-profit women's rights organization.

Read other Blogswarm posts on the anniversary of the Iraq War via March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm

Prince Harry - The Multi-Level PR Coup

So, Prince Harry has returned home to dear old Blighty after viciously cutting down those filty Taliban scum. Pardon me for having ignored this story over the past couple of days, but it seemed somewhat of a trivial story when compared to other events around the world. However, as he returns from action, it is worth analysing just how beneficial this little PR exercise has really been for the Empire building of the West.

Firstly, and mostt importantly, this whole story has managed to avert the eye of the general public while a more sinister story regarding events in Afghanistan has been developing. As you may have read in an earlier post, former SAS man Ben Griffin has been banned from making any further disclosures regarding what the military have really been up to in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that these revelations include alleged breaches of the Geneva conventions in both Iraq and Afghanistan tells you all you need to know about why the establishment are so keen to quash any further disclosures. Who would have thought that in a country with an established Freedom of Information Act, such secrecy would prevail?? Luckily, the press had the wonderous story of Prince Harry's "bravery" with which to fill some space and avert the eye while the suppression of one man's freedom goes unnoticed. 1-0 to the PR men.

Prince Harry's little trip to Afghanistan, and the subsequent media frenzy, served another purpose. After six years of military operation, it has emerged that the operation is an almost complete failure. Despite the ideals of bringing democracy to a country that has been the play thing of empire builders for centuries, democracy only exists in a very limited form. It has been revealed that only 30% of the country is actually controlled by the (so-called) democratically elected government of Hamid Karzai. The vast majority of the country is controlled by either the Taliban (10%) or local warlords (60%). After six years, and millions of pounds in spending, the West has achieved democracy in only 30% of the country. A failure on a massive scale. Furthermore, this is a failure that would lead to even greater opposition to the empire building in the Middle East that is currently under way. Thank the lord for Harry, the MOD and a bunch of PR men. If it wasn't for them, there might be some serious questions about the state of our military intervention in Afghanistan.

Finally, and less importantly perhaps, this little PR coup has served to give confidence to the monarchists of this nation. Up until now, Harry has been seen as the typical Hooray Henry. Getting pissed up, pulling "birds", Harry has not exactly endeared himself to the monarchy loving classes. What joy now, however. Harry will faithfully be portrayed as a hero who went to fight for his country and no longer will the press obssess about his night time activities. This PR coup has, rather like the z-list celebs on Big Brother, revived his career and ensurede that, for the meantime at least, he will be remembered in a positive light by the monarchy loving classes. For the rest of us, however, it is another reminder of the extent with which the establishment will go to protect on of their own and prevent the masses from learning the truth about what is being done in their name.

UK Court Gags Ben Griffin, SAS Torture Whistleblower

Ben Griffin who made this speech, excerpted here on the 27th has been silenced by the British establishment-

A former SAS soldier was served with a high court order yesterday preventing him from making fresh disclosures about how hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans captured by British and American special forces were rendered to prisons where they faced torture.

Ben Griffin could be jailed if he makes further disclosures about how people seized by special forces were allegedly mistreated and ended up in secret prisons in breach of the Geneva conventions and international law. Griffin, 29, left the British army in 2005 after three months in Baghdad, saying he disagreed with the "illegal" tactics of US troops.

This is disgraceful but not unsurprising for an administration guilty of war crimes and subservient to the Bush regime. I include below the full text of his statement and urge others to copy and paste the text as well-

This statement was prepared and read by Ben Griffin, ex-SAS soldier, at a press conference on Monday 25 February 2008.

Our government would have us believe that our involvement in the process known as Extraordinary Rendition is limited to two occasions on which planes carrying detainees landed to refuel on the British Indian Ocean Territory, Diego Garcia. David Miliband has stated that the British Government expects the Government of the United States to “seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace, including Overseas Territories; that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture¹.” (Taken from a statement given to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday 21 February 2008)

The use of British Territory and airspace pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of Extraordinary Rendition in the first place. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 UKSF has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force. This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison.

