It is just a matter of time

Malaysia's ex-PM Mahathir wants Iraq war leaders on war crimes charges

LONDON (AFP) — Former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad has called for an international tribunal to try Western leaders with war crimes over the war in Iraq, a spokesman for the organisers said.

In a speech at Imperial College, London, Mahathir called for a tribunal to try US President George W. Bush plus former prime ministers Tony Blair of Britain and John Howard of Australia for their part in the conflict, said a spokesman for the Muslim group the Ramadhan Foundation, which set up the event.

Spokesman Mohammed Shafiq told AFP that Mahathir, who was in office from 1981 to 2003, wants to see the trio tried "in absence for war crimes committed in Iraq.

"It was a opportunity for students to put a range of questions about war crimes and the international situation.

"He said that people have to stop killing each other and use arbitration, negotiation and discussion as an alternative to violence, war and killing."

On the war in Iraq, Mahathir spoke about "the thousands dying, the economic war, the power of oil and how we could utilise some of these tools to have a leverage against the people who commit countries to war," Shafiq said.

He purposely did not speak about or answer questions from students on the political situation in Malaysia, said Shafiq.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is facing growing demands to quit, following an unprecedented electoral setback in March.

More than 450 people attended the speech and about 200 more had to be turned away.

Mahathir was in Cuba earlier this week to take part in the first International Conference of the Cuban Centre for Studies on Defence Information.

The Ramadhan Foundation is a leading British Muslim youth organisation working for peaceful co-existence and dialogue between communities.

Original article posted here.

Clear and direct documentary of the fraudulent 7/7 British "terrorism"

David Kelly: The crumbling wall of silence

Iraq whistleblower Dr Kelly WAS murdered to silence him, says MP By FIONA BARTON - More by this author » Last updated at 00:18am on 20th October 2007

Weapons expert Dr David Kelly was assassinated, an MP claims today.

Campaigning politician Norman Baker believes Dr Kelly, who exposed the Government's "sexed-up" Iraq dossier, was killed to stop him making further revelations about the lies that took Britain to war.

He says the murderers may have been anti-Saddam Iraqis, and suggests the crime was covered up by elements within the British establishment to prevent a diplomatic crisis.

Scroll down for more ...

'Murdered': Weapons' expert David Kelly

Read more...

• Why I know weapons expert Dr David Kelly was murdered, by the MP who spent a year investigating his death

The LibDem MP, who gave up his front bench post to carry out his year-long investigation, makes his claims in a book serialised exclusively in the Daily Mail today and next week.

The official Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr Kelly ruled in 2004 that he slashed one of his wrists with a garden knife and took an overdose after being "outed" as the mole who revealed the flawed argument for invading Iraq.

But Norman Baker is convinced the scientist was murdered.

He says he was told by a secret informant that British police knew about the plot but failed to act in time and that the death was later made to look like a suicide to prevent political and diplomatic turmoil.

The highly-respected MP's personal quest to uncover the truth about Dr Kelly's death was prompted by deep concerns over the circumstances surrounding the apparent suicide.

He - and a group of eminent doctors - were greatly troubled by the evidence presented to Lord Hutton.

They claimed medical evidence proved that the alleged method of suicide - the cutting of the ulnar artery in the wrist and an overdose of co-proxamol painkillers - could not have caused the scientist's death.

Mr Baker said: "The more I examined [Lord Hutton's verdict], the more it became clear to me that Hutton's judgment was faulty and suspect in virtually all important respects."

His findings are today revealed in the first extract from his book The Strange Death of David Kelly. In it, he claims:

• No fingerprints were found on the gardening knife allegedly used by the scientist to cut one of his wrists;

• Only one other person in the whole of the British Isles committed suicide in the same way as the scientist allegedly did in 2003;

• There was an astonishing lack of blood at the scene despite death being officially recorded as due to a severed artery;

• The level of painkillers found in Dr Kelly's stomach was "less than a third" of a normal fatal overdose.

The Lewes MP also suggests that the knife and packs of painkillers found beside Dr Kelly's body were taken from his home in Southmoor, Oxfordshire, during a police search after his death and later planted at the scene.

He tells in his book how he was contacted by "informants" during his "journey into the unknown".

One is alleged to have told him Dr Kelly's death had been "a wet operation, a wet disposal".

Mr Baker explains: "Essentially, it seems to refer to an assassination, perhaps carried out in a hurry."

Another secret contact told him that a group of UK-based Iraqis had "named people who claimed involvement in Dr Kelly's death".

The informant was later the victim of "an horrific attack by an unknown assailant".

The MP, who has repeatedly called for the police to re-open the case, alleges that the scientist had "powerful enemies" because of his work on biological weapons. A colleague of Dr Kelly, Dick Spertzel, America's most senior biological weapons inspector, confirmed to Mr Baker that the scientist was "on an Iraqi hit list".

Mr Baker alleges that opponents of Saddam Hussein feared Dr Kelly would "discredit" them by revealing "misinformation" they had deliberately planted to bolster the case for Britain and America's intervention in Iraq.

The MP claims Kelly's integrity might have "signed his own death warrant".

The book also alleges that British police "had got wind of a possible plan to assassinate Dr Kelly but were too late to prevent his murder taking place".

The MP suggests that the police may have tried to make the killing appear to be a suicide "in the interests of Queen and country" and to prevent any destabilisation of the sensitive relationship between the Allies and Iraq.

Mr Baker adds: "It is all too easy to dismiss so-called conspiracy theories. But history shows us that conspiracies do happen - and that suicide can be staged to cover murderers' tracks.

"All the evidence leads me to believe that this is what happened in the case of Dr Kelly."

Original article posted here.

At the ranch

International Relations as Cult of Personalities. When UK tries to exert a mere shard of sovreignty, Moron turns towards French Poodle and Rottweiler

Britain 'no longer closest Bush ally'

By Toby Harnden in Washington

The White House no longer views Britain as its most loyal ally in Europe since Gordon Brown took office and is instead increasingly turning towards France and Germany, according to Bush administration sources.

Audio: Why Brown is no longer Bush's best friend Brown accused over Iraq pullout 'stunt' Toby Harnden: Gordon Brown's break with the White House "There's concern about Brown," a senior White House foreign policy official told The Daily Telegraph. "But this is compensated by the fact that Paris and Berlin are much less of a headache. The need to hinge everything on London as the guarantor of European security has gone." Nicolas Sarkozy is seen by many as the man Bush can best do business with in Europe With Tony Blair departed, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is seen by many as the man George W Bush can best do business with in Europe. Although Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has not lived up to initial expectations in Washington, she is still seen as far preferable to her predecessor Gerhard Schröder. The White House official added that Britain would always be "the cornerstone" of US policy towards Europe but there was "a lot of unhappiness" about how British forces had performed in Basra and an acceptance that Mr Brown would pull the remaining 4,500 troops out of Iraq next year. Speedy Sarkozy named and shamed Britain has become a 'permissive' environment for terrorists Analyisis: Brown's numbers game in Iraq "Operationally, British forces have performed poorly in Basra," said the official. "Maybe it's best that they leave. Now we will have a clear field in southern Iraq." Another White House official described Mr Brown as "challenging" and far less close to the US than Mr Blair. There has been a notable reduction in contact between Downing Street and the White House since Mr Blair left and US officials have remarked on how few British ministers have visited Washington in recent months. Mr Brown and Mr Bush are understood to have spoken twice by telephone in three months since they met at Camp David in June, whereas Mr Blair and Mr Bush held video-link conferences, often weekly. Kurt Volker, a senior State Department official with responsibility for Europe, disagreed with the White House official's view, arguing that the British withdrawal to the airport in Basra was a "tactical" decision and that the predicted chaos "hasn't happened". He told The Daily Telegraph that Mr Brown had shown "a lot more steadiness than maybe people expected" and while his style had been very different from that of Tony Blair there had been "a lot of consistency" over policy. But Mr Volker emphasised that "things are changing in Europe" and paid tribute to Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, both for visiting Iraq and for warning over Iran that the world had to "prepare for the worst and the worst is war". "Kouchner's comments were very helpful because what he is indicating is that this is serious. It's not just a matter of playing out diplomacy forever with no result. It's got to provide a result." Privately, White House aides accept that Mr Brown would not support military action against Iran. There is also disquiet about what US officials view as double dealing by special advisers briefing an anti-White House message in London and a more favourable one in Washington. "That sort of manoeuvring is not appreciated," said one diplomatic source. The wariness about Mr Brown could open doors to the Conservative Party. Owen Paterson, the shadow Northern Ireland secretary, recently met several key White House officials, including Barry Jackson, who recently took over many of Karl Rove's duties as a policy adviser to Mr Bush. A British diplomatic source said: "In the White House there's a sense of enormous change from Blair. They used to be on the phone to Blair all the time and that's no longer the case because Brown clearly wants to be the unBlair. "At the Pentagon, there's a feeling that Britain is letting the side down on Iraq. The new best friend is Sarkozy and that means Brown taking a step back doesn't matter as much. In White House eyes, Sarkozy is taking up the slack from Blair. "When things get tough, however, they're likely to turn to Britain again." Original article posted here.

War and Propaganda

Blair and Murdoch spoke days before Iraq war

Tony Blair spoke to the media mogul Rupert Murdoch three times in the 10 days before the outbreak of the Iraq war - once on the eve of the US-led invasion - it was disclosed yesterday.

The telephone conversations were among six calls between the two men detailed by the cabinet office in response to a freedom of information request by the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury.

The information was released the day after Mr Blair handed over power to Gordon Brown last month, following a three and a half year battle by the Lib Dem peer. Lord Avebury waited until yesterday to publicise the information.

No details were given of what subjects Mr Blair and the News Corporation chairman discussed in the calls on March 11, 13 and 19 2003, ahead of the launch of US-led military action in Iraq on March 20.

Lord Avebury said: "Rupert Murdoch has exerted his influence behind the scenes on a range of policies on which he is known to have strong views, including the regulation of broadcasting and the Iraq war. The public can now scrutinise the timing of his contacts with the former prime minister, to see whether they can be linked to events in the outside world."

Further conversations between Mr Blair and Mr Murdoch took place on January 29, April 25 and October 3 2004. The cabinet office response also listed meetings between Mr Blair and the Express Newspapers publisher, Richard Desmond, on January 29 and September 3 2003 and February 23 2004.

The release covered the prime minister's phone calls and meetings with the two men between September 2002 and April 2005.

Lord Avebury initially asked for the dates of Mr Blair's phone calls and meetings with Mr Murdoch and Mr Desmond in October 2003. When this request was rebuffed by the then leader of the Lords, Baroness Amos, he made a complaint under freedom of information legislation.

In 2005, Downing Street said the information was exempt from disclosure because of the need for the prime minister to be able to undertake free and frank discussions.

The cabinet office said that releasing the timing of the PM's contacts with individuals could be prejudicial to the effective conduct of public affairs because it might lead to the content of the discussions being disclosed.

The argument for secrecy was backed in a July 2006 ruling by the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, who said that the timing of any calls need only be disclosed if they were official contacts, with civil servants taking minutes.

The peer lodged an appeal last August with the information tribunal. On June 28 this year, a day before evidence was due to be served on the parties to the case, the cabinet office announced that it would release the information.

Lord Avebury said: "One hopes that the timing of the government's decision to capitulate indicates that under Gordon Brown's leadership, freedom of information will be made a reality."

Original article posted here.

A match made in the mind of a Moron

The New Bush-Blair Vanity Play

By Robert Parry

Upon learning that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair would become a new envoy intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a former senior Israeli intelligence official confided to an old colleague a two-word comment in English: “It’s nuts.” One can only imagine what the Palestinians said in private.

Rarely in recent history have a man and an assignment matched up as poorly as this one: an officious and deceitful Brit who collaborated on a disastrous scheme to invade an Arab country and who is blamed for the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, now intervenes in another Arab land to get the Palestinians to shape up.

At least, the Palestinians and Israelis have been assured, Blair won’t be in charge of negotiating a peace settlement. That daunting assignment will be left to President George W. Bush and his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, two other widely despised figures in the Middle East.

Blair’s duties will be limited to shoring up Palestinian institutions, funneling international assistance to embattled Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and promoting Palestinian economic development, Bush administration officials have said.

Still, one has to wonder who comes up with these ideas. Is this envoy assignment just the latest Bush-Blair vanity play in the Middle East, treating a strategically vital region as a toy for their egos and a source of patronage plums for their cronies? Or are Bush and Blair really so self-absorbed that they think they’re the right guys for these sensitive jobs?

The notion that the detested Blair can help bail out Abbas is a risky gamble, too. Already, Abbas’s Fatah organization is viewed by many Palestinians as a corrupt tool of the West, an assessment that led to Fatah’s defeat at the polls in 2006 and to its military rout by Hamas in Gaza over the past month.

Now, Blair and Bush are endangering what little political credibility Abbas has left by embracing him and using Western money to bolster him, a strategy that could backfire and drive more Palestinians into the Hamas camp.

Though more extreme politically, Hamas is regarded by many Palestinians both as less corrupt than Fatah and less accommodating to Israel and Western powers. Fairly or not, many Arabs view Israel as a vestige of Western colonial rule and a reminder of the longstanding economic plunder of their lands.

Even before the Iraq War, the British were among the most hated Westerners because of their direct hand in administering Arab lands and manipulating local politics. With his unctuous style, Tony Blair has come to personify much of what infuriates the Arabs about the West.

As the new envoy, Blair is sure to blend his delivery of economic assistance to Fatah with his trademark lectures against Islamic extremism. As much blood as he has on his own hands, he will feel compelled to issue righteous denunciations of terrorism, guaranteeing more fury – and likely more radicalism – among Muslims sickened by Western hypocrisy.

Wedge Politics

The new Bush-Blair strategy on Palestine envisions driving a wedge between the two Palestinian factions. Western aid will pour into the West Bank, where Fatah still rules, while the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip and its one million residents will be squeezed into submission through collective punishment.

The goal is to isolate – and possibly destroy – Hamas and force the Palestinian people to line up behind Fatah.

Beyond the human costs, the danger of this Bush-Blair strategy is that it will confirm suspicions that Abbas and other Fatah leaders are bought-and-paid-for traitors to the Palestinian cause. That, in turn, could stoke more Islamic extremism, not tamp it down.

An alternative strategy would have been to promote Palestinian unity, even if that meant tolerating the democratically chosen Hamas leaders, as a prerequisite for improving the desperate lot of the Palestinians and paving the way for compromise on all sides. But that is never the way of Bush or Blair when it comes to dealing with Arabs.

The Blair appointment also has caused division within the so-called Quartet – the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia – the group supposedly spearheading negotiations to resolve the long-festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Russian officials reportedly opposed Blair’s selection and some EU officials felt blindsided by the quick decision, giving Blair a new high-profile portfolio the day after he stepped down as British prime minister.

Blair’s new assignment in the Middle East also comes as he formally converts to Catholicism after three decades of living as a closet Catholic, according to British press reports. Though Blair played down his strong religious feelings while in office, he now is acknowledging his intense Christianity.

Given the painful history between Islam and Catholicism dating back more than 1,000 years to the Crusades, Blair’s religious decision could prove problematic as well. Some international political observers believe that Christian zealotry may help explain the readiness of both Bush and Blair to intervene militarily in Muslim nations despite the heavy loss of civilian lives.

Shortly after al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attacks, Bush dubbed his planned counter-strikes in the Muslim world a new “crusade,” a characterization that played poorly in the region.

As despair in the Middle East continues to spread, few observers expect that the Bush-Blair team, which has provoked so much animosity over Iraq, will do much to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The smart betting is that they will just make matters worse.

Original article posted here.

What the UK does NOT stand for

You, Europe, and your rights

The Government is blocking an EU charter which would protect these fundamental rights for British people. Why?

Eugenics

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

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

Expert opinion: "I would be totally opposed to any attempt to socially engineer people."

Ian Gibson, vice-president, Royal Society for Public Understanding of Science

Torture

No one should be subjected to torture. Article 4

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

Expert opinion: "It is all the more deplorable when some of the most powerful men on earth seek to justify the use of torture."

Moazzam Begg, a torture victim and former prisoner in Guantanamo Bay

Human trafficking

Trafficking in human beings is prohibited. Article 5

What's at stake: This year the UN said that human trafficking had reached epidemic proportions. The Home Office said that in 2003, 4,000 women were trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation

Expert opinion: "It is shameful that this country is trying to duck out of a charter that specifically prohibits child trafficking."

Louise Christian, human rights lawyer

Data protection

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

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

Expert opinion: "It's... a safeguard to protect the right of the individual in relation to the state."

Maurice Frankel, director, Campaign for Freedom of Information

Right to protest

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

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

Expert opinion: "Allowing dissent in the form of peaceful protest is the hallmark of a country that understands respect for human rights."

Kate Allen, Amnesty International UK director

Working rights

Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment... in any Member state. Article 15

What's at stake: The Conservatives' fear is that Poles and other east Europeans have taken up jobs and housing at British workers' expense

Expert opinion: "People who come to work in the UK are providing vital services which would collapse without them."

Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary

Deportation

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

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

Expert opinion: "In an effort to circumvent its obligations, the Government has secured 'memoranda of understanding' with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon."

Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty director

Industrial action

Workers have the right to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. Article 28

What's at stake: The right to strike has been restricted in the UK since the 1980s. There are rules about ballots andpicketing. None of these restrictions is mentioned in the charter

Expert opinion: "We back the right to strike, to negotiate, to fight against unfair dismissal."

John Monks, European TUC leader

Child exploitation

The employment of children is prohibited... except for limited derogations. Article 32

What's at stake: Could be a threat to family-run corner shops where children help out, or to the pocket money others earn from babysitting or paper rounds

Expert opinion: "To keep children safe, we must ensure parents and employers are clear about how and when children and young people can be employed."

NSPCC statement

Health care

Everyone has the right to preventative health care. Article 35

What's at stake: Earlier this month, The Independent highlighted a new pill that could help hay fever sufferers, which the NHS will not prescribe because of cost. Critics say this clause could open the NHS to litigation

Expert opinion: "This article would not give much backing to any patient who took on the NHS."

Dr Evan Harris, member Medical Ethics Committee

Original article posted here.

Recycling failures-First touted as possible World Bank Prez, possible EU Prez and now Middle East Czar. Can't they just these losers go home in peace?

Tony Blair as Middle East czar

By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Reports that US President George W Bush has asked outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to act as a special envoy for Middle East peace are adding to speculation that Washington plans to intensify peace efforts between Israel and the Palestinians, despite last week's takeover of Gaza by Hamas.

But whether those peace efforts will include Hamas, as well as Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose control over the Palestinian territories has been reduced to the West Bank, remains doubtful, as both Bush and Blair have been the most resistant to engaging Hamas until it recognizes Israel and renounces the use of violence.

Blair would serve as the special envoy for the Quartet, which consists of the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States.

If the reports prove true and Blair accepts the post, the move is likely to mark a victory by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over more hawkish forces within the administration led by Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

The latter have repeatedly frustrated her efforts to press Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to bolster Abbas by dismantling illegal Jewish settlements and to ease travel restrictions on Palestinians.

While White House and State Department spokespeople, as well as the Prime Minister's Office in London, declined to confirm that Blair has been asked to take over the envoy post, they did little to dampen the speculation, which followed talks in Washington on Tuesday between Bush and Olmert.

"Obviously, Prime Minister Blair has been very active and deeply involved in Middle East peace issues throughout his prime ministership," Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, told reporters. "It would not surprise me if [Bush and Blair] have talked about what Prime Minister Blair would like to do following the end of his term ... but we don't have anything to announce today."

Nonetheless, the disclosure that Rice's top Middle East aide, David Welch, as well as Washington's ambassador in Tel Aviv, Richard Jones, had also met with Blair in London this week suggested that the reports were serious. The UN's former special envoy to the region, Terje Roed-Larsen, was also reportedly in the British capital to talk with Blair.

Olmert's spokeswoman, Miri Eisin, said his office is "aware of this idea" and that her boss is "very supportive of Prime Minister Blair and of his continuing involvement in the Middle East and the peace process".

The reports come just four days before the fourth anniversary of Bush's endorsement of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Until last week's events in Gaza, where Hamas routed security forces controlled by its secular rival, Fatah, the White House had planned to mark the anniversary by having Bush make a major policy address on the Middle East designed to boost Rice's efforts to offer a "political horizon" to the Palestinians.

Hamas' takeover of Gaza had reportedly placed those plans in doubt. But an announcement by Bush that Blair had agreed to act as chief envoy for the Quartet would provide the kind of renewed impetus for peace talks between Olmert and Abbas that Rice has been looking for.

Rice was also encouraged when, in the wake of Hamas' victory in Gaza, Abbas dissolved the Hamas-led government of national unity and appointed a new emergency government headed by a Washington favorite, former finance minister Salam Fayyad.

"We are going to support President Abbas and what he wants to do," she said on Monday, when she also announced that Washington would immediately send US$86 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) that had been suspended after Hamas won parliamentary elections in January 2006 and formed a government soon after.

By most accounts, Rice hopes to implement a "West Bank First" strategy designed to bolster Abbas and his Fatah party by pouring in aid, persuading Olmert to follow through on previous pledges to ease travel restrictions and release Palestinian prisoners, and resuming peace talks that would provide Palestinians with a "political horizon" for their own state.

During his visit to Washington, Olmert indicated his support for the strategy and said he is prepared to release hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinians but which was frozen after Hamas took power.

The strategy is based on the assumption that a more prosperous and more hopeful West Bank run by Abbas and Fayyad will diminish popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, including in an already impoverished Gaza that, under Hamas rule, will receive only humanitarian assistance.

Blair, who has frequently urged Bush to take a more assertive role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but has opposed any engagement with Hamas, is also believed to be in agreement with this approach. But numerous regional experts have expressed strong skepticism in recent days about both the strategy and the assumptions on which it is based.

While this approach may have worked after Abbas' election to the PA presidency two years ago, according to a Washington Post column by two former Middle East negotiators, Robert Malley and Aaron Miller, "Today, Abbas is challenged by far more Palestinians and is far less capable of securing a consensus on any important decision."

Moreover, "For him to accept funds that can be spent only [in] the West Bank, or international dealings that exclude Gaza, would critically undercut his position as a symbol of the Palestinian nation," they noted, adding that the strategy underestimates Hamas' influence in the West Bank itself.

In addition, according to Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator currently based at the New America Foundation in Washington, excluding Hamas, particularly from peace talks, will encourage it to act as a spoiler.

"If Israel only works with Fatah," he told public television on Tuesday, "you incentivize Hamas to undermine that through violence, [and] then very quickly Israel will lose its appetite [for further concessions] ... and that's unlikely to work."

Levy, Malley and Miller argue for a major revision in Washington's approach that would encourage a new power-sharing arrangement between Hamas and Fatah to restore unity to the Palestinians and at least an indirect engagement by the US and other Western countries with Hamas to bolster moderate elements within it and achieve the consensus needed for Abbas to negotiate a two-state solution.

Neo-conservatives, whose views are closer to those of Abrams and Cheney's chief Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, say the latest events should result, if anything, in a hardening of US policy, if not the abandonment of a two-state solution altogether.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Michael Oren of the Likudist Shalem Center in Jerusalem argued for a "new paradigm" in which "areas of extensive Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank" would be established, while security would be jointly administered by Israel and Jordan.

Original article posted here.

Britain fighting for paper rights, legal fictions and symbolic rhetoric. Nice.

Germany sets collision course with UK on rights


Ian Traynor in Brussels

Germany threw down the gauntlet to Britain yesterday over one of the issues that will dominate a crucial EU summit starting today in Brussels. Addressing one of Tony Blair's "red line" subjects, the Germans made clear they want the so-called charter of fundamental rights to be legally enforceable as part of a new deal on how Europe is run.

The charter is a comprehensive catalogue of human, civil and social rights agreed by the EU in 2000 but never enforced. Though it will not be at the heart of any new treaty, the German government, chairing the summit, said it should still be referred to as "legally binding".

Both Mr Blair and Gordon Brown are flatly opposed to the charter becoming European law, and thus enforceable by the European court of justice.

"It's a proposal from the [German EU] presidency and it does indeed contain a proposal to make the charter legally binding," said a senior Berlin government official closely involved in planning the summit and drafting the new treaty. The case for the charter was overwhelmingly supported by the rest of the EU, he added. "Some see that as a concession because they want it in the treaty. They absolutely insist on the legally binding charter."

The charter enshrines everything from the right to strike to the right to preventative medical treatment. EU trade unionists demonstrated in Brussels in support of it yesterday, but it is strongly opposed by Britain's business leaders and the government has said it will not tolerate any European interference in the UK's social and labour law.

The charter formed chapter two of the proposed European constitution that died two years ago after France and the Netherlands voted against it.

Signalling a possible way out of the impasse, however, the German official also acknowledged that Britain's common law system made the UK a special case in the EU, and indicated that the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, could negotiate terms exempting the UK from the charter's application. A senior commission official said: "The Germans have told the UK that opt-outs can be organised."

The constitution was officially buried on Tuesday night in Brussels when Mrs Merkel's team tabled a mandate for a new reform treaty which seeks to salvage much of the constitution, minus its symbolic and solemn trappings. "We need to mutilate the constitution in order to save it," said another senior German official.

German officials hope that, if consensus can be reached, the treaty will be accepted at the summit scheduled for today and tomorrow, but which is expected to run into Saturday. EU government officials would then meet for a couple of months in the autumn to dot the i's and cross the t's in the new treaty.

The new pact would reshape the way the EU is run by giving it a full-time president, a European foreign policy supremo, a slimmed down commission, and a new "double majority" voting system based on a country's population size, which will raise Germany's clout relative to other members for the first time.

The latter change is seen as the biggest threat to a summit triumph for Mrs Merkel because Poland, wary of German domination, is demanding to reopen the issue of voting weights.

Other British sore points include the role and powers of a European foreign minister (who would be called something else), and the surrender of Britain's veto on criminal justice and home affairs.

British officials admit that reaction to Downing Street's demands among other EU states this week has been "vituperative". But diplomats in Brussels yesterday characterised the German proposals as a shrewd piece of drafting that appeared to leave enough flexibility to secure a deal at the high-stakes summit.

Original article posted here.

Blair: Well, I just couldn't pass up such a bad idea . . .

Blair knew US had no post-war plan for Iraq

Tony Blair agreed to commit British troops to battle in Iraq in the full knowledge that Washington had failed to make adequate preparations for the postwar reconstruction of the country.

In a devastating account of the chaotic preparations for the war, which comes as Blair enters his final full week in Downing Street, key No 10 aides and friends of Blair have revealed the Prime Minister repeatedly and unsuccessfully raised his concerns with the White House.

He also agreed to commit troops to the conflict even though President George Bush had personally said Britain could help 'some other way'.

The disclosures, in a two-part Channel 4 documentary about Blair's decade in Downing Street, will raise questions about Blair's public assurances at the time of the war in 2003 that he was satisfied with the post-war planning. In one of the most significant interviews in the programme, Peter Mandelson says that the Prime Minister knew the preparations were inadequate but said he was powerless to do more.

'Obviously more attention should have been paid to what happened after, to the planning and what we would do once Saddam had been toppled,' Mandelson tells The Observer's chief political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley, who presents the documentary.

'But I remember him saying at the time: "Look, you know, I can't do everything. That's chiefly America's responsibility, not ours."' Mandelson then criticises his friend: 'Well, I'm afraid that, as we now see, wasn't good enough.'.

Opponents of the war, who have long claimed that the Pentagon planned a short, sharp offensive to overthrow Saddam Hussein with little thought of the consequences, claimed last night that the programme vindicated their criticisms. Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, told The Observer: 'These frank admissions that the Prime Minister was aware of the inadequacies of the preparations for post-conflict Iraq are a devastating indictment.'

Blair's most senior foreign affairs adviser at the time of the war makes clear that Blair was 'exercised' on the exact issue raised by the war's opponents. Sir David Manning, now Britain's ambassador to Washington, says: 'It's hard to know exactly what happened over the post-war planning. I can only say that I remember the PM raising this many months before the war began. He was very exercised about it.'

Manning reveals that Blair was so concerned that he sent him to Washington in March 2002, a full year before the invasion. Manning recalls: 'The difficulties the Prime Minister had in mind were particularly, how difficult was this operation going to be? If they did decide to intervene, what would it be like on the ground? How would you do it? What would the reaction be if you did it, what would happen on the morning after?

'All these issues needed to be thrashed out. It wasn't to say that they weren't thinking about them, but I didn't see the evidence at that stage that these things had been thoroughly rehearsed and thoroughly thought through.'

On his return to London, Manning wrote a highly-critical secret memo to Blair. 'I think there is a real risk that the [Bush] administration underestimates the difficulties,' it said. 'They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.'

Within a year Britain lost any hope of a proper reconstruction in Iraq when post-war planning was handed to the Pentagon at the beginning of 2003.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's envoy to the postwar administration in Baghdad, confirms that Blair was in despair. 'There were moments of throwing his hands in the air: "What can we do?" He was tearing his hair over some of the deficiencies.' The failure to prepare meant that Iraq quickly fell apart. Greenstock adds: 'I just felt it was slipping away from us really, from the beginning. There was no security force controlling the streets. There was no police force to speak of.'

The revelation that Blair was 'exercised' in private will raise questions about his public assurances. The former Labour leader, Neil Kinnock, told the programme he was given a personal assurance by Blair that he was satisfied by the preparations. 'I said to Tony, are you certain?' Kinnock told the programme. 'And when he said: "I'm sure," that was a good enough reassurance.'

Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, confirms that the President offered Blair a way out. Bush told Blair: 'Perhaps there's some other way that Britain can be involved.' Blair replied: 'No, I'm with you.'

Original article posted here.

The attempted occupation of Europe (fucking up one country's reputation and military apparently not good enough)

Report: Sarkozy wants Blair as European Union president

LONDON: Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair is being proposed as the European Union's first full-time president by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a British newspaper reported Saturday. Blair's office said he did not want the job.

The Financial Times said Sarkozy had discussed the idea with other European leaders before next week's EU summit in Brussels. It will be Blair's last summit as British leader; he steps down June 27.

The prime minister's office said Blair was not seeking the EU job.

"The prime minister has made it clear that he is not going to return to front-line politics," a spokeswoman said on the government's customary condition of anonymity.

In Brussels, EU spokesman Mark Gray said that as far as he knew there has "never been a discussion" about a Blair candidacy.

The EU is considering establishing a permanent presidency to replace the current system, in which the post rotates among the 27 member states.

The president would have few formal powers, but would give the EU strategic leadership and represent it on the world stage.

Original article posted here.

Putin continues to be unafraid of the West, the West on the other hand . . .

West 'fearful' of Russia, says exasperated Blair

Patrick Wintour, political editor

Tony Blair admitted differences with Russia would remain unresolved for a long time after one hour of very frank but wholly fruitless talks with President Vladimir Putin at the close of the G8 summit in the Baltics yesterday.

An exasperated Mr Blair admitted: "There are real issues here that are not going to be resolved any time soon". He warned the west was "worried and fearful" at the political direction of Russia.

The talks, ranged over western missile defence systems, the use of Russian energy as a diplomatic weapon, threats to Ukraine, and the refusal to accept British calls for the extradition of a former KGB spy for the murder Alexander Litvinenko.

The discussions came at the end of Mr Blair's 11th and last G8 summit with many of the world's leaders expressing their regret at his departure. Mr Blair refused to become nostalgic insisting he has been too busy to reflect on his departure.

At the meeting with Mr Putin, Mr Blair is understood to have raised the case of BP and Shell's multi-billion pound investments. Both claim the Russians have torn up contracts that would have given them access to key oil fields.

Six years ago Mr Blair and Mr Putin were on course to form one of the great bilateral alliances, but the relationship has ended in icy contempt. They did not even shake hands at the start of their meeting.

The discussions had been billed by the prime minister's spokesman as a conversation, rather than a showdown. But Mr Blair described the talks as very frank. "President Putin set out his belief that Russia is not being treated properly by the west and its allies. I set out our view that people are becoming worried and fearful about what is happening in Russia. It was a perfectly frank discussion, but what will come of it is another matter."

Although Britain has been warning that investment in Russia will start to decline unless President Putin recommits himself to democracy, the Russians point to growing investment and profits for the west.

The prime minister's spokesman countered: "The conversation was an honest assessment of the damage being done to UK-Russian relations. It is not one issue, but it just all adds up."

Britain like Nato is sceptical of a Russian offer to stage a missile defence system in the former Soviet Republic of oil rich Azerbaijan. Nato officials said the country was too close to Iran. Mr Putin countered that the missile interceptors could be placed in Turkey, Iraq or at sea. The US says Iran is the main target of its plan to install 10 anti-missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic.

The discussions were held against a backdrop of a row between Russia and the rest of the G8 over Kosovo, the province that Mr Blair played a key role in helping to liberate from Serbia in his first term in office. Russia has repeatedly threatened to use its veto at the UN security council to block plans to grant full independence for Kosovo from Serbia, one of Russia's spheres of influence.

The French president Nicolas Sarkozy proposed delaying independence for six months to give Serbia and Kosovo further time to resolve their differences, but only on the understanding from Russians that Kosovan independence would come.

Mr Sarkozy said: "We cannot have a delay to let Belgrade and Pristina hold talks unless all the actors, notably the Russians, consider that the independence of Kosovo is an inevitable outcome."

The German chancellor Angela Merkel said she did not support delaying a decision on Kosovo whose Albanian population have pushing for a UN vote on independence. "There's no point in waiting for the sake of it," she said.

The Kosovan prime minister Agim Ceku said: "I want to say this to the international community: we have trusted you to bring clarity. We have committed to the UN path and we have been very patient. I urge you, do not betray this trust."

The final hours of the summit also saw a renewed push on a need for a conclusion to the global trade round which has been stalled for the past year. Mr Blair said: "We are very close. We are talking about a few percentage points and a few billion dollars. It hangs in the balance and the next couple of weeks will be vital."

Original article posted here.

Another Decade in Empires: Cronies, Colonies, Weapons and Bribes

BAE accused of secretly paying £1bn to Saudi prince ·

Money moved via US bank
· £30m payments a quarter
· Sanctioned by MoD

David Leigh and Rob Evans
Thursday June 7, 2007
The Guardian

Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

The arms company BAE secretly paid Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia more than £1bn in connection with Britain's biggest ever weapons contract, it is alleged today.

A series of payments from the British firm was allegedly channelled through a US bank in Washington to an account controlled by one of the most colourful members of the Saudi ruling clan, who spent 20 years as their ambassador in the US.

It is claimed that payments of £30m were paid to Prince Bandar every quarter for at least 10 years.

It is alleged by insider legal sources that the money was paid to Prince Bandar with the knowledge and authorisation of Ministry of Defence officials under the Blair government and its predecessors. For more than 20 years, ministers have claimed they knew nothing of secret commissions, which were outlawed by Britain in 2002.

An inquiry by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into the transactions behind the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal, which was signed in 1985, is understood to have uncovered details of the payments to Prince Bandar.

But the investigation was halted last December by the SFO after a review by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

He said it was in Britain's national interest to halt the investigation, and that there was little prospect of achieving convictions.

Tony Blair said he took "full responsibility" for the decision.

However, according to those familiar with the discussions at the time, Lord Goldsmith had warned colleagues that British "government complicity" was in danger of being revealed unless the SFO's corruption inquiries were stopped.

The abandonment of the investigation provoked an outcry from anti-corruption campaigners, and led to the world's official bribery watchdog, the OECD, launching its own investigation.

The fresh allegations may also cause BAE problems in America, where corrupt payments to foreign politicians have been outlawed since 1977.

The allegations of payments to Prince Bandar is bound to ignite fresh controversy over the original deal and the aborted SFO investigation.

The Saudi diplomat is known to have played a key role with Mrs Thatcher in setting up Britain's biggest ever series of weapons deals.

For more than 20 years Al-Yamamah, Arabic for "dove", has involved the sale of 120 Tornado aircraft, Hawk warplanes and other military equipment.

According to legal sources familiar with the records, BAE Systems made cash transfers to Prince Bandar every three months for 10 years or more.

BAE drew the money from a confidential account held at the Bank of England that had been set up to facilitate the Al-Yamamah deal. Up to £2bn a year was deposited in the accounts as part of a complex arrangement allowing Saudi oil to be sold in return for shipments of Tornado aircraft and other arms.

Both BAE and the government's arms sales department, the Defence Export Services Organisation (Deso), allegedly had drawing rights on the funds, which were held in a special Ministry of Defence account run by the government banker, the paymaster general.

Those close to Deso say regular payments were drawn down by BAE and despatched to Prince Bandar's account at Riggs bank in Washington DC.

Under the terms of a previously unknown MoD instruction from the department's permanent secretary, Sir Frank Cooper, the payment deal would have required Deso authorisation.

The money was not characterised as commission, but as quasi-official fees for marketing services. The payments are alleged to have continued for at least 10 years and beyond 2002, when Britain outlawed corrupt payments to overseas officials.

SFO investigators led by assistant director Helen Garlick first stumbled on the alleged payments, according to legal sources, when they unearthed highly classified documents at the MoD during their three-year investigation.

Before the investigation was abandoned, the SFO interviewed Alan Garwood, head of Deso. Sources close to the arms sales unit say that he and Stephen Pollard, the commercial director of the Saudi project, were questioned about the reasons for authorising the payments.

Prince Bandar, currently head of the country's national security council, was asked about the alleged payments by the Guardian this week.

He did not respond.

BAE Systems also would not explain the alleged payments. The company said: "Your approach is in common with that of the least responsible elements of the media - that is to assume BAE Systems' guilt in complete ignorance of the facts."

Its spokesman, John Neilson, added: "We have little doubt that among the reasons the attorney general considered the case was doomed was the fact that we acted in accordance with ... the relevant contracts, with the approval of the government of Saudi Arabia, together with, where relevant, that of the UK MoD."

The attorney general's office would not discuss claims about Lord Goldsmith's concerns of "government complicity" in the payments.

A spokesman said the SFO inquiry had been halted because of the "real and serious threat to national security".

"There were major legal difficulties ... given BAE's claim that the payments were made in accordance with the agreed contractual arrangements". The spokesman added: "None of this is altered by the Guardian story."

The MoD, where minister Paul Drayson runs Britain's government arms sales unit, also refused to elaborate.

"The MoD is unable to respond to the points made ... since to do so would involve disclosing confidential information about Al-Yamamah, and that would cause the damage that ending the investigation was designed to prevent," a spokesman said.

The Liberal Democrat deputy leader, Vince Cable, called for an urgent inquiry into the new disclosures last night.

"This is potentially more significant and damaging than anything previously revealed. It is unforgivable if the British government has been actively conniving in under-the-counter payments to a major figure in the Saudi government.

"There must be a full parliamentary inquiry into whether the government has deceived the public and undermined the anti-corruption legislation which it itself passed through parliament."

He added: "It increasingly looks as if the motives behind the decision to pull the SFO inquiry were less to do with UK national interests but more to do with the personal interests of one of two powerful Saudi ministers ... Tony Blair's claims that the government has been motivated by national security considerations look increasingly hollow."

Last month, Dr Cable raised the issue of BAE in the Commons and accused Prince Bandar of benefiting personally from the Al-Yamamah deal.

The new disclosures may also make BAE's attempted takeover of the US-based Armor Holdings more difficult. The deal requires approval from US regulators.

Separately, the state department has protested to the Foreign Office about the ending of the SFO inquiry, saying it undermines global efforts to stamp out corruption by exporters.

Story of a £43bn deal

1985 Al-Yamamah agreement signed by Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan and the then defence secretary Michael Heseltine. Saudis agree to buy 72 Tornado and 30 Hawk warplanes. The deal - "the dove" in Arabic - will in time be worth £43bn to BAE

1989 National Audit Office (NAO) starts inquiry into allegations that members of Saudi royal family and middlemen were secretly paid huge bribes to land Al-Yamamah contract

1992 MPs and auditor general Sir John Bourn suppress NAO report after government claims it would upset Saudis. Report never published

2001 Whistleblower alleges BAE operates "slush fund" to keep sweet the Saudi prince in charge of country's air force, but MoD covers up allegations

2004 Second whistleblower discloses to Guardian further details of slush fund. Serious Fraud Office starts investigation into alleged BAE corruption

2006 Government halts SFO inquiry; investigators were about to gain access to Swiss accounts thought to have been linked to Saudi royal family

2007 OECD, the world's anti-bribery watchdog, rebukes Blair government for terminating SFO investigation, and launches own inquiry

Original article posted here.

A peacemaker identifies warmongers

Gorbachev criticises US 'empire'

Mr Gorbachev said relations between Blair and Putin had started well Gorbachev interview

The former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, has blamed the US for the current state of relations between Russia and the West.

In a BBC interview, Mr Gorbachev said that the Russians were ready to be constructive, but America was trying to squeeze them out of global diplomacy.

He added that the Iraq War had undermined Tony Blair's credibility.

Mr Gorbachev accused America of "empire-building", which he said the UK should have warned it away from.

'New empire'

Moscow and the West have been in dispute over Iraq, America's plans for a missile defence system and civil rights within Russia itself.

Britain's extradition request for a Russian man in connection with the murder of ex-agent Alexander Litvinenko has also caused tension.

In an interview with Radio Four's The World This Weekend, Mr Gorbachev said relations between Russia and the West were in a bad state.

"Well, it's worse than I expected," he said through a translator.

"We lost 15 years after the end of the Cold War, but the West I think and particularly the United States, our American friends, were dizzy with their success, with the success of their game that they were playing, a new empire.

"I don't understand why you, the British, did not tell them, 'Don't think about empire, we know about empires, we know that all empires break up in the end, so why start again to create a new mess.'"

He added that the war with Iraq had damaged Britain's relationship with Russia after a promising start.

"Tony Blair and Putin established a very good relationship and that made it possible to advance our relationship," he said.

"But then Iraq happened and Tony found himself in the embrace of that military monster, of that war situation, and he lost a lot of his credibility in the world and in Europe."

Original article posted here.

Crimes, crimes and more crimes. But will there ever be any justice?

International Law Aspects of the Iraq War
and Occupation

This section examines the legality of the 2003 US-UK war on Iraq. Shortly before the outbreak of hostilities, UN Secretary General stated that the use of force without Council endorsement would "not be in conformity with the Charter" and many legal experts now describe the US-UK attack as an act of aggression, violating international law. Experts also point to illegalities in the US conduct of the war and violations of the Geneva Conventions by the US-UK of their responsibilities as an occupying power. The section also looks at wartime violations on the Iraqi side.

---

Back to: Main Iraq Index

---

Also see GPF's Pages on: Torture and Prison Abuse in Iraq | Siege Tactics and Attacks on Population Centers | Atrocities and Criminal Homicides
Occupation and Rule | Resistance to the Occupation | UN Role

---

2006 | 2005 | Archive

British Attorney General's Advice to Blair on Legality of Iraq War (March 7, 2003)
In his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith describes regime change in Iraq as a disproportionate response to Saddam Hussein's alleged failure to disarm, illegal in the eyes of international law. Goldsmith stresses that in terms of legality, "regime change cannot be the objective of military action."

2007

The Legacy of Fallujah (April 4, 2007)
During the sieges of Fallujah in 2004, the US used chemical weapons such as white phosphorus and a napalm derivative, causing indiscriminate harm and unnecessary suffering in the civilian population. Although the use of those weapons is banned under several international treaties and the Geneva Conventions, no government or the United Nations has condemned such acts and these crimes remain unpunished. Three years after the sieges, the population of Fallujah continues to face innumerable hazards, living with daily attacks and factional violence and having no access to clean water or health care. (Guardian)

Iraq Says British Raid Was a Violation (April 6, 2007)
British troops raided the National Iraqi Intelligence Agency in Basra, claiming the act aimed to capture a death squad leader and that they found 30 prisoners with signs of torture. However, the Iraqi government condemned the raid, saying it violated Iraqi sovereignty in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1546. According to a report by the Iraqi government, the British forces violated the orders of an Iraqi judge by arresting prisoners already in Iraqi custody and were negligent in allowing several prisoners to escape during the raid. (Associated Press)

Spanish Judge Calls for Architects of Iraq Invasion to Be Tried for War Crimes (March 27, 2007)
One of Spain’s leading judges on war crimes and terrorism-related cases, Baltasar Garzon, ranks the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq among “the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history.” The judge criticizes US President George W. Bush and his allies, including British and Spanish Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar, who supported the attack “despite having doubts and biased information.” Garzon’s condemnation of the leaders reflects growing disenchantment worldwide with the Iraq catastrophe. (World Socialist Web Site)

Four Years into the Occupation: No Health for Iraq (March 21, 2007)
This BRusssells Tribunal article points out that the conditions of Iraq’s health system are deteriorating. According to the Iraq Medical Association, 90 percent of hospitals in Iraq lack essential equipment and 18,000 of 34,000 physicians left the country. Further, the report of the NGO Coordinating Committee in Iraq revealed that military forces occupied Mosul Hospital and ambulances have been attacked on a regularly basis in Najaf, Fallujah and other parts of Anbar province. US forces have been also intruding into hospitals daily and Iraqis have refrained from using hospitals for fear of being shot. The US occupation of Iraq has resulted in a massive public health disaster for Iraqis.

Armed Groups Occupy Hospitals and Kidnap Doctors (February 13, 2007)
A growing number of Iraqis have been refraining from using hospitals due to fear of being shot or arrested by insurgent groups and official forces. US troops intrude into hospitals on a daily basis, placing or looking for snipers on the roof and arresting doctors. According to an Iraqi doctor, “whatever we say they arrest us and treat us, doctors, as if we are terrorists. They take us for interrogation and threaten us. So, in reality, we face danger from the insurgents as well as from the [official] troops.” This constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which state that hospitals are and should remain neutral and accessible to everybody, especially civilians. (Integrated Regional Information Networks)

2006

The Courts Are Starting To Accept That the War against Iraq Is A Crime (October 17, 2006)
A British domestic court has ruled that the damage caused to military planes and equipment by two anti-war protestors was not illegal because the defendants sought “to prevent specific war crimes from being committed” in Iraq, where the planes and munitions would ultimately end up. Furthermore, in a German court an army major has successfully argued that the US and the UK did not legally invade Iraq, therefore he broke no laws in refusing to obey a military order. The author concludes that such decisions set a precedent for the recognition of the Iraq war as an act of aggression, and therefore a war crime – of which the British government should be very wary. (Guardian)

Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor (August 25, 2006)
A prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, Benjamin Ferenccz, believes US President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq constitutes a “supreme international crime” capable of prosecution in an international court. Claiming that the atrocities of the Iraq war were “highly predictable," Ferenccz points to the UN Charter, which unequivocally states that no nation can use armed force without UN Security Council permission. He convincingly argues that, due to his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent acts of the US military, Bush should face charges for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. (OneWorld)

Iraqi Leaders Question US Troops' Immunity (July 6, 2006)
Iraqi leaders have called for a review of the US-implemented law that prevents prosecution of coalition forces in Iraqi courts. Following reports of several alleged atrocities by US troops against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said that immunity from prosecution encourages members of coalition forces to “commit such crimes in cold blood.” This Washington Post article concludes that challenges to the immunity order could widen a rift between US and Iraqi authorities.

UN Security Council Should Ensure Full Accountability for Multinational Force Abuses (June 14, 2006)
In a statement ahead of a Council meeting reviewing the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF), Amnesty International USA calls on the UN Security Council and the Iraqi government to hold to account “those who commit crimes under international law in Iraq, including members of the US-led MNF.” Amnesty demands that the Council not extend the immunity from legal proceedings for abuses by the MNF or their contractors and concludes that “the Iraqi criminal justice system should be able to exercise jurisdiction over any crime committed in Iraq.”

Iraq Tells UN it Wants Multinational Force to Stay (June 13, 2006)
Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari has formally notified the UN Security Council that it wants the US-led multinational force (MNF) to remain in place. Resolution 1637 said the Council would terminate the MNF’s mandate at the request of Iraq's government. The letter's release coincided with a five-hour visit to Baghdad by US President George W. Bush. (Reuters)

Letter from the Permanent Representative of Iraq to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council (June 9, 2006)
Iraqi Minister for Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari has requested that the Security Council extend the mandate of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq, due for review in June. In a letter addressed to the President of the Council, Zebari thanked the MNF for its assistance in “providing security and stability in Iraq.” Under Resolution 1637 (2005), the Council can terminate the force’s mandate at any time if Iraq’s government asks it to do so. In addition, Zebari welcomed the continuation of the current arrangements for the Development Fund for Iraq and the International Advisory and Monitoring Boards.

NGO Letter to the Security Council (May 19, 2006)
A group of 27 NGOs points out that the US-led Multinational Force (MNF) in Iraq has seriously violated international law, including bans on the use of torture, illegal detentions, siege tactics against population centers, and “indiscriminate and especially injurious” weapons. Furthermore, the MNF is responsible for failing to address patterns of corruption and mismanagement in Iraq’s development fund and reconstruction programs. Citing numerous official reports and legal texts, the letter urges Council members to “substantially reconsider, revise or terminate” the MNF’s mandate to bring it into conformity with international law. (Global Policy Forum)

A Safer Weapon, With Risks (May 18, 2006)
The US military has developed a laser weapon device for use in Iraq that temporarily blinds oncoming drivers approaching military checkpoints. The device, which can be attached to an M-4 rifle, was designed to allow soldiers to “dazzle” rather than fire at drivers who fail to stop. Though the military designed the device to reduce death and injury, human rights groups have criticized laser weapons, calling them cruel, unusual and illegal under Protocol IV of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. (Los Angeles Times)

NGO Letter to the Security Council on Iraq (March 14, 2006)
On the eve of the Security Council’s quarterly discussion on the situation in Iraq, a group of NGOs has written the Council to voice their concern. Several disturbing reports have been released by Secretary General Kofi Annan, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), and human rights organizations. These reports have highlighted significant violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, especially in the area of detention practices. In response, the NGOs ask the Council to break its pattern of pro forma review, “accept its responsibility” and “substantially review the mandate it has given to the MNF.”

Tortured Logic (February 28, 2006)
According to former US Army interrogator Anthony Lagouranis, mid- and low-level officials have shouldered all responsibility for prison abuse in Iraq, despite signals from high level officials justifying the use of torture. Interrogators routinely use dogs, hypothermia, and other “enhancements” while interrogating prisoners, despite clear violations of international law. Colonel Thomas Pappas, the top intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, admitted authorizing such techniques without regard for the Geneva Conventions. Though US President George Bush has signed legislation banning torture, he asserts the right to interpret the legislation "in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president" as justification for the continued use of torture. (New York Times)

Former UN Human Rights Chief in Iraq Says US Violating Geneva Conventions, Jailing Innocent Detainees (February 28, 2006)
In this interview, former United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) human rights chief John Pace discusses sectarian violence, US military operations, and the legality of the war. According to Pace, ongoing US military operations have led to widespread civilian displacement and destruction, and along with the rise in sectarian militias contribute most to instability in Iraq. Furthermore, US detentions violate the Geneva Conventions and as many as 90 percent of all Iraqi prisoners are innocent. “Normalization,” Pace says, cannot go forward in Iraq so long as the US military occupation remains. (Democracy Now!)

Ocampo Turns Down Iraq Case: Implications for the US (February 2006)
International Criminal Court Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo announced that his office will not investigate war crimes committed in Iraq by coalition forces. The Bush administration has staunchly opposed the ICC claiming it will “unfairly target” US military personnel. Ocampo’s decision gives evidence of the court's impartiality. (Citizens for Global Solutions)

Blair in Secret Plot with Bush to Dupe UN (January 29, 2006)
Leaked White House documents reveal that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush planned to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not they won UN approval. Though Blair has asserted that the final decision to invade was made only twenty-four hours before the war began, the leaked documents from a high-level meeting between Bush and Blair indicate that the decision was made before the Security Council discussed - but never adopted - a second resolution authorizing war against Iraq. (Mail on Sunday)

Accession through the Backdoor (January 2006)
When bullying fails, the US uses military force to further its trade agenda. On February 11, 2004, less than a year after the US invasion, Iraq was granted observer status at the World Trade Organization (WTO) while under the rule of Paul Bremer’s Coalition Provisional Authority. Though not yet a WTO member, Iraq has steadily progressed in the secretive process of WTO accession thanks to heavy US prodding. UK Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith has warned that structural economic reforms, as imposed by the US occupation and required for WTO membership, “would not be authorized under international law.” (Focus on the Global South)

Willy Peter (January 2006)
This article examines the US military’s use of white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon commonly known as “Willy Peter,” in the November 2004 attacks on Fallujah. Though white phosphorous munitions are banned under the 1980 Geneva Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons, the US has not signed the agreement and instead classifies white phosphorous as a “psychological” weapon. As ZMag points out, there is nothing psychological about a weapon that melts skin to the bone while damaging the nervous system and blocking the circulation of blood.

2005

Iraq and the Laws of War: US as Belligerent Occupant (December 22, 2005)
In this article, University of Illinois Law Professor Francis Boyle rigorously analyses the legal aspects of the US occupation of Iraq. On several counts, he concludes, the war is illegal. In addition to violating the customary international laws of war, as set forth by the 1907 Hague Convention, the Nuremburg Charter, and the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration has also repeatedly violated the US Army Field Manual in its conduct of the Iraq war. (CounterPunch)

UN Report: Coalition Forces in Iraq Hold 11,559 (November 14, 2005)
According to a United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) report covering the period of September 1 to October 31, both US- and Iraqi-led military forces have had a negative impact on human rights. The report criticizes US and Iraqi armed forces for arresting doctors and occupying medical facilities in Anbar province, in violation of international human rights law. To view the report, click here. (Associated Press)

UN Food Envoy Says Coalition Breaking Law in Iraq (October 14, 2005)
In a press statement on World Food Day, UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler accuses US and British forces of violating the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, Ziegler highlights the practice of cutting supplies of food and water to Iraqi civilians so as to encourage them to flee before major military attacks. The Geneva Conventions prohibit the deprivation of food and water as a weapon of war. Ziegler hopes the General Assembly will "condemn this strategy of the coalition forces" when he presents his report in New York on October 27, 2005. (Reuters)

The "Tribunal Movement" Holds Court in Istanbul (June 26, 2005)
The World Tribunal on Iraq, a project of the global antiwar movement, investigates “legal and moral culpability for documented crimes” committed by the US government in its war against Iraq. Despite critics’ accusations that the Tribunal is biased and unwarranted, this truthout article points out that it plays an important role in “filling in the gaps where governments and even the United Nations are unable and unwilling to act.”

Wilmshurst Resignation Letter (March 24, 2005)
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former Deputy Legal Advisor to the UK Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003 over the Iraq War. In her resignation letter, which the BBC website published in March 2005, she calls the joint US-UK invasion “unlawful” and “a crime of aggression” because the Security Council did not issue a resolution authorizing the use of force.

Original article posted here.

Warmonger and failed statesman Blair reaches out to little fascist and new US puppet Sarkozy

Tony's Legacy

Labour slumps to lowest poll rating since 1983

By Andrew Grice

Support for Labour has fallen to its lowest level since 1983 in the approach to next week's local elections, the latest monthly poll for The Independent shows.

CommunicateResearch puts the Conservatives on 36 per cent (up one point on last month's survey), Labour on 27 per cent (down four points), the Liberal Democrats on 22 per cent (up two points) and other parties on 15 per cent (up one point).

The poll was taken between Friday and Sunday and Labour's level of support may have been affected by damaging headlines over the cash-for-honours affair after the Metropolitan Police completed its 13-month inquiry and submitted its report to the CPS.

The figures suggest that Labour will suffer heavy losses in the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and English councils on Thursday week, giving Tony Blair a farewell kicking in his last contest as Labour leader.

Labour's support is the lowest in any opinion poll since 1983, the year in which it won 27 per cent at the 1983 general election under the leadership of Michael Foot.

Labour has lost ground among women in the past month, with support falling from 32 per cent to just 24 per cent. But it has the backing of 31 per cent of men. Support among those aged 18 to 24 has dropped from 39 per cent last month to 24 per cent.

Another worrying finding for Labour is that its natural supporters are less likely to vote for it than those of the two other main parties. CommunicateResearch found that the Tories continue most effectively to retain the loyalty of their natural supporters, with 90 per cent of those identifying themselves most closely with the party intending to vote for it. Eighty-one per cent of people who regard themselves as Liberal Democrats say they will back the party, while for Labour the figure is 80 per cent.

Although the Tories will be happy to be nine points ahead of Labour, they will be disappointed not to have benefited more from Labour's slump. The Tories' 36 per cent rating is still short of the 40 per cent they hope to achieve in the council elections in England to show they are on course for victory at the next general election.

The big two parties' declining share of the total vote is another feature of the poll. Among the other parties, 4 per cent of people support the Scottish National Party, which is ahead of Labour in Scotland and is on course on become the largest party in the Edinburgh Parliament. The Green Party is on 3 per cent, the British National Party is on 2 per cent, with the UK Independence Party and Plaid Cymru both on 1 per cent. Other parties scored 4 per cent.

Likelihood to vote among young people is dwindling. This month, only 17 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds said they were certain to vote, compared with 26 per cent last month. Thirty per cent in this age group say they are certain not to vote, twice as many as last month.

Original article posted here.

Along with Gonzales and Wolfowitz, another Neo Con corrupt warmonger involved in scandal clinging to a position he should have abandoned long ago

NOW BLAIR FACES HUMILIATION

TONY Blair is facing the prospect of quitting Downing Street in humiliation, as the cash-for-honours scandal threatens to reach a climax on the eve of his retirement.

Westminster sources predicted yesterday that any possible charges in the corruption investigation will come in June – widely expected to be the Prime Minister’s last full month in office.

Previously, Number 10 officials were counting on any potential prosecutions beginning long after Mr Blair had walked away from Downing Street.

Signs of the quickening pace of the Scotland Yard inquiry has led to panic, among Downing Street aides, that the Prime Minister’s exit will be overshadowed by the sleaze scandal.

Speculation that some of Mr Blair’s closest advisers could soon face criminal charges intensified after Scotland Yard sent a 216-page file on the case to the Crown Prosecution Service last Friday. Opposition MPs urged prosecutors to bring the 13-month investigation to a rapid conclusion.

It should not take long to bring this to a conclusion

David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: “They should get on with this. It should not take very long to bring it to a conclusion; what I do not want to see is a politically-driven timetable for those decisions.”

Mr Blair himself was understood to be “relaxed” about the outcome of the case.

Insiders suggest that the Prime Minister, twice questioned by police as a witness in the case, is completely cleared by the Yard report. And some critics suspect that he is increasingly resigned to leaving a political mess that his old rival Gordon Brown – the most likely successor – will be unable to clear up.

Speculation about possible charges in the cash-for-honours inquiry centred yesterday on the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, although he has not been arrested or charged with any offence. Allegations investigated are understood to relate to breaches of the 1925 Honours Act and an alleged conspiracy to block the inquiry.

The Yard dossier is also understood to deal with the roles of Mr Blair’s chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, and Head of Government Relations, Ruth Turner, who have both been arrested, with bio-technology boss and Labour donor Sir Christopher Evans. All have denied any wrongdoing.

In another twist in the scandal, a Labour document dating from soon after the 1997 election victory, but leaked yesterday, showed that Mr Blair’s aides were desperate to encourage wealthy donors to continue bankrolling Labour.

The document said major donors “need to be invited to Number 10... If this cannot take place then income levels may be affected”.

Controversy intensified yesterday as the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, again refused to step aside from any decision about prosecutions.

Critics claim that his Cabinet post conflicts with his duty to oversee the Crown Prosecution Service. Lord Goldsmith said: “I can assure you and everyone else that, if I am consulted, any decision will be taken objectively, on the evidence, independently of Government. My first duty is to the law, not to party politics.”

He added: “I am responsible by statute for the superintendence of the CPS and accountable to Parliament for the decisions it takes, and I don’t think I can stand aside.”

But Scottish Nationalist Party MP Angus MacNeil, who made the original complaint to police about honours being touted for political donations, said: “It is simply untenable for him to have any role in this case, and he must step back from that now.”

Original article posted here.