No Justice for Chagossians

The evil empire is victorious once more:

Exiles of the Chagos Islands have had the right to return to their homeland overturned by the House of Lords.

The government won its appeal against a court decision that had ruled in favour of 2,000 former residents of the British Indian Ocean territory.

They were evicted in the 1960s when the colony was leased to the US to build an airbase on the atoll of Diego Garcia.

Lord Hoffmann said the case's subtext was funding - the UK may have had to pay for rebuilding their community.

'Funding'?? Well, we can't have that can we?

Two Arrested For Attacks On Settlers On The Susiya Settlement

You may remember seeing these images recently of Palestinians being apparently attacked by Israeli settlers:

The pictures were captured as a result of B'Tselem's 'Shooting Back' scheme that provided video cameras for Palestinians to record the abuses they suffer at the hands of settlers. Amazingly, these pictures were posted on the BBC, amazing because it is very rare for a major media organisation to reproduce such footage. Usually such incidents are portrayed as mythical events in the imagination of so-called anti-Semites and are therefore disregarded.

In this instance, however, it would appear that the Israeli police have actually arrested two settlers that they suspected were responsible for the attack. B'Tselem reports [this link also provides further links to individual testimonies and further videos]:

Today [17 June 2008], the Israeli police arrested two settlers suspected of attacking Palestinians in the Southern Hebron Hills. On 8 June 2008, four masked settlers with clubs attacked three members of the Nawaj’ah family who were grazing their flock on private Palestinian land south of the Susiya settlement. The victims suffered severe injuries and required hospitalization. A fourth member of the family documented the beginning of the assault with a video camera she had received from B'Tselem.

The Nawaj’ah family lives in Khirbet Susiya, a small encampment in the Southern Hebron Hills just south of the Susiya settlement. They live in tents and support themselves by grazing their flock and working their land. As they are the object of frequent attack by settlers, B'Tselem has given the family a video camera as part of its "Shooting Back” project.

On 8 June 2008, ‘Imran a-Nawaj’ah, 32, went with two of his children to graze his flock south of the settlement, on a plot of land belonging to a resident of the nearby Samu’ Village. Although an Israeli court has declared the land a military zone closed to Israelis, two settlers drove up to the shepherds on a tractor and tried to drive them off the land. When a-Nawaj’ah refused and told the settlers he had court permission to be on the land, they threatened him and then drove off toward the settlement. Fearing an attack, A-Nawaj’ah sent his son to the encampment to call for reinforcement. Khalil, 61, Tamam, 60, and Rabiha A-Nawaj’ah, 29, came quickly to the spot along with Muna, 25, who managed to film the settlers leaving the site....

If you want to find out more about the 'Shooting Back' scheme, click here and see what other materials have been captured here. Sadly, most of these incidents will not be replayed on the BBC. Such exposure is clearly an isolated incident to provide 'balance' rather than to broaden understanding of the tensions in the region.

Pinochet Allies Arrests Ordered

Good news from Chile:

A Chilean judge has ordered the arrest of nearly 100 former secret police and soldiers over rights abuses committed under General Augusto Pinochet.

The round-up is one of the biggest of its kind since the military leader's rule ended 18 years ago.

The 98 detentions are part of an probe into Operation Colombo, a 1975 plot to murder left-wing opponents of Pinochet.

More than 3,000 people were killed or "disappeared" during military rule in Chile between 1973 and 1990.

One question, why do the BBC not refer to Pinochet as a right-wing dictator?

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'??

Tesco - Attacking Free Speech

A group of authors have signed a letter to The Times calling on Tesco to 'exercise restraint' over their ongoing libel action in Thailand. The protest has been organised by English PEN, a campaign group for freedom of expression. The full letter to the newspaper reads as follows:

Sir, We are writing to urge Tesco to exercise restraint over libel actions that we understand to have been recently launched by its subsidiary Tesco Lotus in Thailand. The claims have been brought against three critics of Tesco Lotus. One of these critics, Jit Siratranont, faces two years in jail accused of criminal defamation, and a civil damages claim of 1.1 billion baht (£16.6 million). While we accept the need for Tesco and other corporations to protect their reputation, we are concerned by this disproportionate response.