Whilst the government has stated its desire that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp be closed, it has remained silent over these other secretive prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinately without charge. All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, International Law and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Early involvement of UKSF in the process of Extraordinary Rendition centres around operations carried out in Afghanistan in late 2001. Of note is an incident at the Qalai Janghi fortress, near Mazar-i-Sharif. UKSF fought alongside their US counterparts to put down a bloody revolt by captured Taliban fighters. The surviving Taliban fighters were then rendered to Guantanamo Bay.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003 this joint US/UK task force appeared. Its primary mission was to kill or capture high value targets. Individuals detained by this Task Force often included non-combatants caught up in the search for high value targets. The use of secret detention centres within Iraq has negated the need to use Guantanamo Bay whilst allowing similar practice to go unnoticed.

I have here an account taken from an interpreter interviewed by the organisation Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0706/2.htm). He was based at the detention and interrogation facility within Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport during 2004. This facility was used to interrogate individuals captured by the joint US/UK Task Force. In it are the details of numerous breaches of the Geneva Convention and accounts of torture. These breaches were not the actions of rogue elements the abuse was systematic and sanctioned through the chain of command. This account is corroborated by an investigation carried out by NYT reporters into Camp Nama and the US/UK Task Force, which appeared in the New York Times on March 19 2006. Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured. During my time as member of the US/UK Task Force, three soldiers recounted to me an incident in which they had witnessed the brutal interrogation of two detainees. Partial drowning and an electric cattle prod were used during this interrogation and this amounted to torture. It was the widely held assumption that this would be the fate of any individuals handed over to our America colleagues. My commanding officer at the time expressed his concern to the whole squadron that we were becoming “the secret police of Baghdad”.

As UK soldiers within this Task Force a policy that we would detain individuals but not arrest them was continually enforced. Since it was commonly assumed by my colleagues that anyone we detained would subsequently be tortured this policy of detention and not arrest was regarded as a clumsy legal tool used to distance British soldiers from the whole process.

During the many operations conducted to apprehend high value targets numerous non-combatants were detained and interrogated in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians in occupied territories. I have no doubt in my mind that non-combatants I personally detained were handed over to the Americans and subsequently tortured.

The joint US/UK Task Force has broken International Law, contravened The Geneva Conventions and disregarded the UN Convention Against Torture. British soldiers are intimately involved in the actions of this Task Force. Jack Straw, Margaret Beckett David Miliband, Geoff Hoon, Des Browne, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown. In their respective positions over the last five years they must know that British soldiers have been operating within this joint US/UK task force. They must have been briefed on the actions of this unit.

As the occupiers of Iraq we have a duty to uphold the law, to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. We are also responsible for securing the borders of Iraq on all counts we have failed. The British Army once had a reputation for playing by the rules. That reputation has been tarnished over the last seven years. We have accepted illegality as the norm. I have no doubt that over the coming months and years increasing amounts of information concerning the actions of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will be become public.

Whilst the majority of British Forces have been withdrawn from Iraq, UKSF remain within the US/UK Task Force.

¹Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.”

Ben Griffin
25 February 2008

www.stopwar.org.uk

UK Apologises Over Rendition

Yet another example of the UK government allowing another country to walk all over us. From the BBC:

David Miliband has admitted two US 'extraordinary rendition' flights landed on UK territory in 2002.

The foreign secretary said in both cases US planes refuelled on the UK dependent territory of Diego Garcia.

He said he was "very sorry" to have to say that previous denials made in "good faith" were now having to be corrected.

So, now the list of incidents that underline our utter willingness to kowtow to our allies includes:

• The arrest and detainment of an innocent man due to pressure by the US government
• Allowing an alleged war criminal to escape justice
• Removing criticism of Israel from Iraq dossier to protect relationship
• The British government conceding to pressure from Saudi Arabia over the BAE scandal
• And now, allowing the US government to use UK territory for their policy of rendition (despite initial denials).

Doesn't it make you feel proud to be British?

BP and Shell Eager to Get Their Hands on Iraqi Oil

From Scenta:

BP has been holding meetings with Iraqi oil officials as it speeds up plans to re-enter one of the biggest but politically most controversial oil provinces in the world, five years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein by the British and US military.

The move comes as BP is drawing fire for abandoning any pursuit of green credentials. Environmental groups accuse the new chief executive, Tony Hayward, of "recarbonising" a once enlightened oil group.

BP said it was "possible" some of its executives might meet the Iraqi oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, today at a Royal Institute of International Affairs conference in London, sponsored by BP, Shell and other western oil majors.

A spokesman for BP, which will report annual profits of about $18bn, confirmed managers met Iraqi oil officials last week in Jordan and talked about providing technical assistance.

Iraq has more than 115bn barrels of recoverable reserves, an attraction for oil groups at a time when easily recoverable reserves are becoming more difficult to secure.

BP was last night playing down any likelihood of an imminent move into Iraq. "It is a country of interest to us but we are waiting for political and security stability to return before we will take anything further," a spokesman said.

The group has already undertaken technical studies on the Rumeila oilfield for the new government of Iraq. It is gearing up for further involvement following the drafting of a new oil law in Iraq. The chief executive of Shell, Jeroen van der Veer, also admitted last week that his company was looking closely at re-entering Iraq.

Yes, Shell and BP are poised to get their grubby little hands on Iraq's oil, courtesy of the proposed Iraq Oil Law. And they said the war was about oil. Pish.

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.

The Big Story In America? Well, Baseball Of Course!

Quite frankly, a bizarre front page on the BBC Americas page:


Yes, 'Bush hopes for new baseball era' - an earth shattering story I'm sure you will agree. One wonders why any of the following alternatives weren't chosen (all from the Americas pages on the BBC):

US House limits CIA interrogation

The US House of Representatives has approved a bill that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation techniques such as simulated drowning.

The measure would require intelligence agencies to follow the rules adopted by the US Army, which forbid such methods, and to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

President George Bush has threatened to veto the bill if the Senate passes it.

The move came a day after the CIA's director was questioned about the wiping of videotaped interrogations.

Gen Michael Hayden told a congressional intelligence committee that he had no prior knowledge of plans to destroy the tapes and that his organisation "could have done an awful lot better" in keeping Congress informed on the issue.

US Iraq fraud office investigated

The office which investigates cases of waste and fraud surrounding reconstruction efforts in Iraq is being investigated itself, reports say.

Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, and his team are the focus of four probes, among them one by the FBI, US media reports.

His office has been accused of waste and overspending, allegations now being presented to a US grand jury.

New Jersey scraps death penalty

Lawmakers in the US state of New Jersey have approved a bill abolishing the death penalty.

In a 44-36 vote, the Democrat-run state assembly replaced the death sentence with life in prison without parole.

The bill is expected to be signed into law by Democratic Governor Jon Corzine - an opponent of the death penalty.

The move would make New Jersey the first US state to abolish capital punishment since the US Supreme Court reinstated executions in 1976.

And there's even the news that America is desperately trying to undermine the conference in Bali. Still, I guess all these things aren't as important as baseball, right?

Meanwhile, in La La Land.....

According to Melanie Phillips, the NIE report is part of some wide ranging conspiracy theory taking in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and the United States. Here's a little taster:

On this blog on December 5, I floated the theory that the US had done a deal with both Iran and Saudi Arabia to produce calm in Iraq in return for a promise not to bomb Iran and to serve Israel to them on a plate. Now Debkafile -- whose bulletins, based on intelligence sources, are not reliable but often contain more than a germ of truth -- is reporting a grander version of the same theory. It claims that a Washington-Tehran understanding is in the making, brokered by Saudi Arabia.

[extract]

True? It sounds horribly as if it may be. And there is another dimension to all this. The picture above says it all. Saudi Arabia, which is aghast at Iranian power, appears to have reached the same conclusion about the US -- that it has now totally lost its bottle. Saudi can no longer rely on the US to do what Saudi wanted it to do -- to destroy the Iranian regime. So it has now given up on the US and is doing the next best thing: cosying up to Iran itself. If you can't beat them, make deals with them seems to be its motto.

Hilarious. Isn't it time a tin hat was added to Melanie's picture?

In all seriousness, John Pilger made an excellent point when I witnessed one of his recent talks. It is far easier, and takes less time, to expose the lies of the Daily Mail, The Sun etc than it is to go for the big guns like the BBC, The Guardian etc. The former are no real challenge in terms of identifying the weaknesses in their arguments and exposing them. The latter, on the other hand, buries its establishment bias much further beneath the surface. On this evidence, it really is too easy to expose Phillips' piece as utter fantasy. There's no challenge here. The kind of people who believe this believe there is some vast Jewish conspiracy controlling the world, or that 9/11 was a plot cooked up by the government and there is a secret hanger where all of those who were 'on the planes' are being hidden. Utter lunacy.

"The Evil Has Landed" - Or Was He Already Here?

The visit to the United States by Ahlmadinejad prompted the predictable outrage by the American public. Headlines in national papers had a field day with their attacks on the America's latest bogeyman. The New York Daily News, for example, chose the fear-inducing:

"The Evil Has Landed"

Patriotic, yet fear-mongering, the perfect news headline. However, when taking an objective view of recent events across the globe, it is hard to sympathise with the current US position in the Middle East, and particularly in relation to Iran.

The current obsession of the US administration has clearly been the so-called nuclear threat that Iran may provide in the near future. They base this assessment, they claim, on Iran's aggressive policies in the region. If we look beyond the knee-jerk reaction to guffaw loudly at this belief, it is not hard to expose this standpoint for the ludicrous claim that it so clearly is. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Iranian government has only been involved in one armed conflict, the Iran-Iraq war. It is worth pointing out at this point that Iraq were the aggressors on that occasion, supported by many Western powers as well as various Communist nations and Arab allies. The war itself was particularly costly for Iran. There were an estimated 1 million casualties on the Iranian side, a huge of chunk of which were killed due to the use of those infamous 'weapons of mass destruction'. The use of chemical weapons, with the tacit support of the West (including the US) led to the deaths of over 100,000 Iranians. As usual, the US tried their best to render the United Nations utterly useless. On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that:

"members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons."

The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement. The US refused to condemn the use of weapons of mass destruction on the Iranian civilian population, a refusal that caused much anger across Iran. Iran thus became one of the biggest victims to the use of these forms of weaponry in history.

This really highlights the hypocrisy of the current US position. Iran is apparently a threat and a danger to the world. However, they have only been the victims in any conflict, not the aggressors (they have never invaded a neighbour, despite the fact that many Arab nations backed Iraq in the long running war). Not only have they never been aggressors, they have also been the victim to one of the most horrendous examples of mass civilian casualties in history. Now, backers of Bush will claim that although Iran hasn't invaded her neighbours, she has been involved in covert action across the Middle East. This may well be the case, but hasn't the US been guilty of the same. Didn't the US government attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government in Venezuela in 2002? Hasn't American history throughout the post-war period been characterised by interference in other countries' affairs? Of course. Yet when it is the US they are benevolent, and when it is a foreign nation with a competing ideology they are malevolent and evil. Again, taking an objective view, wouldn't it be fair to say that when using Iran as a yardstick, the US government also appears to be a malevolent entity in global affairs? Bush alone has overseen two bloody wars of aggression (not to mention the failed coup attempts). What wars have the Iranians instigated in the past seven years?

Now, I am no defender of Iran (I am an atheist and therefore cannot support any state built on religious grounds) and I find some of Ahlmadinejad's statements a little unsavoury to say the least (note his comments about homosexuality in Iran at the recent college debate). However, I see no evidence that he is any more 'evil' than George W Bush (who hasn't exactly been noted for his liberal social views either). Perhaps before lobbing venom at the President of Iran, American people should look a little closer to home to see an establishment that is all to eager to utilise weapons of mass destruction, or encourage its use by proxies. After all, sixty-two years after the end of the war, only one nation has taken full advantage of its abilities to launch weapons of mass destruction and it's not Iran.

General Sir Mike Jackson Attacks US Policy in Iraq

He doesn't pull his punches with Rumsfeld either:

The head of the British army during the Iraq invasion has said US post-war policy was "intellectually bankrupt".

In a Daily Telegraph interview, former chief of the general staff, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, added that US strategy had been "short-sighted".

He said former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was "one of the most responsible for the current situation".

I'm no general, but I could have told you that US strategy was short-sighted several years ago. Still, better late than never. I also found myself agreeing with a Tory (that's twice in a week that I have been complimentary - I need to be hosed down pronto) quoted in the BBC's report. Malcolm Rifkind said:

"I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was actually his boss, George Bush, who actually made the extraordinary decision to put the Pentagon and Rumsfeld in control of political nation-building after the actual war ended."

So, if Rumsfeld is incompetent, what does that make his boss?? Well put, for a Tory scumbag.

The Information Divide - How Government Represses Vital Freedoms

The recent censorship of a performance by Pearl Jam at a festival in the US, is the latest in a long line of attempts by the privileged elite to restrict the flow of information and the right to free speech. Despite the rhetoric about spreading freedom around the globe, the west has been reluctant to grant the same freedoms at home as they claim to export abroad. The British government have been reluctant to allow a culture of free speech, and the past couple of weeks have only gone to reinforce the fact that this is one of the most secretive democracies in the world.

This has ever been so. Back in 1988, the then Conservative Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, gave a speech to the Royal Television Society Conference. In that speech, Hurd said the following:

'The disclosure of certain information was always harmful whether or not it had been published before.'

The Conservative government had shown that they had no intention of allowing a culture to develop that encourages freedom of information, and why should they have? For decades, government had been trying its utmost to ensure that the internal workings of government were not open to public access. The irony was, of course, that the British government at the time of Hurd's address was actually trying to encourage freedom of information in a country that was truly suffering at the hands of censorship. In the same year, Kenneth Baker addressed students at Moscow State University:

'What's the point in having computers and information technology if you are now allowed access to anything more than the contents of a modest library?...The information technology revolution cannot bear fruit without the free flow of information within society and between societies.'

Of course, being in the USSR, Baker would say that. The Conservative government proved that, although they talked of freedom of expression and lobbied their enemies to open up the flow of information, the establishment were reluctant to let go of the reins during the technological revolution. This double-speak continued, even after the Conservative government were finally kicked out of power in 1997.

The election of the Labour government in 1997 brought forth the promise of a more open style of government. Perhaps anticipating how difficult it would be to manage information in the age of the internet, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act heralded a new age of access to information. However, this was not to last. In May 2007, Alastair Darling wrote to Lord Falconer expressing his concerns about the Act. In the letter, he claimed that government may need to:

"redress an apparent imbalance between the 'right to know' and the protection of private space where necessary for good governance".

Once more, the establishment had revealed that it cared little for the concepts of freedom of information, despite the Act. Even before Darling's letter had come to light (courtesy of the BBC by the way. A novelty, eh? A state broadcaster prepared to reveal the true nature of government machinations), MPs had been trying to put through legislation that would have prevented their travel expenses being open to the public.

Two recent actions by the government have also attempted to restrict the flow of information and the rights to free speech. Only today, it has emerged that the police are able to use terror laws to deal with protesters at Heathrow. According to The Guardian:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.

Up to 1,800 extra officers will be drafted in to prevent an estimated 1,500 people disrupting the airport over the period of the camp for climate change, which is due to begin on Tuesday. The police have been told to use stop and search powers against the protesters, who have pledged to take direct action on August 18 and 19 but not to endanger life.

The police powers will include:


· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

Remember when the government said that anti-terrorism powers will not be abused? As well as this blatant attempt to suppress free speech, the government has also been cracking down on the military. Only yesterday, The Guardian revealed that the Ministry of Defence has been taking steps to address soldier's rights to free speech. According to the report:

Soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel will not be able to blog, take part in surveys, speak in public, post on bulletin boards, play in multi-player computer games or send text messages or photographs without the permission of a superior if the information they use concerns matters of defence.

They also cannot release video, still images or audio - material which has previously led to investigations into the abuse of Iraqis. Instead, the guidelines state that "all such communication must help to maintain and, where possible, enhance the reputation of defence".

Despite the fact that this may contravene the Human Rights Act (an act that opponents of free speech have long lobbied to repeal), the government seems willing to continue with a blatant act of censorship to ensure control over the flow of information. But then, should we be surprised given that the government also crippled the BBC after a report that has proven to be factually accurate, yet exposed the truth behind the government. The hounding of the BBC in the wake of the Gilligan report, only laid bare the extent to which the government was willing to suppress information that was harmful to its interests, regardless of the facts.

Meanwhile, as the government continues to control the amount of information about the inner workings at Whitehall, the government is demanding even more information about the general public. Earlier this year, it was revealed that there is an amazing 4.2 million CCTV cameras in the UK (32 cameras around George Orwell's house alone), ensuring that the government is able to gather information about your movements. Government is also trying to introduce a mass programme of DNA collection from every citizen in the UK, providing important genetic information about the population. Finally, the government has also been pursuing the idea of a national identity card carrying biometric information. So, while the government has been restricting our rights to free speech and our ability to access information, they have been collating more information about us than any other government in this nation's history. And if you think the government won't abuse this mass of information, you only have to look at the abuse of anti-terror legislation that is being deployed by the police at Heathrow to realise that we are heading for desperate times.

This issue of freedom of information is a crucial one. If this country wants to stand as a beacon of freedom across the world, it must do something about the lack of freedom citizens currently enjoy. Whilst the government continues to restrict our access to information, while increasing theirs, the UK will remain a country divided along informational lines. That cannot be a good thing for democracy.

Iraqi Government Refuses Recognition of Unions

Like father like son:

Iraq's Oil Ministry has directed all its agencies and departments not to deal with the country's oil unions.

The unions and Iraq's government, especially the prime minister and oil minister, have been at odds for months now over working conditions and the draft oil law.

The unions went on strike in early June and are threatening to stop production and exports again if demands are not met. The unions claim the oil law, if approved by Parliament, will give foreign oil companies too much access to the oil. The unions enjoy enormous support, especially in the south of Iraq.

"The Minister has directed the prohibition of cooperation with any member of any union in any of the committees organized under the name of the Union as these unions do not enjoy any legal status to work inside the government sector," Laith Abd Al Hussein AL Shahir, the ministry's general director, wrote in a July 18 letter obtained by UPI.

Saddam Hussein outlawed worker organizing in the public sector; subsequent U.S. occupying powers and now the Iraqi government do not recognize the workers' rights to organize.

Truly, they are adopting American style democracy to its fullest degree.

Saudi Arabia - A Valuable Ally in the Middle East

Is it possible to tell the difference between our friends and our enemies in the Middle East? Surely, as such a valuable friend, Saudi Arabia would be worthy of our support? Remember, the American administration is prepared to offer huge sums of military aid to this country. An administration that wants to end tyranny in the region. An administration that claimed that Saddam needed to be dealt with due to his poor huamn rights record. An administration that overlooks crimes such as this:

The New York based Human Rights Watch demanded that the Appeals Court investigating into the death sentence of the Sri Lankan maid Rizana Nafeek should consider not only the fact that the alleged crime occurred at a time when she was a child of 17 but also the fairness of the original investigation into the allegations against her .


“This case raises many troubling questions about the treatment of children and foreigners in Saudi Arabia’s criminal justice system,” said Nisha Varia, senior researcher in the Women’s Rights Division of Human Rights Watch in a statement issued July 30 in New York.


The human rights organization demanded that for those who cannot afford lawyers the Saudi Arabian government should start providing lawyers in criminal cases like in other countries.

The Human Rights group was commenting on last month‘s verdict, on a Shari’a court in Dawadmi, Saudi Arabia, that sentenced to death Nafeek, 19, ruling that she had murdered an infant in her care in 2005. The Sri Lanka embassy on behalf of Nafeek filed an appeal last week opposing the sentence. “International law prohibits the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18”, the statement said.

Iraq Oil Law

I was going to post on this myself but well, as RickB at Ten Percent already has, I can't be arsed. Go read his account and find out more yourself.

Iraq Parliament Moving To Reject Occupation Before End Of The Year

The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.The law requires that any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's Prime Minister, be approved by the parliament. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "this new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the UN mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the UN mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "there will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the UN mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

Without the cover of the UN mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation.

The Oil Law Explained

Hat-tip - antonymus: