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?

McClellan Sticks The Knife In

I guess he probably would do, but let's enjoy the moment shall we?

The White House reacted negatively today to scathing criticisms of President Bush and members of his inner circle that appear in a new memoir written by Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary who was forced out in 2006 after three tumultuous years.

In excerpts from the book, set to be published next week, Mr. McClellan writes that President Bush “convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,” and has engaged in “self-deception” to justify his political ends. He calls the decision to invade Iraq a “serious strategic blunder,” and says that the biggest mistake the Bush White House made was “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.”

But Dana Perino, the current White House press secretary, had harsh words for Mr. McClellan, calling the situation “sad” and suggesting that he mischaracterized his years in the West Wing to sell books.

“Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House,” she said. “For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew.”

She said that President Bush was told of some of the excerpts but would not be commenting on them because “he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers.” But Karl Rove, a principal target of many of Mr. McClellan’s charges and the former deputy chief of staff for President Bush, reacted immediately on Tuesday night. Speaking on Fox News, where he is now a commentator, Mr. Rove said Mr. McClellan was not even present at many of the meetings he describes and suggested that he was not writing truthfully.

"First of all, this doesn’t sound like Scott. It really doesn’t,” he said. “Not the Scott McClellan I’ve known for a long time. Second of all, it sounds like somebody else. It sounds like a left-wing blogger."

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Principle Vl

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

a) Crimes against peace:

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

b) War crimes:

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

c) Crimes against humanity:

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

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

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

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

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.

19th March, 5th Anniversary Of The Iraq Invasion- Blogswarm

This March 19th will be 5 years of the Iraq war. Consequently the prescient GodlessLiberalHomo has come up with a blogswarm and inveigled me into helping getting it going. Neither he nor I own this, we're just getting it going, this is everyone's who wants to participate. So you may have questions, what is a blogswarm?

This blogswarm will promote blog postings opposing the war in Iraq and calling for a full withdrawal of foreign occupying forces in Iraq. Five years of an illegal and catastrophic war is five years too many. On the March 19 anniversary of the conquest of Iraq by the Bush Administration, there needs to be a loud volume of voices countering the pro-war propaganda from far too many politicians and corporate media outlets.

Q. How do I become involved?

Go to the swarm homeblog march19-blogswarm.blogspot.com and- Post a comment with your blog's title and URL. If you join up by the fifth anniversary of mass actions against the war, February 15, 2008, you will be included in the listing of "Charter Blogs" displayed on the home blogs menu.

Q. Hey, how about some badges? I'm glad you asked-
You can just save them to your computer and post onto your blog linking to

http://march19-blogswarm.blogspot.com/

...if you wish. Making up your own badges/promotions is heartily encouraged, which leads to...

Q. How do I help promote the blogswarm to make it an enormous chorus of disapproval for the Iraq war ? Well for now the basic approach is the well worn spreading the word by commenting on blogs you frequent/know of, leaving information about the blogswarm and including a link to the homeblog http://march19-blogswarm.blogspot.com/ and emailing your friends/contacts.

Q. What is the point? Wars are bad, we should be doing less of them. It isn't rocket science. The blogswarm is not a replacement for other actions it is as well as anything else you might be doing. Around the 5th anniversary you can be sure the same people who lied us into this war will be unapologetically continuing their propaganda and unless we counter that there will be more conflict and more death. Specifically for Iraq it could mean a long term occupation that would most likely not end until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ground, that would mean an unending insurgency and counter insurgency which is the dirtiest most brutal kind of warfare there is. Quite apart from the fact that the invasion was an illegal war of aggression and it continues killing people on all sides and causing generational damage in all those involved, from homeless veterans to traumatised children.

Q. And on the day? Write something or several somethings relevant to the the Iraq war, raise a chorus of voices. Let's not be having to do this for the 10th anniversary. In fact this is an election year in the US, let's not let year 6 go by without withdrawals.

Q. This question and answer format is a bit overused, unoriginal and tedious isn't it? Quite possibly, just so long as you participate in countering the pro-war narrative, you really need to do nothing more than post about the Iraq war on/around the 19th March and notify http://march19-blogswarm.blogspot.com/ of it, so more people see your work and thoughts, ideas and passions are exchanged and shared. There are forces in the world who want war, people who rarely pay the price but often reap a profit, we can do better than let them run the Earth.

"Freedom of the press only applies to people who own printing presses. And now everyone with net access owns a printing press."

Blogswarm!

Spread the Word.

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?

Hillary Clinton - The Terrorist's Choice

Picked this up via The Guardian, who in turn spotted it at WorldNetDaily:

It's official: Terrorists endorse Hillary in '08

On the record, Mideast jihadi leaders say she's best hope for victory in Iraq

I rather think that Hillary will be almost as successful in recruiting so-called 'jihadis' as George W Bush. And he was phenomenal at it.

[Actually, WorldNetDaily is worth a peek, if only to see the madness within]

Bush - Child Killer

I was going to post on this yesterday, but I was otherwise engaged. From The Guardian:

George Bush yesterday used his presidential veto for only the fourth time in seven years to block legislation that would have given health insurance to millions of poor American children.

He announced his opposition to the expansion of an existing insurance programme last month. The exercise of his veto power yesterday isolates the White House on the most pressing domestic issue for many Americans, and puts Mr Bush in conflict with Congress, where there was widespread Republican support for the legislation.

The legislation would have extended health cover to 10 million poor children, and would have cost $60bn (£29.5bn) over the next five years. It had widespread support outside Congress, from state governors and even the health insurance industry.

The White House argued that the programme represented a stealth effort to bring in government health care, and would have extended coverage to middle class families as well as the poor. "This legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction," Mr Bush said yesterday. "Under this bill government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children."

Of course, there are far better things to spend tax payers money on, like the murder of thousands of people around the globe. From Colombia to Iraq to Afghanistan, Bush chooses to spend money on death rather than life. Maybe if just a fraction of military spending was re-directed to healthcare, thousands of people's lives might just be saved. But then I guess a fair, decent healthcare system in a capitalist world is beyond the reasoning of man.

Greenspan Claims Prime Motive For War in Iraq Was Oil

Not that that would be immediately apparent when you see the headline in The Times:

Fed veteran Alan Greenspan lambasts George W Bush on economy

Mmmm, who would have thought that the corporate media would take such a line? Anyway, despite their efforts to focus on the capitalist agenda rather than the humanitarian one, the real story is Greenspan's claims about the illegal invasion of Iraq. Greenspan, a self-confessed life-long Republican, claimed:

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Of course it was about oil. Only a few cranks seriously believe that it was about deposing a dictator. It was about oil, capitalism, money, empire building, authority, power and anything but humanitarian reasons. To claim it was anything else, is to be ignorant of the facts.

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.

Alastair Campbell Is A Big Fat Liar*

Interesting news from the latest edition of the New Statesman, news that barely seems to get a mention elsewhere. According to the New Statesman:

Alastair Campbell placed the September 2002 WMD dossier in the hands of the propaganda unit that later produced the plagiarised "dodgy dossier", the New Statesman can reveal.

According to the periodical, Conservative MP John Baron obtained the full text of a letter sent by the Cabinet office to the Hutton inquiry after it had been asked to hand over an early secret draft of the dossier. A previously censored four and a half lines of the letter reveals that Campbell placed the intelligence dossier in the hands of the Coalition Information Committee (CIC). The CIC is a propaganda unit set up by Campbell to promote UK involvement in US-led wars. Campbell has denied that the dossier existed on 9th September 2002.

The New Statesman concludes that:

The revelation that the dossier was from the outset in the ownership of Campbell’s propaganda unit is the final nail in the coffin of the government’s claims that it was produced by the JIC.

It is clear that the government misled both the Hutton inquiry and the Butler Review about the background of the dossier that formed the basis of Andrew Gilligan's accusations. Furthermore, it would appear that the early first draft of the dossier drawn up by John Williams, communications director at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, does not contain any reference to the infamous 45 minute claim that made the case for war. It would appear that, as Gilligan stated at the time, that the claim was inserted to 'sex-up' the dossier. Gilligan's report was, therefore, wholly accurate in its central assertion. An assertion that led to the government asserting its authority over the BBC in an unprecedented manner. An unprecedented event that was, nonetheless, supported by the very people who claim to be opposed to the ideology of the all-powerful state machine. Where were they when the state machine went into overdrive? Behind the lines of the government, where their natural loyalties lie. But, I digress.

After successfully utilising the FoI Act, Baron told the New Statesman:

“Britain went to war on a false premise, and this latest revelation underlines the fact that spin doctors were involved from the outset in the production of the dossier and the presentation of the case for war in Iraq – a war which, in its aftermath, is still costing British and Iraqi lives. I shall be asking further questions when parliament returns as to why the involvement of the CIC in the production of the dossier has been concealed.”

Perhaps it is time for the government to make an apology to the BBC, the British and Iraqi people and to finally admit that the premise on which our involvement was based, was nothing more than the invention of a vicious propagandist with blood on his hands. It comes to something when a Tory MP exposes this sordid truth.

*Allegedly

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.

Blackwater - A Mercenary Force in Iraq

Fascinating piece in today's Guardian about the use of private security contractors in Iraq. The article particularly focuses on Blackwater, a firm central to the growing privatisation of the military. Here are a few extracts:

Iraqi officials have consistently complained about the conduct of Blackwater and other contractors - and the legal barriers to their attempts to investigate or prosecute alleged wrongdoing. Four years into the occupation, there is absolutely no effective system of oversight or accountability governing contractors and their operations. They have not been subjected to military justice, and only two cases have ever reached US civilian courts, under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which covers some contractors working abroad. (One man was charged with stabbing a fellow contractor, in a case that has yet to go to trial, while the other was sentenced to three years for possession of child-pornography images on his computer at Abu Ghraib prison.) No matter what their acts in Iraq, contractors cannot be prosecuted in Iraqi courts, thanks to US-imposed edicts dating back to Paul Bremer's post-invasion Coalition Provisional Authority........

At home in America, Blackwater is facing at least two wrongful-death lawsuits, one stemming from the mob killings of four of its men in Falluja in March 2004, the other for a Blackwater plane crash in Afghanistan in November 2004, in which a number of US soldiers were killed. In both cases, families of the deceased charge that Blackwater's negligence led to the deaths. (Blackwater has argued that it cannot be sued and should enjoy the same immunity as the US military).......

Moreover, this revolution means the US no longer needs to rely on its own citizens and those of its nation-state allies to staff its wars, nor does it need to implement a draft, which would have made the Iraq war politically untenable. Just as importantly, perhaps, it reduces the figure of "official" casualties. In Iraq alone, more than 900 US contractors have been killed, with another 13,000 wounded. The majority of these are not American citizens and these numbers are not counted in the official death toll at a time when Americans are increasingly disturbed by their losses......

In the case of Iraq, what is particularly frightening is that the US and UK governments could give the public the false impression that the occupation was being scaled down, while in reality it was simply being privatised. Indeed, shortly after Tony Blair announced that he wanted to withdraw 1,600 soldiers from Basra, reports emerged that the British government was considering sending in private security companies to "fill the gap left behind".......

The use of such mercenary forces clearly raises questions about human rights and conflicts with various international agreements. How can it be acceptable to have a mercenary army that is not answerable to the same regulations as the regular army? The regular army can barely control themselves at times, how can anyone expect these mercenaries to operate to equal standards?

As well as taking the time to read this article on a part of the occupation that we rarely hear about, it is also worth taking the time to watch this clip by The Nation's Jeremy Scahill:

Brendan Nelson Lets The Cat Out of the Bag

Who? Nelson is Australia's Defence Minister. Here is what he had to say on Iraq on the wider Middle East:

In comments to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Nelson admitted that the supply of oil had influenced Australia's strategic planning in the region.

"Obviously the Middle East itself, not only Iraq but the entire region, is an important supplier of energy, oil in particular, to the rest of the world," he said.

"Australians and all of us need to think what would happen if there were a premature withdrawal from Iraq.

"It's in our interests, our security interests, to make sure that we leave the Middle East, and leave Iraq in particular, in a position of sustainable security." [BBC]

Oooops.

(h/t War Within a Breath)

British Officer Claims Iraq War Is 'Illegal' And 'Immoral'

I was going to post on this story a couple of days ago, but I was otherwise engaged. Medialens has posted a copy of a letter sent to the BBC's Mark Urban from an unnamed British Army Officer serving in Iraq. The email was in response to an email that Mark Urban sent to Medialens lampooning their view of America's role in Iraq. Urban claimed that:

“I do however think that your desire to force all of the elements in a woefully complex situation into a simple proposition such as, 'America's real objective is to smother all opposition so they can pinch the oil', to be a sorry form of fundamentalism.” (Email to Media Lens, May 31, 2007)

Now, far be it for me to throw around accusations of bias (I'll leave that to others of a certain persuasion), but it is a very interesting response by Urban. The reply from a serving army officer is even more interesting.

Dear Mr Urban,

I am a serving British Army officer with operational experience in a number of theatres. I am concerned regarding the effect of your recent reports from Baghdad. I have been forwarded the correspondence between yourself and David Edwards of medialens.org, and would like to highlight that it is not merely medialens users, who are concerned about embedded coverage with the US Army. The intentions and continuing effects of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq have been questioned by too few people in the mainstream media and political parties, primarily only the Guardian and Independent, and the Liberal Democrats, respectively.

There is a widespread, and well-sourced, belief based on both experience and evidence, in both the British military and academia, that the US is not "just in Iraq to keep the peace, regardless of what the troops on the ground believe. It is in Iraq to establish a client state amenable to the requirements of US realpolitik in a key, oil-rich region. To doubt this is to be ignorant of the motives that have guided US foreign policy in the post-war period* and a mountain of evidence since 2003." (quote from medialens)

That the invasion was 'illegal, immoral and unwinnable', and the 'greatest foreign policy blunder since Suez' - to paraphrase the Liberal Democrats - is the overwhelming feeling of many of my peers, and they speak of loathsome six-month tours, during which they led patrols with dread and fear, reluctantly providing target practice for insurgents, senselessly haemorrhaging casualties, and squandering soldiers' lives, as part of Bush's vain attempt to delay the inevitable Anglo-US rout until after the next US election. Given a free choice most of us would never have invaded Iraq, and certainly would have withdrawn long ago. Hopefully, Tony Blairs's handover to Gordon Brown will herald a change of policy, and rapid withdrawal, but skewed pro-US coverage inhibits proper public debate, and is deeply unhealthy; lethally-so to many of us deployed to Iraq.

The [inadvertent] dangers of bias of embedded journalism are well known and there is a risk that the 'official line' can be conflated with evidence and facts. Jon Snow graphically demonstrated the effect of this during the initial invasion of Iraq in his programme The True Face of War**. I am conscious that reporting independently, outside of the 'green zone' in Iraq is nigh on impossible, but I would merely request that the 'official line/White House propaganda' be handled with an appropriate degree of scepticism, and be caveated accordingly.

Thank you for your time,



* Pragmatic self-interest is not unusual in US foreign policy, seehttp://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-Military-Interventions-Since/dp/1567510523

** http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/774944: " ...the hidden face of the Iraq War, which includes killing of civilians by US troops, the beating up of journalists and through never-before-seen footage, the grim treatment of POWs. Jon Snow also reports on how the war was presented to British and American viewers and investigates the way in which the media was managed by the allies."

Even a serving British Officer calls it 'illegal' and 'immoral'. Shame a few armchair critics fail to realise this reality.