The offence of criminal defamation is considered by most international watchdogs to be incompatible with the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Its deployment now by a subsidiary of a UK-based company, which prides itself on “upholding basic human rights” and which “supports in full the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, sends an unsettling message around the world.

As writers we greatly value the tradition of free speech in Britain, and we would like to think that a leading international business such as Tesco would be concerned with exporting these values along with its groceries. We urge Tesco to impress its critics with the force of argument, not the threat of imprisonment.

Lisa Appignanesi

President, English PEN

Mark Haddon

Jonathan Heawood

Director, English PEN

Nick Hornby

Anthony Lester, QC

Marina Lewycka

Deborah Moggach

The supermarket is currently engaged in a libel battle with two Thai journalists for making critical comments about the retail giant. A libel battle that, according to one human rights expert, would be 'unable to succeed' if the action was taken in the UK.

Judging by some of the comments in The Times piece, many people are turning off Tesco altogether. Perhaps this is the start of a wider ranging boycott of the retailer. This case could, if it proceeds, be their McLibel. I for one will not shed a tear.

Uribe's Cousin Arrested in Colombia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Chevron in Ecuador

Given Chevron's existing links to the White House (Condoleeza Rice sat on the board of Chevron for many years), it is perhaps unsurprising that another name connected to the White House has joined the company. However, given the recent revelations about the extent to which those at the seat of power had authorised torture techniques, it is quite surprising to learn who this man is, a certain William Haynes II.

Haynes was general counsel to the Pentagon from 2001 until February this year. As general counsel, Haynes was heavily involved in crafting legal policies that led to the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. So involved was Haynes, that he is currently under investigation by the Senate for his role at the Pentagon during this period. Perhaps his most important contribution to the Bush terror regime, was a memo relating to a further memo that claimed that torture conducted overseas is not covered by federal law. Consequently, Haynes and his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, used this memo to justify harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. In short, Haynes was a crucial component of the Bush presidency who was particularly close to both Bush and Dick Cheney. In fact, he was such an ally to Bush, he even volunteered to make calls on Bush's behalf when Bush was up for election in 2000.

Haynes' role as chief corporate counsel could have serious repercussions for Chevron's ongoing battle in Ecuador relating to a charge of environmental damage. The damage is such that Richard Cabrera, a geologist appointed by the court, set a minimum of $7 billion in damages to remediate damage. He also added a maximum figure of $16 billion which would include penalties for "unjust enrichment." Of course, Chevron dismissed the findings out of hand and have attempted to have the report struck from the case claiming it is "flawed and patently partisan". Furthermore, there have been numerous accusations about Chevron's conduct during investigations, particularly regarding the efforts of Cabrera.

During the course of the investigations, Chevron has been accused of "engaging in a pattern of vicious,defamatory and unethical attacks" . These attacks include full page advertisements accusing Cabrera of being a criminal, stalking him whilst he was completing his fieldwork and filing a separate motion with another court to have him removed from the case. In fact, the harassment became so grave, that the trial judge 'ordered security agents to keep Chevron representatives away from Cabrera so he could complete his field work without interference or fear of intimidation'. Furthermore, although there is no proof that Chevron were responsible, Cabrera's office was broken into and a laptop containing files relating to the case went missing. Undoubtedly, there have been real concerted efforts to de-rail this case by Chevron. The efforts they have gone to underline quite how damaging this court case could be if they are ordered to pay damages to the people of Ecuador.

Chevron have already shown how far they prepared to push the boundaries of the law in Ecuador in order to protect their interests in the country. With the addition of Haynes to the team, there is no doubt that Chevron seem set to explore new methods to achieve their aims. If Chevron are willing to appoint a man who is partially responsible for gross human rights abuses in the name of national interest, one wonders just how far they are prepared to go in defending corporate interest. One can be sure that both Chevron, and Haynes, are preparing to take this battle to another level - a level that could have serious consequences for those seeking justice in Ecuador.


Further Information: ChevronToxico: Clean Up Ecuador Campaign

Court's Verdict Regarding BAE

A summary of the court's verdict has been published online (hat-tip UK Liberty). In conclusion it states:

Conclusion

170. The claimants succeed on the ground that the Director and Government failed to recognise that the rule of law required the decision to discontinue to be reached as an exercise of independent judgment, in pursuance of the power conferred by statute. To preserve the integrity and independence of that judgment demanded resistance to the pressure exerted by means of a specific threat. That threat was intended to prevent the Director from pursuing the course of investigation he had chosen to adopt. It achieved its purpose.

171. The court has a responsibility to secure the rule of law. The Director was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat. He has failed to do so. He submitted too readily because he, like the executive, concentrated on the effects which were feared should the threat be carried out and not on how the threat might be resisted. 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. We shall hear further argument as to the nature of such intervention. But we intervene in fulfilment of our responsibility to protect the independence of the Director and of our criminal justice system from threat. On 11 December 2006, the Prime Minister said that this was the clearest case for intervention in the public interest he had seen. We agree.

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.

Exxon should settle Venezuela dispute

Taken from today's Guardian:

On February 7 an English court granted an injunction to US multinational oil company ExxonMobil freezing the assets of the Venezuelan oil firm PDVSA in England and Wales. The order covered assets to the value of $12bn. The Venezuelan government was given no notice of the case nor any opportunity to be represented at the hearing. This week PDVSA will appeal against the decision in the high court.

ExxonMobil's action was in response to the policy of the Venezuelan government to take back majority control of its own oil resources. Unlike other international oil companies - 30 out of 32 contracts have been renegotiated, with amicable agreements and compensation terms reached with the Venezuelan government - ExxonMobil refused the terms offered.

We believe the court ruling contravenes the right of Venezuela's democratically elected government to exercise sovereignty over its natural resources. The nationalisation of the state oil company has allowed Venezuela to tackle a range of social inequalities, by taking back the oil wealth and redistributing it to benefit the Venezuelan people.

We urge the amicable settlement of this dispute through arbitration under the auspices of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, a body of the World Bank, as sought by the Venezuelan government.

Diane Abbott M.P, Tony Benn, John Pilger, Bruce Kent, Prunella Scales, Caroline Lucas MEP, Gordon Hutchison, Secretary, Venezuela Information Centre (VIC), Brian Wilson, Chair, Scottish Venezuela Society, Ann Pettifor, Director, Advocacy International, Neil Lawson, Compass, Graeme Smith, General Secretary, STUC, Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary, UNISON, Ken Loach, Colin Burgon M.P, Jon Cruddas M.P, Mike Hancock M.P, Adam Price M.P., Angus MacNeil M.P., Richard Harvey, David Hillman, Jon Trickett M.P, Jeremy Corbyn M.P, Victoria Brittain, Graham Goddard, Deputy General Secretary, UNITE Billy Hayes, General Secretary CWU, Rodney Bickerstaffe, Sue Branford, Chair, War on Want, Richard Gott, Doug Nicholls, National Secretary CYWU/UNITE, Derek Wall, Green Party, Cllr. Salma Yaqoob, Hazel Marsh, University of East Anglia, Andy Bain, President TSSA, Maggie Bowden, General Secretary, Liberation, Ruqayyah Collector, Black Students Officer, NUS, Marie Daley, UCU National Executive Committee, Michael Derham, Northumbria University, Bill Greenshields, Vice-President NUT, Chris Kitchen, General Secretary NUM, Matt Wrack, General Secretary FBU, Dr Mandy Turner, University of Bradford, Dr Kaveh Moussavi, University of Oxford, Paul Laverty, Gerry Doherty, General Secretary TSSA, Baljeet Ghale, President NUT (personal capacity), Joe Marino, General Secretary, BFAWU, Doreen Massey, Open University, Martin McIvor, Editor, Renewal, Gerry Morrissey, General Secreary, BECTU, Linda Newman, President UCU, Diana Raby, University of Liverpool, Mick Shaw, President, FBU

British Government Sought to Protect Relationship with Israel

This from The Guardian:

The full extent of government anxiety about the state of British-Israel relations can be exposed for the first time today in a secret document seen by the Guardian.

The document reveals how the Foreign Office successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial, now discredited Iraq weapons dossier. At the heart of it was nervousness at the top of government about any mention of Israel's nuclear arsenal in an official paper accusing Iraq of flouting the UN's authority on weapons of mass destruction.

The dossier was made public this week, but the Foreign Office succeeded before a tribunal in having the handwritten mention of Israel kept secret.

The FO never argued that the information would damage national security. The Guardian has seen the full text and a witness statement from a senior Foreign Office official, who argued behind closed doors that any public mention of the candid reference would seriously damage UK/Israeli relations. In the statement, he reveals that in the past five years there have been 10 substantial incidents and 20 more minor ones relating to Israeli concerns about attitudes to their government within Whitehall.

The Information Tribunal, which adjudicates on disputes involving the Freedom of Information Act, agreed to remove the single reference to Israel when it ordered the release of the draft of the Iraqi weapons dossier written by John Williams, the FO's chief information officer at the time.

Along with unfavourable references to the US and Japan, the reference to Israel was written in the margin by someone commenting on the opening paragraph of the Williams draft. It was written against the claim that "no other country [apart from Iraq] has flouted the United Nations' authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction".

This comes on the back of the 'revelation' that the UK government put the interests of the US government before the interests of UK citizens, the failure of Scotland Yard to arrest an alleged war criminal and the ongoing BAE scandal. All of this begs the question, when are we going to stop allowing other countries to dictate to us? When are we going to stick two fingers up to the Saudis, the Americans and the Israelis and determine out own course of action? When are we going to stop being controlled by the interests of others? I for one won't be holding my breath.

Lotfi Raissi - A Warning

From the BBC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what do we learn from this:

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

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

How to Create A Martyr.....

Step 1:

The Pentagon has announced charges against six Guantanamo Bay prisoners over their alleged involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.

Prosecutors will seek the death penalty for the six, who include alleged plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Yeah, cos that'll really put an end to terrorism won't it?

Rowan Williams, Sharia Law and a Storm in a Teacup

Predictably there has been a media storm over Rowan Williams' comments regarding Sharia law and the UK legal system. The word 'Sharia' has far too many connotations for it to be used in a rational, sensible debate. Thanks in no small part to the tabloid press, Sharia has become overtly linked to hand chopping, beheadings and stonings. Of course, the reality is that this isn't necessarily the case. The practices in Saudi Arabia, for example, are more to do with the despotic regime and its own particular interpretation of Sharia than Sharia law itself. Besides, this was not the point that Williams was actually trying to make. He actually made reference to civil practices, rather than the medieval criminal justice that is handed down in some Islamic countries.

What Williams was actually suggesting was that elements of Sharia should be acceptable under UK law. He argued that UK law should always take precedence in any legal dispute but, where Sharia and UK law are not directly in conflict, recourse to Sharia should be an acceptable alternative for the Muslim population. This would, for example, allow Sharia Law Councils to deal with divorce and other civil disputes and the outcomes would be recognised by English law. There is no real revolutionary concept behind this. There is no real threat to 'our way of life', whatever that might mean. Jewish citizens of the UK already have such a system in place where they can refer to a recognised court for civil actions via the Beth Din. It is surely possible to having a working comparable for those of Islamic faith.

Perhaps the oddests side of this whole debate has been the typical reaction from the reactionary right. They have been very quick to rubbish Williams and his arguments whilst demonstrating a compete ignorance of his arguments. Just this morning I saw two laughable attempts by a pair of jokers on this morning's Big Question (I know, shite programme, shouldn't expect anything less). This morning, both Kelvin McKenzie and Douglas Murray (I believe the collective word for such people is cunts) spewed utter vile straight to camera. Both of them used particularly hilarious attempts at attacking Williams and the concept of Sharia. What makes there arguments particularly amusing is the methods by which they attacke Sharia. Suddenly, out of the blue, McKenzie has become concerned with equal gender rights and human rights abuses. Suddenly, he is concerned with how women are treated and how criminals are punished. Laugh?? I nearly coughed up my internal organs. This is a man who presided over The Sun for fuck's sake, he didn't seem to bothered about gender equality back then did he?? Not to mention is repeated calls to 'string up' various criminals. What a joke this man really is. Furthermore, he claimed that if Christians were living in an Islamic country, they would have to live by Islamic law and deal with the consequences. Wrong. As Jason Burke points out in today's Observer:

Elsewhere accommodations have been found, often based on original settlements by colonial powers. So in India, which does not have a state religion, 140 million Muslims, like other communities, have retained their own civil laws governing marriages, divorces, deaths, births and inheritance. In overwhelmingly Muslim majority Egypt, religious minorities are governed under separate personal status laws and courts. The Coptic Christian minority in the country marry under Christian law and foreigners marry under the laws of their countries of origin.

Yes, in an Islamic country Christians can marry under Christian law. They are not forced to accept Islamic law as the be all and end all. As for Douglas 'Smug Arse' Murray, he came out with a real pearl. Apparently, elements of Sharia should not be permitted as we shouldn't accept laws that originate from a 'fictional book'. Whilst I agree that this should not be the case, aren't our current laws based on Christian law and therefore derive from a 'fictional book'??? Oh sorry Douggie, did that just shoot down your pathetic argument??

Ooops, I went off on a bit of a tangent then. Anyway, whatever McKenzie, Murray and the other neo-fascist conservatives argue is entirely irrelevant. This was not the argument that was set out. The argument revolved around civil disputes and the best way of handling them, not some ridiculous artificial argument about stonings and mutations. We already have some acceptance of Islamic modes of living within the UK, particularly in regard to halal meat and Sharia-compliant mortgages. Personally, I am opposed to religion having any role within the law whatsoever. However, it seems absurd that Muslims cannot have the same rights bestowed upon them as with other religions. If two Muslims (with emphasis on the two - both have to want it) wish to deal with their personal disputes with a Sharia court, let them. I really couldn't care less. If it is good enough for Jews it is good enough for Muslims. As long as English law is primary (and the likelihood of some interpretations of Sharia ever being recognised is slim to say the least - not least because it would lead to our withdrawal from the EU), there is no problem. Rowan Williams' only fault is in believing that the public were ready for a mature debate on the issues. With the press firmly anti anything Islamic, the chances of a rational debate where zero. Particularly when shits like Murray and McKenzie continue to draw breath.

Incidentally, there was a fascinating article in The Guardian a while back regarding a Sharia Law Council operating in the UK. It proved quite enlightening on what the system actually means in practice. I would heartily recommend reading it here.

You can also read the .pdf file of the speech given by Williams here.

Oh yes, apologies for the McKenzie/Murray rant. I had a belly full this morning what with Amanda Platell, Kelvin McKenzie and Douglas Murray all on BBC1 within 60mins. That is more than one person can handle without public warnings by the BBC beforehand.

Total - We're The Good Guys.....Honest Guv' - Part II

They really are, aren't they?

PARIS (AP) — A Paris court convicted French oil giant Total SA on Wednesday over the 1999 sinking of an aging and rusting tanker in rough seas, which caused France's worst-ever oil spill.

The court found Total guilty of maritime pollution and fined it the maximum penalty of $560,000. It also ordered Total and three other defendants to pay total damages of $285 million — the first time in France that a criminal court has awarded damages for an oil spill.

The court acquitted Total on a separate charge of complicity in endangering people and property.

The Erika, carrying fuel oil owned by a unit of Total, split in two and sank in rough seas off western France on Dec. 12, 1999. Nearly six million gallons of oil leaked into the Atlantic, killing up to 75,000 birds and blackening beaches.

The verdict was a stinging blow for Total, France's biggest company by market value. The Paris court faulted the company for "carelessness."

"It's a decision that surely will be popular and praised a lot," said Total lawyer Daniel Soulez-Lariviere, who said he would urge the company to appeal. "On the other hand, we have to see if it is just."

Popular? Mmmm, you think?

Judith Regan, Rudy Giuliani and the Death of Fox?

Well, there is hope anyway. Things could just about to be getting interesting for Fox News in the US. This from The New York Times:

Ms. Regan filed a $100 million lawsuit against her former employer, claiming she was unjustly made a scapegoat for the O. J. Simpson “If I Did It” fiasco that (briefly) embarrassed Mr. Murdoch and his News Corporation. But for those of us not caught up in the Simpson circus, what’s most riveting about the suit are two at best tangential sentences in its 70 pages: “In fact, a senior executive in the News Corporation organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani’s presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik.”

Yes, let that last sentence roll around your head. A Fox executive advised her to lie to investigators. And it gets more intriguing:

Who at the News Corporation supposedly asked Ms. Regan to lie to protect Rudy’s secrets? Her complaint does not say. But thanks to the political journal The Hotline, we do know that as of the summer Mr. Giuliani had received more air time from Fox News than any other G.O.P. candidate, much of it on the high-rated “Hannity & Colmes.” That show’s co-host, Sean Hannity, appeared at a Giuliani campaign fund-raiser this year.

Clearly Fox News had it in their interest to protect Giuliani and seemed intent on breaking the law in order to do so. Typically, the Murdoch owned media have closed ranks:

Fox News coverage of Ms. Regan’s lawsuit last week was minimal. After all, Mr. Giuliani dismissed the whole episode as “a gossip column story,” and we know Fox would never stoop so low as to trade in gossip. The coverage was scarcely more intense at The Wall Street Journal, whose print edition included no mention of the suit’s reference to that “senior executive” at the News Corporation. (After bloggers noticed, the article was amended online.) The Journal is not quite yet a Murdoch property, but its editorial board has had its own show on Fox News since 2006.

So, whilst Giuliani trades on his 'heroic' role in the events of 11/9, Murdoch's empire is apparently prepared to break the law to ensure he is protected from any attacks. Such allegations, if proven, could hit right at the heart of the Fox News network and expose it as the lying, deceitful, law breaking extremist fringe that it truly is. For that, we must all be grateful.

Douglas Murray Supports State Sponsored Execution

The man who is a close second to Andrew Roberts for the title of 'Man Most Deserving of a Good Beating' was on his usual top form on Question Time tonight (MOA: Wading Through The Wingnut Bollocks So You Don't Have To - and worrying my doctor with my rising blood pressure). Mr Murray (who, by the way, has taken to addressing the audience as 'ladies and gentleman' at the end of every statement like some foaming mouthed, rabid ring master in some twisted circus of hatred) did his utmost to defend the police, and particularly Ian Blair, against some terribly awful accusations (cos they need defending after all).

During a debate on Ian 'The Executioner' Blair, one woman in the audience described the De Menezes shooting as a 'crime', Murray shouted her down and claimed that such an accusation was ludicrous. Yes, according to Murray, pinning down an innocent man and blasting seven bullets into his body is entirely proper and in no way illegal. Such brave men fighting the 'War on Abstract Nouns', how dare the public question their right to blow the shit out of anything that moves?

Ladies and Gentleman (do you see what I did there?), I give you:

Douglas Murray:

The Man Who Wants The Police To Blow The Shit Out Of Anyone That Looks Slightly Foreign and May, In Some Way (Possibly), Be A Terrorist Because The Police Know What Is Best For All Of Us.

Thank you very much and goodnight.

The Madrid Bombing Verdict and the Disdain of the Establishment

The establishment have really had it in for the Spanish ever since their apparent 'craven' surrender to the terrorists after the Madrid bombings. That they are so dismissive of the Spanish for their bravery in standing up to their lying government and kicking them out, speaks volumes of the true nature of democracy in the West. I have written about this at length in the past (I was in the country at the time), but the judgement of the Spanish court yesterday brought all the old establishment disdain out into the public once more.

The Times (the chosen paper of the establishment) was, of course, at the forefront of the attacks on the Spanish legal system. One look at their piece told you all you needed to know:

191 dead, thousands of victims - but the ‘mastermind’ is cleared

The accused mastermind of Europe’s worst Islamist terrorist attack was cleared of all charges along with six others yesterday in a shock judgment that angered victims.

After hitting the reader with the initial 'What the f*&k opening', purely designed to make you spit out your breakfast with disgust upon reading it, it then adds:

Twenty-one others were convicted of playing a role in the 2004 Madrid train bombings, though many of them on much lesser charges than the prosecution had sought.

Oh, so 21 were convicted?? That's pretty impressive. We have hardly convicted anyone. But, before you digest that:

Family members of the 191 people killed and 1,800 injured expressed astonishment, branding the sentences as lenient and feeble, and vowing to appeal.

"Bloody judiciary. Full of softy liberals."

"Didn't it say something about 21 convictions?"

"Brrrr, yes, but......"

Pilar Manjón, who heads the largest association of victims, said: “I don’t like to see murderers walk free.” She lost her 20-year-old son when ten bombs packed into sports bags and detonated by mobile phone ripped through four commuter trains.

"There, you see? Murderers walking free. Bloody disgrace."

"Yes, but the 21 convictions??"

"21 what? You lefties are all the same. These murderers walk free and all you can keep banging on about is a trifling 21 convictions."

It's interesting how it works. First the set-up, guaranteed to shock all those bowler hatted types eating their cornflakes. Then the tiny piece of fact that drops the anger down a notch, which is then quickly forgotten as the apocalyptic rage is cranked up several notches with talk of murderers being let off and the poor families that were affected. In the first four paragraphs, three are clearly designed to make you rage, while the other one is hidden amongst the anger so that it is broadly ignored by the red-faced establishment stooges settling down to their daily fix. And just in case you fail to grasp the subtle subtext of the piece, it blazes across the headline:

191 dead, thousands of victims - but the ‘mastermind’ is cleared

Well, that's clear then.

Thankfully, The Guardian's leader (a paper that has been as guilty of defending the establishment line as other papers) puts the trial into its proper perspective:

Nevertheless Spain's experience challenges Britain to do these things better than it has done so far. Our systems may not be the same - and the Spanish police also had some lucky breaks in their post-Madrid investigations. But there are important parallels too. Spain has deep historic links with the Islamic world, as we do. Spain had built up a strong corpus of laws during the Eta terrorist years, just as we did during the IRA ones. Yet, with all the provisos, Spain has managed to secure lawful convictions under these pre-existing laws without either legislative hyperactivity or threatening to do away with essential liberties. Suspects in Spain are rarely held for more than a maximum of 10 days without charge, compared with Britain's already draconian 28 days, which Gordon Brown now wants to increase. There are many differences between our situations, but Britain needs to learn a Spanish lesson.

Now the Spanish system is not perfect (far from it), but they have certainly dealt with this situation in a far better way than we have. Perhaps that is what really sticks in the throat of the establishment. Here are a people who bravely marched on the streets of every town and city in Spain in the aftermath of a horrendous terrorist attack to show their unity and strength. A people who had the temerity to kick out a government that lied about the bombings in the days leading up to the election. A people who dared to utilise their democratic rights. Clearly such people are to be condemned. Democracy should work for the establishment, not against it, right?

Met Police Found Guilty Over de Menezes' Execution

Yes, the jury have found the Met Police guilty of a series of catastrophic errors which led to the execution of de Menezes. Despite their disgraceful attempts at smearing the name of an innocent man (as if anyone - other than the wackos - would think it was ok to execute him because he may/may not have taken cocaine), the police were fined £175,000 (a paltry sum given the circumstances) and condemned for failing in their duty to protect the public. And Ian Blair's position after this??

The prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said Sir Ian retained their “full confidence”.

What this full confidence is in is anyone's guess. Full confidence in ethnically cleansing large parts of London one suspects.

(h/t Ten Percent)

David Hicks - Nothing More Than A Political Pawn For John Howard

Hot on the heels of the announcement of John Howard's day of reckoning with the Australian electorate, comes news that is a stark reminder of the what this man stands for. You may remember the case of David Hicks (if not, here is a clip developed by my good friend RickB at Ten Percent) and the appalling treatment he suffered at the hands of the American and Australian governments. It transpires that, what a surprise, his eventual release into Australian custody was a political stunt aimed at securing Howard another election victory. From The Age:

Hicks had been held by the US at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002, a month after his capture in Afghanistan, where he fought with the Taliban.

The father of two was sentenced to nine months jail and, under a plea bargain, was transferred to Adelaide to serve the remainder of the sentence at Yatala, where he remains in solitary confinement.

He is due for release on December 30.

A report in Harper's magazine said it was Mr Cheney and Mr Howard who cut the deal to release Hicks from Guantanamo Bay.

Quoting a military officer, it said a military staffer was present when Mr Cheney interfered directly to secure the plea deal.

"He did it, apparently, as part of a deal cut with Howard," the officer was quoted as saying.

"I kept thinking: this is the sort of thing that used to go on behind the Iron Curtain, not in America.

"And then it struck me how much this entire process had disintegrated into a political charade."

Mr Hicks said if the report was true it was further evidence of how political his son's case had become.

"I've said all along that David's issue was political," Mr Hicks said.

"You're not allowed to go through a court of justice, you've got to be dealt with by politicians."

A political charade indeed. What makes it all the more laughable is that this blatant emulation of Soviet tactics is being carried out by a right-wing administration backed by a highly vocal gaggle of right-wing foot soldiers (not to mention so-called members of the 'left'). This process has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics.