GlennBarder

GlennBarder

[	userinfo	\|	livejournal userinfo	]
[	archive	\|	journal archive	]

The Guantanamo Returnees	[Jan. 7th, 2008\|09:30 pm]
7 January 2008 If this page does not display properly, please view it here. "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever" - George Orwell The Guantanamo returnees Last month three more detainees were released from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This brings the total British nationals to nine released, four of them in 2007. Source: BBC Two of those released - Jamil el-Banna and Omar Deghayes - face further charges in Spain. Abdenour Samuer was arrested upon return, but soon released without charge. The Spanish have actually had several years to consider evidence and provide a case for extradition straight from Guantanamo, but refused to do so stating they had no case against them. This means that Samuer - like Moazzam Begg, gave the UK security forces no reason at all to be concerned. Whatever threat he supposedly represented that caused him to be detained and abused for six years has apparently gone. Source: BBC Here are some of the released prisoners, and their story in brief. Jamil el-Banna - faces extradition to Spain, released December 2007. US claimed he had links to Abu Qatada (a radical cleric). Britain claimed until recently that he did not have a British passport, even though his mother is British and el-Banna (now 45) lived in the UK from the age of 14. Source: Guardian (UK) As can be seen from the picture, he has allowed his beard to grow for some time. A US administrative review board at Guantanamo decided Banna was no threat to the US or its allies. Omar Deghayes - faces extradition to Spain, released December 2007. Accused of terrorism against US, lawyers say it's mistaken ID. He had decided to go to Afghanistan to judge the Taliban - the first Islamic society of its kind - for himself. As with others, he fled to Pakistan when war broke out. Having put in a stint at the notorious Bagram prison camp, he was transferred to Guantanamo. Source: BBC Deghayes is now blind in one eye as a result of one of the many assaults by interrogators and guards - during one session, an interrogator stuck his thumb into Deghayes' eye socket. His campaign supporters say he is now recovering at home with his family. Omar Deghayes, Jamil el-Banna and Abdenour Samuer Source: Metro Abdenour Samuer - released without charge, December 2007 Confessed to prior knowledge about 9/11, but insists this was because his leg would otherwise be amputated. He had a gunshot wound from his arrest, which US interrogators refused to treat without a confession first. Moazzam Begg - released without charge, January 2005 A charity worker, he left Afghanistan when the situation became "unbearable". Bundled into a car boot in Pakistan by authorities, he was handed over to the US. Source: BBC After spending a year at the US detention camp at Bagram, Afghanistan, he was flown to Guantanamo in March 2003. His name was apparently found on a money order at an Al-Qa'eda camp, but he and his family insisted this was a case of mistaken identity. Arriving back in the UK in January 2005, he was questioned and released within hours. The security forces found no reason to hold him, and no charges have ever been brought - not by US nor UK law agencies. Articles on Begg like this describe his story. Far from being a wild-eyed fanatic, Begg is articulate, intelligent, and surprisingly calm and polite when discussing his treatment. He even speaks positively of some of the guards he met while at Guantanamo. In his book brought out in 2006, Begg describes his time at Begram detention centre, his trip to Guantanamo and the time there. He spent most of the time from January 2003 in solitary confinement. Begg's story is also shown in the film "Road to Guantanamo". Martin Mubanga - released without charge January 2005 Mubanga went on holiday to Zambia, was jailed there for months on an alleged motoring offence, then (contrary to Zambian law) handed over to the US by British authorities. He is suing the British Government for its acquiescence, claiming that he was brutally interrogated and mistreated at Guantanamo. Source: BBC After being interviewed by MI6 (the UK equivalent of the CIA), he was told his lost passport had turned up in an Afghanistan cave, together with documents suggesting he was an Al-Qa'eda operative. He also claims MI6 and an American official tried to recruit him as an agent, packing him off to Guantanamo when he refused. Feroz Abbasi - released without charge, January 2005 Abbasi actually seems to be a genuine case of a radicalised Muslim, even though the evidence linking him to any actual terrorist activity is non-existent. Source: BBC In a statement his main problem was abuse of the Koran and deliberate, systematic insulting of Islam, rather than his own personal mistreatment. Richard Belmar - released without charge, January 2005. US intelligence apparently urged MI5 to use Belmar as an intelligence source, but were turned down. Instead, he was sent to three years in Bagram and Guantanamo. Unknown suspect. Source: BBC He claims to have suffered beatings, sex abuse and torture. His skull was later broken by a rifle butt, and was hung by the wrists from handcuffs. He claims to be witness to a murder at the camp which has been officially acknowledged by the US. The US claimed Belmar had trained at a terrorist camp in 1998, even although Belmar had never been outside the UK before visiting Pakistan in 2001. He was picked up by the Pakistani authorities and handed over to the US. He was released without charge by British authorities just over a day after arriving back from Guantanamo. Binyam Mohammed - not released. Allegedly had training with Richard Reid (the uselessly incompetent shoe bomber). Also alleged to have planned to blow up a US apartment block. Not yet released, he claims to have been brutally tortured at Guantanamo, and signed confessions after beatings. Possible sighting of alleged suspect: Source BBC Captured in Pakistan, Mohammed spent three years in 'black sites', ghost jails answerable to nobody. His accusation was chiefly that he plotted with Jose Padilla to explode a dirty uranium bomb in the US. The case against Padilla has since totally collapsed. Shaker Aamer - Still under detention without charge. Lived in UK since 1996, went to Afghanistan in 2001 for charity work. Had legal entitlement to stay in the UK when captured, but wishes to return to Saudi. Source: BBC Some other former detainees: Shafiq Rasul - returned March 2004 Asif Iqbal - returned March 2004 Rahul Ahmen - returned March 2004 Jamal Udeen - returned March 2004 Tarek Dergoul - returned March 2004 Jamal Abdullah - released April 2006 Bagram detention centre Bagram detention centre is now twice the size of that at Guantanamo. The ICRC has noted that prisoners are being denied access to its inspectors, as required by International Law, for weeks or months at a time. The New York Times reported on 7/Jan/08 that 630 prisoners are there, far more than the remaining 275 at Guantanamo. But Bagram is vastly less well known - mainly because the occupied country in this case (Afghanistan) has a compliant government, unlike Cuba. The NYT article noted above has a short but worthwhile documentary online, called "The Bagram File - Afghan prison abuse." Bagram is considered a hub of a global network of US detention centres. Several deaths are known to have occurred during torture, including to men now acknowledged as being totally innocent. Source: BBC We tolerate our governments operating outside International Law, flouting our own rules of justice and dismissing questions and demands from international human rights' groups. We know that prisoner abuse has taken place - starting just with the simple fact that detention without charge or trial is contrary to international obligations to which we are signatory. Maintaining any moral high ground while operating in such a fashion would be difficult at the best of times, but when this is the consequence of an illegal invasion and occupation, it becomes clear that whatever good name we have in the eyes of the world is over. Does any leader, however bad, require more than a single word - "Guantanamo" - to reply to criticism of their own human rights record? Can we expect anybody to treat our own captured people with respect when this is how we treat anybody, from any country, whatever the evidence? If the most powerful countries claim they need to behave like this, weaker, more fragile governments can claim they have even more need for ruthless practices. Can we ever become part of the civilised world again? Until these extra-legal detention centres are closed, International Law observed, and the proper rights and inspections granted, the process cannot even start. And at the time of writing, these detention facilities are still growing. --------------------------------------------------- Thank you for your time. Please send any comments, requests or other feedback to me: glenn@powersandmorrison.com -Glenn Barder. (glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk)here
link	1 comment\|post comment

Blair's Absolution Drive	[Dec. 22nd, 2007\|11:54 pm]
23 December 2007 If this page does not display properly, please view it here. "The ancient sages say, that when the government makes sheep of the people, then wolves will rule the land." - The Water Margin Blair seeks absolution That former Prime Minister Blair has decided to convert to becoming a Roman Catholic comes as little surprise. His wife is Catholic, and Blair has been acting as one for 20 years - attending mass and taking communion, until Basil Hume (the former Catholic Archbishop of Westminster) put a stop to it. This is regarded as "a triumph for the Catholic Church", even though he directly contradicted the callings of the previous Pope, who urged Blair not to pursue war in Iraq. The new Pope Benedict has also denounced Blair over Iraq, abortion, gay adoption and stem cell research. Blair may get the absolution he craves in the Catholic Church, but confessing may be a new experience for him. Blair has never confessed to anything but acting in the best possible faith, of doing only what he thought to be right, and of acting in the best interests of everyone concerned with the utmost integrity at all times. Any meaningful confession has to involve a genuine admission to what he has done wrong, and the true evil he has undertaken and encouraged. Concerns that he would be labeled "a nutter" prevented Blair from talking about his religion, and his chief henchman and war-monger Campbell made the point early in Blair's administration that "We don't do God." Blair is on the record as saying God will judge him over Iraq. Perhaps he considers it prudent to get officially forgiven ahead of time? UN Human Rights Council report The Human Rights Council of the United Nations issued a report last month into the effect on human rights and freedoms in the "war on terror", America's counter terrorism programme. The objective was to make a fact-finding and legal assessment of US low and practice, and assess the standard to which the US adheres to International Law. The full report can be seen here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/6session/A.HRC.6.17.Add.3AEVnew.pdf The UN Special Rapporteur is set up to promote and protect human rights and freedoms while countering terrorism. Professor of Law Martin Scheinin currently holds the job. The conclusions are found in the document above, but in brief they are as follows: * The international fight against terrorism is not a war in the true sense of the word, and the US is reminded that even during armed conflicts, international law continues to apply. This is binding on every person under its jurisdiction, even outside its own territory. * The term "Unlawful enemy combatants" is used for convenience and has no legal validity. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has "grave concerns" over detainees, and their inability to have a judicial review on their cases. This amounts to breaking the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. * The exclusion of habeas corpus rights under the Millitary commissions Act of 2006 is particularly noted. * The US is urged to close Guantánamo Bay, in acccordance with the US administration's stated and expressed wishes. * That military commissions are used to prosecute terrorist- related suspects are not part of the laws of war, and involve a retroactive application of criminal law. * Ordinary courts have had jurisdiction to try violations of armed conflicts since 1916, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. * "Extraordinary rendition" of a person to another state for interrogation or detention without charge is not permissible under international law. * International law requires that a person not be sent to a country where there is "real risk" or torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, under ICCPR article 7. The US applies such considerations only where it is "more likely than not", and only then under the US's own narrow definition of torture. * The US is urged not to use countries of origin of a person, or race or religion, for the identification of persons as terrorists. Thank you for your time. Please send any comments, requests or other feedback to me: glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk -Glenn Barder.
link	post comment

Book Review	[Dec. 10th, 2007\|11:54 pm]
11 December 2007 Note: If this page is not displayed properly, please use this link. Comrades, P&M have kindly fixed the display of my column, and it's been a good couple of months since I last wrote. Pushed for a subject, perhaps I could review a couple of the books which made a good read over the period. Title : The London Bombings - an independent inquiry Author : Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed Publisher : Duckworth Press This is the first book I've come across in quite some time which has large sections blanked out with the words: "Section removed for legal reasons" It would be interesting to know whether US editions - with the First Amendment in force - have these sections in place. Summary: The author Nafeez Ahmed does not, as one might have thought, seek to explain the actions of the London bombers in terms of their becoming radicalised as a result of UK/US adventurism in the Middle East. On the contrary, no attempt whatsoever is made to act as their apologist. The best excuse that can be offered them according to Ahmed is that they were radicalised by extremist elements - characters well known to and co-orporating with the UK security services. What Ahmed raises are a lot of very serious questions, so serious that a full public inquiry is an absolute requirement. Radical clerics such as Abu Hamza had preached hatred for many years from the notorious Mosques they operated. Suspected as a double-agent for the security services, his dangerous rhetoric was tolerated. The author contends that Islamic radicals were allowed to operate by UK secret services under the understanding that the UK itself was never going to be a target for their terrorist actions. The public have so far been allowed only the Official Account of 7/7 - written by anonymous government employees (civil servants), based on secret and unreferenced sources, censored and/or rewritten by the government itself before release. This is not the way in which errors are corrected and lessons learned. Building on an extensive source of references, The London Bombings make it clear that far from being unknown to the security services, this cell was part of a monitored, established al-Qaeda network in the UK Communications that occurred between the London bombers and senior al-Qaeda operatives who (according to British and US investigators) masterminded the bombings are beyond dispute. Telephone calls and contacts, meetings and participation in AQ front organisations, all solidly link these London bombers with closely monitored AQ operatives and double agents. The four bombers were members of al-Muhajiroun, a group that US and UK services knew to be involved with terrorist activity before 7/7. Leaders of these groups were allowed free travel and were free from investigation at home, so the notion they were unknown "clean-skins" that had self- radicalised is a misleading falsehood. The London Bombings of 7/July/05 left 56 dead (including the bombers), and over 700 injured. * Why did the US and UK give such tacit approval and support to radical AQ groups in the Balkans and North Africa in the years up to and after 11/September/2001? Why were radical Islamists with established and known terrorist connections inside the UK allowed to operate for more than a decade? Why is there considerable dispute about the bombs used, both by the 7/7 bombers and the failed bombers a fortnight later? The initial reports spoke conclusively about weapons-grade plastic explosive C4 - but this was later downgraded to home-made TATP. Forensic experts are apparently still trying to establish the presence of TATP, however, so how is the conclusion so solid? pp.26-30 The blasts were inconsistent with the known property of TATP explosions, and Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum (who spent all morning interviewing victims on 7/7/05) found they: "Believe there was an explosion this morning under the carriage of the train"... they described how "the tiles, the covers, on the floor of the train, suddenly they flew up, raised up" and the train was derailed. These witnesses believed the explosion occurred underneath the train, causing the floor to blow upwards. This is entirely inconsistent with the official theory that a passenger's backpack was the source of the detonation. One policewoman describes: "A woman... who was on her back trapped in the metal, which had twisted up through the middle of the carriage. The roof was still on, but the lining of the carriage had been blown off. The sides had also come off and there was a big hole in the floor." Some Serious Questions How could metal from the floor twist upwards if back-pack bombs had been placed on the floor? How can forensic investigators still be trying to identify the type of bomb, two and a half years after the event? Why did the UK security services have a tacit agreement with the Islamic radicals that a blind eye would be turned their way, as long as the UK itself was not attacked - and why did this agreement break down? Why was the terror alert downgraded before the beginning of July? In the immortal words of Private Eye... "perhaps we should be told." * The UK services played down the role of AQ, drawing attention away from the fact that they had tolerated extremists for many years, playing many as double agents and funding them abroad to meet expediencies - much as the Mujahideen was a convenient ally decades earlier. * As with 9/11, the 7/7 London bombings are in serious need of an independent investigation. The reason we lack one is clear - too many awkward questions would have to be answered. Verdict: A compelling argument for an independent inquiry Further reading: http://www.independentinquiry.co.uk/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/london/index.htm --------------------------------------------- Title: The God Delusion Author: Richard Dawkins Pubisher : Bantam Press Professor Richard Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist and author of great accomplishment, lecturing in the US and the UK, particularly in Evolutionary Biology at Oxford University. His Curriculum Vitae is far too long to quote here (but is referenced in the link). A Fellow of The Royal Society, he the author of "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker" and many other brilliant works (the latter of which lays waste to creationism). Deservedly known as "Darwin's Rottweiler", Dawkins lays a broadside against religion in this astonishingly unapologetic work. No religion needs feel excluded from a comprehensive denouncement. Far from allowing the various faiths as a harmless source of personal strength and solace, Dawkins demonstrates the role of religion as central to most of the hatred in the world. Dawkins includes quite comical references to Gospels which did not make it into the official Bible because of their blatant absurdity (pp 96). For example, it would have been rather embarrassing to include the Gospel of Thomas, which would have told how Jesus used magic tricks to turn playmates into goats; creating sparrows from mud; and helping his carpenter father out by lengthening pieces of wood. He points out numerous, glaring timeline flaws in other Gospels, such as that of Luke who claimed a census took place at a time when historical record clearly shows it could never have been. The prophesy of Micah had to be fulfilled, however, and facts could not be allowed to stand in the way. Serious historians would agree that historical references by the Gospels, particularly Luke, are "historically impossible and internally incoherent" (pp 94). After discussing the hypothesis for the existence of a God (chapter 2), secularism and the Founding Fathers of America (pp.38), he shows little sympathy for fence-sitting agnostics. Dawkins takes arguments for religion head-on. He begins by attacking Thomas Aquinias' supposed proofs for the existence of God - such as the notion of an infinite regress requiring a god at the end of it. The basis for requiring a terminator (i.e. God) and attributing to this boot-stapped definition and all the infinite powers generally associated with Him, are subjected to the same rigorous examination as would be expected from any true scientist. The notion of God as comforter and a solace is discussed. Imaginary friends in childhood are common, and continuing to believe in one which society generally takes seriously is not so easy to leave behind. That people find comfort with religion during grief, for example, does not in itself prove there is a God. People can gain comfort in knowing a loved one died for a good cause. Nobody rejoices when a loved one is dead, despite an apparent faith in their being next to God now. Having dealt with the arguments for why God exists, Dawkins goes on in subsequent chapters to prove why God does not exist. Why be hostile towards religion? His reason for urging atheism on his readers is because religion teaches people to think in a non-scientific manner, which is neither good for themselves, society, or our survival as a species. Blind faith, where one considers him or her self to be absolutely right without the need to explain, have evidence, or any compelling logic, should not be allowed to stand as a respected position. A person's politics, economics, tastes in art or anything else may be discussed, but society is brainwashed into this unquestioning respect for blind faith. Belief that a martyr's death will bring a wonderful afterlife should be, he strongly argues, open to question, as should any manner of controlling and suppressive behaviours required. Fanatical end-times Christians long for a nuclear armageddon, many fanatical Muslims dream of an end- times style bloodbath, which cannot be good for our long term prospects. On a more personal note, Dawkin's own area of expertise - evolutionary biology - is under direct attack by religious fanatics. Why should he sit back and take it? * Background In The Blind Watchmaker (1986), Dawkins wrote: "Of course, any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA protein replicating machine, must have been at least as complex and organised as that machine itself." This sentence is expanded into a key chapter of The God Delusion. It takes the weapon of the creationists and turns it on them, given creationists invariably argue from improbability ("The eye is too complex to have happened by sheer chance, therefore it must have required a Creator"). The one thing that cannot explain the existence of an eye is a God - because the God Himself would have to be even more improbable - the very matter of which the creationist was hoping to clear up. The only theory which could explain something as complex as the eye (or bacterium) is something like Darwinian Natural Selection, where far more simple blocks are built up over time into more complex arrangements, in very slow and gradual degrees. * Abuse of the youngest Perhaps Dawkin's greatest concern is the labeling of children into religious denominations - this child is Muslim, that one a Welsh Baptist, that one a Seventh Day Adventist. Dawkins regards this as truly evil - thrusting onto infants a whole set of baggage that he or she might not wish to hold as they get older, and capable of actually doing their own thinking. The concepts are far from harmless and innocent, such as fashion or other less serious tastes. A "Catholic child", being persecuted for her "beliefs". It would be utterly risible to suggest the parents of Marxists would have a Marxist child, or a Monetarist child if he or she had monetarist parents - the child is well understood to be incapable to such considerations. Why is the even more serious imposition of an irrational religious belief given full state approval, even to the funding of "faith-based" schools? For instance, if segregated Protestant and Catholics state schools were abolished in Northern Island, that country would surely achieve full reconciliation within a generation. Conclusion: Prepare for an uncomfortable facing up to the truth, particularly if you had a religious upbringing. ********************* I'll make do with just these two for now. Both highly recommended, they would make an ideal stocking-filler. Thank you for your time. -Glenn Barder. (glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk) / http://NewsFromTheUK.powersandmorrison.com
link	post comment

"The Footprint of Freedom"	[Jun. 4th, 2007\|03:13 am]
Location of the stolen country Source: BBC "Welcome Aboard!" is the title of the US Navy's web page on Diego Garcia. "Congratulations" it continues. Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos archipelago, situated almost exactly halfway between Africa and Asia. The island was inhabited by a gentle Creole nation, who made a living from supplying coconut oil (which actually powered London's street lamps), acting as a coaling station for ships travelling to Australia. Source: BBC A British Colonial Office film from the 1950's describes the people as "Born and brought up ... in conditions most tranquil and benign". There were plans for tourism. From the wikipedia entry on Diego Garcia But in the 1960s and '70s, British governments expelled hese people, and handed the Chagos islands to the US for military use. This was done in secrecy, all reference since has officially referred to the island as if it had always been uninhabited. In 1964 the British Government offered independence to Mauritius, with the condition that the Chagos archipelago belonged to Britain. (UN resolution 1514 already guaranteed all colonial people inalienable rights to independence.) Parliament was not informed. The Washington Post first revealed that, in 1975, the UK government received a $14M discount on Polaris nuclear submarines, in exchange for leasing the islands to the US military. This had not been approved by Congress. There was no mention of any population. The US Navy website's reference to Diego Garcia continues: "You have been selected to join one of the Navy's finest operational commands anywhere in the world: Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory (B.I.O.T.). If you're looking for a professional challenge, a close-knit team, unbelievable recreational facilities and exquisite natural beauty, then you are coming to the perfect place!" "Recreational opportunities are numerous and we are constantly expanding facilities to make life more comfortable" "On behalf of everyone on Diego Garcia, I hope you have a safe and pleasant journey to the "the Footprint of Freedom." And indeed, life seems pretty comfortable for the service personnel whooping it up: Sadly, no native of this "footprint of freedom" has been allowed to appreciate "the exquisite natural beauty" of their island since 1965. We sometimes hear reports of UK/US bombing raids originating from Diego Garcia, during the course of military action against Iraq or Afghanistan. Source: Bits of news The islands are invariably described as uninhabited - which is true, now. Oddly enough, the Navy's web- site's telling of the history of Diego Garcia entirely fails to mention the people who lived there, other than to say "Plantations on Diego Garcia were closed in 1971, following a decision to establish the U.S. Navy Supprt Facility based on the 1966 Exchange of Notes between Great Britain and the United States." 1967 Coconut Factory Workers So there were simply plantations, subsequently closed, and that's that? Not quite. GlobalSecurity.org goes into much further detail of the island's history: But curiously enough, they too neglect to mention what actually happened to the original inhabitants. "Camp Justice" Besides being a military base, Diego Garcia also holds an unknown number of detainees, "terror suspects", in a CIA facility called Camp Justice. Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake has described "very large hangers" (warehouses) visible on satellite images. The 30-acre site below is called a "temporary housing area", but not just for personnel supporting the Operation Enduring Freedom, as GlobalSecurity appear to claim. Very little is known about the involuntary inhabitants. It is subject to even less scrutiny than the notorious Guantanamo Bay. So what happened to the native people? They were driven out. Not actually heaved out at gunpoint - instead terrorised out. Food ships stopped arriving, and with no dairy products, oil, sugar or salt, they still managed for a while. There were rumours that they would be bombed. Those who did leave - even (as they thought) temporarily - were not permitted any transport back. They were sent to live in slums in the Mauritius, in housing previously used for pigs and goats. Source: BBC Then came the plan to kill all the dogs. "Operation Stampede" was swinging into action, to remove the people from their island. The dogs are very important to Chagossians - they regard them as almost part of the community. British Diplomats worked with US military In 1971 to poison the dogs, but that was slow work. So they rounded up hundreds of dogs into the coconut packing sheds, backed heavy vehicles up and connected pipes to the exhaust. Those that did not die were finished off in a huge pyre, and survivors tossed back in. About 800-900 dogs were killed in this way. A troubled last manager of the Diego Garcia plantation, Marcel Moulinie, talks about this. He said they had tried to kill the cats too, but couldn't catch them. "The children cherished their dogs", says Lizette to John Pilger a few years ago. She was a 4 year old in the 1950's British documentary. "Nothing was the same after that. We were covered in sadness." Those who still refused to leave were eventually - and illegally - forced out. Following a cattle-transport standard shipping, they were dumped on Mauritius 2500 miles away. They were not even fed for 5 days of the journey, and had no shelter and little water. The people were bewildered and terrified, according to Cassam Uteem, the former president of Mauritius. They had lived very close to nature, and had never seen cars or even used bicycles. No British official helped them to integrate. Some camped on the docks, waiting to be taken home. The current Mauritius president, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, has threatened to leave the commonwealth in protest at the "barbarous" treatment of the people of the Chagos Islands. Source: BBC * These were a couple of thousand British citizens. No less British than the 2000 Falkland Islanders - an equal size of population to Diego Garcia. But for the Falklands, Thatcher considered a war costing vast amounts of money and many hundreds of lives to be worthwhile. They were far less white than the Falkland Islanders, however. Instead of spending vast sums of money and thousands of lives in their defence, the British government gave these people up. Source: BBC These British citizens petitioned through legal channels, and were summarily turned down. An appeal presented to the British High Commission in 1975 was rejected, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the British government - "concerns" should be addressed to the Mauritius government. * In 1981, hundreds of Chagossian women organised a sit-in at the British High Commission in Fort Lewis, and began a hunger strike. The High Court proclaimed in 2000 that the 1965 ruling to expel the islanders was illegal, but victory was short lived. The Blair government immediately issued an ordinance that returning to Diego Garcia (where most of them lived) was prohibited. Louis Bancoult celebrates momentary victory But they could return to some of the other islands. A foreign office study of 2002 decided the islands too hostile, and flooding, storms, seismic activity - even the notion the islands may be sinking - made them uninhabitable. Not that this seemed to concern the 4000 US military personnel, the tidal wave of December 2004 had not touched them. but it was clearly too dangerous for the people who had lived there for hundreds of years. Latest News The islanders won another victory in the high court last week (end of May 2007), but it remains to be seen whether the British government will do the right thing even now. The government allowed 102 original inhabihants, headed by Olivier Bancoult (two pictures above) for a visit, but then foreign secretary Jack Straw (an old Trotskyist turned neo-con) said, "It is not practical" for a permanent return. The last time the islanders won a high court case, it was turned down by decree of the Royal Prerogative. This pre-dates the Magna Carter of 1215, and is the last refuge of a cowardly executive. * Will Brown act as Callahan, Thatcher, Major and Blair have done, and pretend these people under his stewardship do not exist? So far the signs are not promising. He wants to extend detention without trial, and increase surveillance on citizens. Even before he takes power, on 27/6/07 . We shall watch, judge, and report on how well the UK government meets its rhetoric on protection and upholding the rights of law abiding citizens, and how it compromises the same for its subservience to power and expediency. Thank you for your time. -Glenn Barder. (glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk) References: - Besides those indicated in-line above, I have drawn on John Pilger's work "Freedom Next Time!", isbn 0-593-05552-7/ 978-0-593-05552-6 / Bantam Press.
link	post comment

Iran and Iraq	[May. 9th, 2007\|01:46 am]
9/May/07 Comrades, It's been an eventful month or so, and there's quite some catching up to do. Iran The Action The case of the Royal Navy Marines held in Iran for nearly a fortnight has sort-of been forgotten. These things are too inconvenient to remember for very long. After all, the Iranian president Ahmadinejad had played the incident masterfully, pleasing his own people (many of whom originally wanted to see the 15 put on trial), avoided a serious confrontation with the UK/US, and appeared reasonable to the rest of the world. Despite the fact that they were all released unharmed as promised, Blair is unable to take a conciliatory line. Bush and American media were bitterly disappointed, and armchair generals on both sides of the Atlantic were wheeled in to denounce supposed cowardice. The 15 lightly armed marines should have made a futile ultimate sacrifice - hopefully starting a war in the process. Source: Guardian Note the marines are all still clutching their gift-bags from Iran, despite being safely back in the UK. Odd behaviour from people apparently terrified of their hosts. The Spin Our marines were in a hopeless situation, and could be expected to say everything the Iranians wanted while in custody. Nevertheless, they seemed to positively warm to their role in giving coerced testimony - seemingly very at ease, even joking with each other. Souce: Al-Alam The handwritten letters from leading seaman Faye Turney were clearly dictated by Iran. Her statements (and that of the other marines) that they were definitely in Iranian waters is false - the waters have constantly been in dispute between Iraq and Iran. (Our God-given right to be in Iraq's water was - of course - not questioned.) After all, we know very well that people will sing like canaries if enough pressure is applied - why else Guantanamo, secret prisons and our calculated techniques of physical and emotional distress to supposedly extract information? If they had said just that, and admitted they'd co-operated under duress, nobody could sensibly blame them. * Instead, we were treated to a series of retractions which looked more coerced than the original statements made under Iranian supervision. The Marines denied making the statements we had all seen a few days earlier. They claimed rough treatment, but none had marks that had lasted the fortnight. Source: BBC The female and males were kept in separate quarters, we were shocked to hear. (Actually, the Iranians probably thought this was for her protection.) A sceptical public needed something else, so the Marines were allowed to give their stories to the press. Fair enough, but here the stories were in return for large amounts of cash. The public was deeply unimpressed. * The denouncements of Iran went further - our Marines were frightened at being captured, we were told. One confessed to crying himself to sleep each night, another was most upset that his iPod had been stolen. His iPod had been stolen. Rule Britannia. As it is, the best that can be scraped from the situation leaves us (the UK/US) looking like hypocrites of the first order, and future detainees in similar circumstances far less likely to be treated leniently. The Real Story As first revealed in Private Eye, HMS Cornwall was being covered by the BBC, Sky News and Channel- 5 News as a flagship, showing Captain Nick Lambert commanding coalition task for 158 in the northern Gulf. Source: Royal Navy The Lynx helicopter covering the inflatables sent to inspect the passing freighter Al-Hanin was called back because the BBC had an appointment to visit Commander Nick Lambert. (Side note : Nick Lambert was Captain of HMS Endurance in 2005. Nearly 25 years earlier, HMS Endurance was basically offered as bait to the Argentinian Junta. The ship could single-handedly fend off the Argentinians from the Falkland Islands, according to Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, defence minister under Thatcher. Carrington actually resigned, and a war ensued.) It was decided not to employ the two British minehunters and US coastal patrol vessels to cover the inflatables, as the TV show would look better with the small British craft doing the job themselves. Particularly with a RN woman piloting one craft. A full Navy inquiry could not take place because this would reveal it had been caused by a publicity stunt ordered from the top. In order to divert attention, the media blitz on the hostages return was personally signed off by the First Sea Lord Sir Jonathon Bland's number two, Vice-Admiral Adrian Johns. (Defence secretary Des Browne - much pilloried for this decision - only actually found out about it after it had already happened.) * The Iranian hostages Less widely told is the story of Iranians who have been taken into custody, and held incommunicado without being charged. One incident did have some publicity - the seizing of five diplomats by US forces from an Iranian liaison office in the Kurdish city of Abril, northern Iraq. The Iranian diplomats were there at the invitation of the Iraqi government . Iran has asked to visit them but the request is still being reviewed. High level Iraqi officials have publicly called for their release, and protests about the illegality made. It would be akin to US diplomats being kidnapped from Poland by Russian forces. It is speculated by the informed that this raid led directly to the British marines' capture. No member of the occupying US/UK forces have been killed in Abril, and no anti-occupation forces or Shia militia are there. * One final point about the Iranian involvement in Iraq. Supposed Iranian interference is being alleged with howls of indignation, as if we had every right to occupy the country and dictate its laws and rulers. But Iraqis are now portrayed as incapable of offering resistance without Iranian help. (Iran had suffered a terrible eight-year war with Iraq). Yet in 2003, Iraq was possessed with mighty capabilities in weapons and threatened the world with their now vanished WMD. How come they now cannot even make roadside bombs without the help of their former enemy? Prince Harry steps up Interest in Iran fading, our red-top tabloid gutter-press has been far more exercised lately with the break-up of Prince William's relationship, and his brother Harry's pending deployment to Iraq. Source: BBC The attention to his relationship problems is great for those with news burial interests. The subject has been covered at enormous length elsewhere. The nightmare for Blair is that a tabloid/public obsession with royalty is now thrown in with the desperate hopelessness of our Iraq adventure. Our Iraq involvement - although deeply unpopular - has drifted from the front pages in recent months. Interest is rising again with the worsening situation, with 12 soldiers dying in April. This makes April 2007 the worst month for the UK since the invasion. Prince Harry has stated his determination to follow tradition and serve in this rapidly deteriorating environment, stating that he is not afraid to die. Keeping anyone safe in Iraq is near impossible, and other soldiers privately refer to Prince Harry as the "Bullet magnet", coupled with concerns about those with him too. On the forces' message board rearparty.co.uk, for friends and family of serving military, one message says: 'Why don't they just paint a great, big red cross on Prince Harry's waggon. Don't these people have the common sense to keep this quiet? Why risk the lives of prince Harry and the people who are in the tank with him? If I [were] the wife of one of them I would push him down the stairs so he doesn't have to go.' What is Blair to do - admit the situation in Iraq is totally out of control, or risk the catastrophic event of the Prince dying there? Blair's solution, it appears, is to make sure he is not in office at that time. We should have an announcement in the next day or so that Blair will be handing over to Gorden Brown sometime in June or July. Leadership contests in "New" Labour appear to have fizzled out, Brown will have a coronation rather than an election. ------------------------------------ More next time, and I'll try not to leave it six months - sorry about that. As ever, comments/ criticisms / requests for items to be included always welcome. - Glenn Barder. (glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk) -------------------
link	post comment

Interview with Brian Haw - part 1	[Mar. 18th, 2007\|06:16 pm]
18/3/2007 Comrades, Last weekend I went to see the last protest allowed outside Parliament, and to interview the last protester - Brian Haw. As mentioned in previous articles, he is allowed there only because the new law banning protest was not made retroactive. Since on-going protests prior to the law were not covered, Brian Haw's protest can remain - as long as it remains continuous. It has ran continuously for 2115 days so far. Photo by Marc Vallee, 23/11/06 Brian Haw on his 2000'th consecutive day and night in Parliament Square. This first part of the interview covers the religious angle, which Brian feels has been blasphemously hijacked to justify war. Having been given the mobile telephone number for Mr Haw, he agreed to do an interview for P&M. Your intrepid reporter tracked down Downing Street (where the British PM Blair resides), but found no sign of Brian Haw or his protest. Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M A police officer - heavily armed - cheerfully told me that I'd find him about 1/2 mile away, as his protest had moved to outside Parliament itself, and helpfully provided directions. Brian Haw was pacing about on the lawn outside and across the road from Parliament, talking on his mobile. Various helpers of his enable him to maintain this continuous vigil, so I spoke with them for a while until Brian became available. Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M Some helpers were seasoned protest veterans of many nationalities, including former human shields. Brian can only leave to attend numerous court cases - leaving for any other reason will end this last protest permanently. * Finishing his telephone conversation about an hour later, Brian was in no mood for a interview. It hadn't been an uplifting conversation, apparently. Doubtless tired of thousands of people wanting to have a chat, make fun of him, and just having to go over the same issues he's discussed countless times, he does not always welcome idle conversations. Picture by Mark Wallinger Before most of the protest banners were dismantled for "security reasons", the display was much more extensive. Picture by Mark Wallinger Exhibits from the original protest can currently be seen in Tate Britain where an exhibition is currently taking place. The exhibition in the gallery itself is very powerful, impossible to witness without being emotionally moved. Please take the time to see some of the display items by using this link. Back for the interview Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M I began by acknowledging he has probably been through the issues thousands of times, and he said he's sick and tired of it. Brian wanted to know if I had all the background. His friends had vouched for me, that I was aware of the issues, and was not there to waste time. Brian asked what I wanted to know. Explaining this was for a US based site, I asked for his personal experience - what had made him take up this endeavour, given Americans often identify with individual stories rather than simple facts and figures about others. Was it the sanctions that started this campaign? Brian Haw: What does "sanctions" mean for goodness sake? USA? UK? God almighty. God forgive us. The United States of Assassins. Have you checked it out? Genocidal Britain. Check out what we've done around the nations during the course of history. Check out what the United States of Assassins has done. It's horrifying. Sanctions? It's called Genocide. That's what we do. Bomb, burn, bury your neighbour. Who do we think we are? Check out DU. Check out Depleted Uranium munitions. Our war material, made from our nuclear waste. Check what we do. GB (P&M): We've finally found a way of disposing of it, haven't we? Brian Haw: Isn't that neat. Isn't that sweet. God forgive... how can God forgive us? Have you seen what we've done to the babies? And we like to say what an evil bastard Hitler was. Oh, by the way - you know Bush's grandaddy? He was a great pal of Hitler. GB (P&M): Prescott Bush Brian Haw: I just knew he was Bush's grandaddy. Prescott Bush, yeah, provided a lot of money for the war. You have to finance a war, don't you. And what's a war about? Bloody money. Making money, stealing money, looting, pillage. Nothing changes throughout history. We dress it up in fancy language these days, trying to make out we're spreading freedom and democracy in the world. Do you know Holman Hunt's famous portrait, and there's Christ knocking on the door, with the house overgrown with weeds, and Christ with the lamp is politely knocking. Holman Hunt: "The light of the world" And if you check out Rev 3:11, it says "And behold, I stand at the door and knock. And if any person opens the door, I will come in and sup with you, and you with me." Polite, isn't it? And -- by the way - Christ will bring supper with him, he didn't come to scrounge, he's not going to steal - he came to give. We're told to give in Christ's name, go into all the world, we were told. Give the love of ... [shakes head in disbelief] ... God Almighty. Instead of which, we march around the world, with a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. Crusaders. Nothing changes, does it? Who do we think we are? * Idu - the Greek word meaning "behold" - I stand at the door and knock. Look, listen, have you noticed? I'm knocking at the gates of Parliament, just opposite us there. We're in Westminster, they call this Westminster Palace, the British Parliament. And here am I, opposite the Palace gates, knocking at the gates of Parliament. Look, listen, have you noticed? I came here on the second of June 2001. I was sent here by Mum and Dad - Mrs and Mr God, who love and care. That's why I was sent here, because they care. John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, what whosoever believes in him should not perish, but should have everlasting life. Check out Jeremiah, chapter 9. Check it out. Photo by Moramay Herrera Kuri GB (P&M): "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments - not ambiguous, is it? Brian Haw: "Thou shalt not kill", as you said. But check out Jeremiah, Chapter 9. "He/She that will glory, glory in this, then he/she knows me. And I am the Lord and Lady who exercises love and kindness, justice and righteousness to the ends of the Earth. For in these things I delight, says the Lord God Almighty." How about that? Love and kindness, top of the agenda. Do you think we've got a poor translation in the Old Testament? A wrong idea about it? And God is this angry old white man, with a big white beard, sat up on the clouds somewhere with a bloody big stick in his hand, looking down at the naughty children below, looking for an excuse to beat us? Hey - that ain't the God I know, who loved and made us. Your iris, your fingerprints, your genes - you are unique, one-off. And the same goes for every one of the billions of us on this planet. Have you ever held a baby? Isn't it a glorious thing. And Bush and Blair bomb the babies. It's a wicked, evil business, you know. I call them - and I call them right here with a megaphone, or bull-horn / loudspeaker - "Bush/Blair Christian? Blasphemers, murderers, liars, repent! Hear the word of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." It's been said in the past, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you now, "Love your enemies." Check out the parable of the good Samaritan - when the disciples asked "Who is my neighbour?" He gave them the parable of the Good Samaritan. The Jews and Samaritans were bitter, bitter enemies. And this is the parable. Your neighbour is your most bitter enemy, who is dying. That's the one you're supposed to save. Who's left out? Your enemy and your neighbour are one and the same. That's the only thing that's going to change anything. Picture: Glenn Barder, P&M We pause as Big Ben sounds the hour at deafening volume. This picture is taken from the protest site - directly opposite Parliament itself. With the clock and the traffic, conversation - let alone sleep - is not possible at times. Brian Haw: A little Jewish girl came to speak to me. She's a nurse, going up to Scotland to get a year's extra training in trauma therapy. For the battlefield, the places where there is war. The terror of being bombed - what it does to the children, to be living in a war zone, the fear and the terror. And this little Jewish girl is going to get extra training to care for people in that terrible situation. Then she's going to go back to this place called Palestine, and care for the people and children in Palestine. Is this going to change things? What do you think? Is this the only thing that can change things? For God's sake, what did these people ever do to us. When are we going to check it out? Some bloody fools talk about the Jewish people killing Jesus, what a nonsense! Do you know what the message is about Christianity? I killed Jesus - He died for my sins! Yes, the Romans put him on the cross, at the behest of the Jewish leaders of the time, but the message is Jesus died for me. And if there were no other sinner, he would still have died for me. That's the message. Photo by Moramay Herrera Kuri - After the display was wrecked by police, May/2004 * Well, this is turning into a bit of a sermon, isn't it! So I hope this goes down well in the US of A, because I understand their leaders are fundamentalist Christians over there. And I also understand that they are full of crap. Because they also think it's OK to have black people as slaves, and treat them as less than a white person. Of course, we've all moved on from there, but we haven't really have we? Does the black person get a fair shake in this place called America? What about these people called the "Injuns"? The "red Indians" they called them. What about the real Americans. Most of them are dead, aren't they? That was a successful genocide. We've kind of wandered about a bit, hope you're keeping track of all this! Let's go back to the Good Book and check it out. Christ says, "Love your enemies", he didn't say say bomb and burn all the babies, and bugger their mums, dads, brothers and sisters! ---------------------------- This interview will be continued in the next update - which should be posted within 10 days. Brian Haw, 2001 - parliament-square.org.uk Thank you for your time. - Glenn Barder. glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk
link	post comment

Control Orders

[Feb. 13th, 2007|01:31 am]

14/2/07

Comrades,

To complement terms such as "Extraordinary Rendition", the practice
of subjecting people to "Control Orders" has now entered the lexicon
of received cynicism.

These "control orders" are a set of seemingly meaningless and
arbitrary restrictions which impose a cruel limitation on the lives
of those selected. The restrictions are based on secret evidence,
closed courts where even the defence lawyer is not allowed to
know the charges, and are laughable unsuitable for stopping a
genuine jihadist bent on destruction in any case.

Nearly a year ago, Amnesty International released a heavily
critical report on the UK's compliance with its human rights
obligations. Obligations as signed up to under International
Law, not just some wish-list.

*

The Control Order programme is still in full operation. The
idea is to punish undesirables out of the country, to trip them
up by falling foul of arbitrary and punitive restrictions. In many
cases the families of such individuals are punished along with
them, and they feel no choice but to return to a repressive
regime, from whose torture they fled in the first place.

AI's Secretary General emphasised:

    There is now a dangerous imbalance between draconian
    actions the UK is taking in the name of security and its
    obligation to protect human rights. These measures tarnish
    the UK’s image and its ability to promote human rights abroad."

The UK government's practices of holding people on the
basis of evidence the accused cannot know or challenge
is described as "Kafkaesque", the government is accused
of by-passing courts. No case is ever tried. The evidence
is too sensitive.

But the AI criticism goes much further, from an organisation
which specifically avoid political judgements, and retains
international respectibility only through its impartiality:

    "Most worrying of all has been the effort of the UK
    government to weaken the absolute ban on torture"

*

Not so long ago, absolutely devestating evidence
had UK's airports locked down, and still today we
have absurd restrictions in travel - arbitrary,
rediculous and ineffective in any case.

The Home Office admitted there has been no
specific terror threat. No evidence of anything
was found.
Source: BBC

Nothing has happened as a result of these arrests, and no
evidence of any substance whatsoever has been produced.

In Notting Hill, a family (Muslim, as it happens) was arrested
by 250 police, and their house pretty much dismantled - all
on the grounds of "Intelligence". Nothing was found, all were
released with apologies.

Brazilian electrician Menezes was shot dead - 7
times at point-blank range in the head - because
"intelligence" had it that he was a suspect. He
was entirely innocent.

Jean Charles de Menezes
- shot dead 22/7/2005
Source: ThisIsLondon

But why should we look further for the reliability
of "intelligence", when the fearsome WMD of Iraq
were absolutely known about, and therefore
justified the basis for war?

*

ASBOs and Control Orders

A previous article mentioned ASBOs - Anti-Social Behaviour
Orders. These share a theme with our new Control Orders.
You may not have committed a crime which is brought before
the courts. You may have broken no law. But you can be
subjected to an ASBO or CO.

Once this ASBO or CO has been levied upon you, you must
abide with its conditions. Failure to do so is a crime, and
you can be thrown in jail or - even more seriously for asylum
seekers - sent back to the country that tortured you and made
you flee.

And the more onorous the conditions imposed, the more
likely we are able to dispose of you, and have you in jail
or back to wherever you came from, without all that bother
about legal trivialities such as due process, International Law,
and bothersome courts asking if there is indeed any case
to answer.

Extending detention without charge

The French would be pretty horrified if a person were held
by their authorities for more than 7 days. After all, they had
held a revolution to prevent unaccountable
executives (the royalty) deciding who had what rights on
their own whim.

The French Resistance knew quite well, that the maximum
time a person could hold out against interrogation was 4 days.
After that time, a person would be broken, and tell anything
which they thought wanted to be heard.

When desperate gangs of Jihadists are arrested with
no resistance, police find "nothing of significance"
despite hysterical headlines about yet another
"terrorism swoop"

Police were allowed to hold suspects for up to seven days,
but this clearly was not enough. The government wanted
90 days of detention without bringing a charge. And as
soon as you walked free after 90 days, of course, they could
arrest you again.

The Blair administration lost that vote - the 60 day
"compromise" was rejected by the House of Lords
and eventually 28 days was settled upon. The
current limit is given in this link.

Home Secretary John Reid is
again working on extending
this time limit.

Britain's Guantanamo Bay

Belmarsh Prison, the notorious maximum security jail in
south London, is typically where those held without
charge reside. Human rights organisations such as
Amnesty International have no direct access, making it
hard to verify Home Office assurances that prisoners
are treated well.

AI write: "The men are held in small
cells for 22 hours a day, how is that
proper treatment?" Solicitors describe
their clients as having been
"entombed in concrete".

Reports from AI indicate inadequate
health care - particularly mental health,
no access to the outside world,
restrictions on practicing religion.

The human rights group Liberty point out:

    "While the government has been seen publicly to lobby the US over the
    treatment of Guantanamo Britons, it is treating terror suspects the
    same way in its own country."

"Over here it says such action is 'necessary' but no other country in
Europe feels the need to go down this path."

Living under Control Orders

The control orders themselves subject "suspect terrorists"
to 24 hour monitoring by security services. They wear a
leg bracelet tag, have to call into the local police station
and telephone a monitoring line several times a day, and
are restricted from leaving their room outside specified
hours.

Failure to call - typically every 6 hours, including at 3AM -
results in immediate dispatch of a police unit to their house.

As a recent Channel-4 "Dispatches" documentary
reported, they are free to move around in an arbitrarily drawn
up perimeter around their house. Move outside it, and the
electronic leg-tag will alert the services. Nevertheless,
this perimeter includes the routes of several bus and
tube (underground transport) public transport. If these
are indeed dangerous terrorists bent on mass destruction,
they could easily plant bombs.

They are not considered as being a threat along these lines.
There is no evidence against them, at least, nothing which
they are told about.

*

About 40 "terror suspects" are currently restricted by
Control Orders, 9 of whom were born in the UK.
Dispatches looked at a few cases:

Detainee 'AA'

Mouloud Sihali is known as detainee 'AA'. He was arrested
in Wood Green over a suspected ricin poisoning plot. The
charge was dropped because of no evidence, but he was re-
arrested after the 7/7 bombings and held for 4 months.

Following his release, the Control Orders were imposed.
He was sent to live in one room of a house, and has to
exist like this indefinitely. The conditions are:

15.5 hours/day house arrest
Electronic bracelet tagging
No mobile telephone
No Internet access
Daily visits to local police station
Travel restricted to 1 mile
Home Office clearance required for any visitor

He claims to have no idea what he is suspected of, given
he was completely cleared of the supposed ricin plot.

Sihali fled military service from Algera, at the height of
civil war in 1996.

A secret court decided the conditions, but three train
stations are - as he points out - within the one mile
perimeter in which he can travel, together with a
shopping centre and 16 bus routes. A good thing for
us he has no actual interest in terrorism.

*

When the ricin case came to trial, he was found not
guilty. Two jurors have - after months of paperwork -
visited Sihali in his home, and have befriended him. They
were convinced of the government case, but were shocked
when the case against him was made. The evidence was
so flimsy, and there was no ricin, and there was no plot.

A policeman had been killed by a deluded man arrested
in a dawn raid, the others were simply his aquaintances.

Detainee 'AR'

Mahmoud Abu Rideh was arrested and held for three years
without trial. He must call a monitoring company three
times a day. His conditions are:

Call the monitoring centre between 3-4am every day
12 hours a day house arrest
No mobile telephones or Internet
No visitors without Home Office approval
No pre-arranged meetings at all

But if someone waited outside his house for long
enough, they could stop him for an interview.

"If I am a terrorist, why do they not charge me in court?"
he asks.

He is Palestinian by origin, and is allowed to travel
anywhere as long as he is back by 7pm. Curiously enough,
this allows him to visit pretty much anywhere.

His accent is strong, and the voice recognition software
does not understand him at the monitoring service. This
has led to numerous visits by the police for failing to
contact them properly. He tries not to wake his 5
children during these nightly events.

Doctors say he suffers from PTSD.

Detainee 'A'

This Algerian immigrant wants to remain anonymous to protect
his family, but has also spent three years detained without
charge. Having been in Britain 17 years, he was rounded
up with Abu Rideh after "9/11" and thrown in jail.

22 hours a day house arrest
Electronic tagging
No mobile telephones or Internet
No visitors without Home Office approval
Travel restriction - 1 mile

If he steps outside the house, he breaks the control order
and can be thrown back in jail or deported. The latter
is apparently the government's favoured option, and sends
him a waver to sign, saying he gives up any residency claim.

He will probably die badly, but eventually chooses that
option for the sake of his family.

----------------------------------------

The strain on the mental health of the detainees is
clear, and they are showing signs of great distress and
paranoia. Limited to a just a couple of square meters
in which to spend most of their day, and with their
family also feeling the strain, they are left with
a choice of returning to a regime which will probably
torture and/or kill them.

Gareth Peirce, solicitor (lawyer) to
Abu Rideh and Detainee 'A', says
that the absolute right to arbitrary
detention without charge was
jettisoned after 11/9/2001.

Around a dozen men were given
special treatment, locked up with
no release date and no charge.

David Blunket, Home Secretary at the time, stated in
the Houses of Parliament (19/Nov/2001):

    "If the evidence that would normally be produced...
    and a normal court were available... we would have
    used it. We are talking here about those who are
    adjudged to have committed, supported, organised
    and helped those who have involved in terrorism
    worldwide in the circumstances of 11/September".

The government replaced indefinite detention with
Control Orders in 2005 "Prevention of terrorism Act",
after they lost cases in the courts with some of the
detainees.

*

Abu Rideh slashed his wrists in the local police station,
after asking them to arrest him if they thought him a
threat. His daughters cannot have friends visit,
cannot use the Internet, and have increasing problems
making contact with others. They too become ever more
isolated.

The police frequently search right through his house,
including the possessions of is wife and daughters. On
their way to pray or go anywhere, they are sometimes
turned back by the police and told they must be searched
again instead. Visitors are, of course, come under
suspicion themselves.

Feeling they are the cause of the family suffering, they
are pressured to return to almost certain death at the
hands of governments who have never heard of human rights.

*

Three detainees are on the run. This is not terribly
suprising, perhaps. If you cannot stand the Control
Orders, your choices are "voluntary" return to a country
which will torture you, suicide, or try to run away.

Ian MacDonal QA (Queen's Councellor) - Special Advocate
for Secret Courts, 1997-2004 says that "Intelligence
assessments" are impossible to determine. They are
often no more than guesswork. All kinds of different
sources make the material - often 3rd, 4th and 5th hand
- which is impossible to assess.

Paid informants - like torture victims - have a tendancy
to say what the inquisitor wants to hear, particularly
when prompted, and most particularly when there is
something to gain from providing the information.

*

Mohammed Samraoui, an Algerian Intelligence agent
(DRS) from 1974-1996, finds the idea that Algeria would
provide objective evidence laughable. After the 1996
coup, they gave the names of 1800 "suspected terrorists"
to the west:

"It is pathetic to think that accurate information would
be given... they are opponents of the military regime...
All the names handed over by the Algerian services
to the intelligence authorities in the west turned
out to be false information. We saw that with the
Ricin trial in Britain."

--------------------

With Control Order subjects slowly going mad, some
dissapearing and thus breaking the law, or "volunteering"
to opt for a very dubious future for the sake of their
families, the British government is seen to be Doing
Something.

While not breaking every letter of our signed obligations
on due process and asylum, our government has surely
broken its spirit. Minimum standards of human rights
obligations would be embraced by any government
which truly understood that its citizens had elected it
to look after its rights.

Looking after our rights does not mean circumventing
the spirit of laws founded to protect citizens. It should
never mean crushing the human spirit, so that they
chose probably death and torture to the treatment
of a State which claims to be honourable.

Thank you for your time.

     -Glenn Barder.
(glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk)
-------------------------------------------------------

link

1 comment|post comment

"New" Labour's winds of change	[Jan. 27th, 2007\|01:46 am]
29/01/2007 Comrades, Blair has a remarkable talent for becoming best friends with rich and powerful people. He also has a well tuned sense of the way the wind is blowing, so to anticipate which side of his face best be shown. Clinton was Blair's natural friend at the start of his premiership. Both were artful spin-masters, relatively youthful (Blair was the youngest PM for 200 years, Clinton since Roosevelt), and both unbound by any particularly strong principles. Both had strong career wives, a background in law, and came to power on the back of a long and finally unpopular Conservative rule. It has been a puzzle to many why Blair has behaved the way he has, and if some other commentator writes the same conclusion before this post is up, my apologies - Blair governs Britain in the style of whoever is currently in power in Washington, and is finally shifting course now that Washington's leadership is changing. Nevertheless, he stands by Bush, will sink with him, and be remembered as the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had. The Clinton influence America has a culture quite different to that of Britain, and there are various pros and cons for each. One significant difference is that it is a less socially progressive country, this much is beyond dispute. Whether Britain should abandon - continue to abandon - a social approach to governance, drift from the European model and become more right wing is a matter of debate, but the answer in a democracy should be decided by the people. The people made their choice, and got the opposite of that which was advertised. In 1997, Blair ended 18 long years of Tory rule. The electorate had decided it had had enough. People - despite the urgings of a right wing press - always did want a better public service and socially progressive policies. The rich buy their ink in barrels and have a louder voice, and their fearful screams about higher taxes and a destroyed economy made people accept that Thatcherism was necessary as the alternatives were even worse, until even business had had enough of the incompetence and sleaze. Once the press backed off support for the Tories, Labour swept in on a wave of popularity. Anything seemed possible. Not many suspected nightmares on an even grander scale were likely to be delivered from this "New" Labour. * Britain voted the Tories out because they wanted a change, but Blair was besotted with Clinton and his successful presidency. He confused the electorate's desire with personal approval, and changed the basis of British politics to a presidential, top-down style, with his infallible self at the head. He set about imposing the benefits of an American society for the rich - nationalising risks and cost, while privitising benefits and profit. This was carried out with a greater abandon than even Thatcher dared. Little wonder, then, at Thatcher and Blair's mutual admiration. Source: gpo.gov Clinton could do this and act as a progressive, but Britain was coming to this position from the opposite direction, and so took the country on a huge lurch to the right. Again - this needs emphasising - a shift to the right was not what had just been voted for. Many of us who actually have a lot of respect for America's institutions, the freedoms and rights granted by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, are angered that Blair's happy-clappy "Third Way" omits these benefits to citizens, while upholding corporate benefits on a scale unheard of since the 19th Century. What does Blair really mean by "Third Way"? As Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice through the looking glass, "When I use a word, it means whatever I want it to mean, no more, no less." Swiftly shifting to Bush As disaster struck in November 2000 and Al Gore (not to mention the electorate) was denied his presidency, many in Britain wondered how on earth Blair would carry on this particularly Special Relationship with Washington. Blair was strongly placed to welcome Gore into their new "special relationship", after all. With breathtaking volte-face, Blair hardly missed a beat in adapting to the radically new world view and social agenda suddenly offered. Everything Bush stood for was accommodated by Blair. Nothing was too radical or dangerous. We saw our Prime Minister not only go along with the new order - he was positively enthusiastic. Pic source: CNN The "Special Relationship" was cemented after "9/11", when Blair rushed to offer help and sympathy following the atrocity. Britain was not the only country to do this, but was singled out as if we were standing by America in the face of the whole world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Source: Scholars of Islam Above are images of Iranian, Palestinian, American, Iranian again and Bangladeshi Muslims morning the victims of 9/11 . America was by no means alone. A war on Islam was not necessary. Shifting away from Blair and Bush With the US congressional elections scarcely over, "New" Labour was changing course. Blair is on his way out, and despite denying he is finished, he is effectively a lame duck PM. Worse, he cannot effectively function as a leader in time of crises, nobody would believe him even in the unlikely event he started telling the truth. A BBC interview with Blair on 28/1/07 showed his unflinching faith in his own infallibility, a conviction of his correctness in all things, no matter what the results. "I am not finished yet", he insisted. Source: BBC Blair's habitual grin looks more rictus-like by the day, particularly when talking about Iraq. His few remaining friends must be concerned about the manic stare from his left eye, and the remarkable pace of his aging. * The police are continuing to build their case against corruption, where Blair sold honours (honorary titles, such as "Lord", Member of the British Empire, etc.) for cash. The official electoral watchdog is advising police to take action. Now, senior ministers are finally discovering a backbone, with Peter Hain referring to difficulties in a working relationship with the most right wing American administration, if not ever, then in living memory. When this was put to Blair, he laughed and dismissed the subject. The transcript records all this. Peter Hain - cabinet minister and a possible deputy PM when Blair goes (equivalent to Vice President), finally rediscovers principles from long ago. He claims George Bush's foreign policy has "failed", in an interview with New Statesman magazine. Picture: BBC Hain went on : "The neo-con mission has failed. It's not only failed to provide a coherent international policy, it's failed wherever it's been tried, and it's failed with the American electorate". He added that the neo-con mission had damaged the fight against terrorism, and distracted the world from solving the Middle East crises. Fine words - but much, much too late. He was all for the war while Blair was riding high, and contemptuously dismissive of Bush's and Blair's critics. Gordon Brown - currently Chancellor of the Exchequer but most likely to be Prime Minister within months - has also been sounding less than enthusiastic about our Iraq adventure. Visiting Iraq last November, he said he hoped to see troop reductions "in the next few months." He has made clear that his style of leadership will be significantly different to Blair's. Source: BBC Open disagreements between Washington and Whitehall (UK equivalent) are breaking out. The Shaibah base in Basra is due to be closed within weeks with the centre of operations being transferred to Basra air station. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett has announced that security in Basra would be handed over to Iraqis "at some point in the spring", the Independent reports. The US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad has publicly urged Britain to maintain troops at their current level, and the US is quietly demanding the Shalibah airbase be kept open. But already, reductions in troops are taking place. Defence secretary Des Brown has announced they will be "significantly lower by a matter of thousands" by the end of this year. Zalmay khalilzad / Source: BBC There appears to be a diplomatic playing down of the scale of British withdrawal. We certainly are not hearing of a great homecoming victory - talk is of withdrawal to please the public, but not too loudly. We wouldn't want to embarrass the Americans, after all. That many of these same troops are being redeployed to Afghanistan is another story. Brian Haw defeats Blair again, protest still legal Earlier this week, legendary protester Brian Haw won the right to continue his protest. Or rather, Blair lost the battle to deny him his right. Brian Haw has been protesting since 2/June/2001. Blair has even changed British Law to get rid of him. As a result of this law, no new protest can take place - Haw is the last legal protester. Any new protester will automatically become a "terrorist" and charged under extraordinary powers. The new law was not retroactive, so Haw stays. Source: BBC The area in which Haw can protest has been limited, with police seizing about 90% of his original placards. The police were desperate enough to claim that terrorists might hide bombs under his remaining placards in the latest court appearance, but the District Judge dismissed this risible nonsense and threw out the case. Your correspondent has been in touch with this incredibly resilient protester, and hopes to bring you an interview of the last protester allowed in the UK Parliament area, at least until a less authoritarian administration returns, restoring to us some of the liberties the British had once taken for granted. * Thank you for your time. -Glenn Barder. glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk ------------------------------------------------------------
link	post comment

Debt to the US, real war sacrifice, and the death sentence	[Jan. 9th, 2007\|07:17 pm]
Comrades, It's fair to say that most of Europe was pretty appalled by the treatment and execution of Saddam Hussein. The fact that a state execution takes place at all is bad enough, but this was effectively a lynching. Besides outraging the very small minority of Saddam loyalists, Sunni Muslims are obviously going to feel the US installed and run government has no interest in them. Not just the Sunnis in Iraq, but those in Saudi, Egypt and Syria - the very place were all the "foreign fighters" are supposed to be coming from. Calm down the situation, use diplomacy and intelligence - real intelligence? Never. Saddam Hussein had gained such a long and fearsome reputation in his 25 year dictatorship, some who did not support Sunni or Saddam himself could believe that one day he might be back. After all, the Americans have been known to change their minds on these things. The fact of Saddam's existence was a deterrent to taking action. If they rose up on the wrong side, what would be their fate if Saddam returned? Now, with his sons gone too, they have nothing to fear by rising up. Turning a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein into a martyr seemed an impossible job. Yet the Bush administration managed it. The British debt to America Blair and Bush like to talk about colossal battles, the great trial of our times, a desperate and noble mission to defeat the evil about to engulf us. It's just that we don't get it, and Blair is saddened by our lack of commitment, Bush is outraged at the lack of patriotism. Perhaps we don't understand this to be a titanic struggle between good and evil, because we recognise the Middle East adventure as an unequal smashing of an unarmed, depleted country by the world's super-power, followed by a ham-fisted and unpopular occupation. British people understand the cost of genuine war, they need no lectures from Blair or Bush on this. Britain owed a great deal to America after the Second World War. So much, in fact, that the final payment was only made at the start of 2007. The last installment was only $83M, but the loan started with nearly $4.3Billion . There was a lot to spend it on. Many cities in Britain were absolutely bombed flat during the war. If not quite as sudden, a "9/11" type devastation across vast swathes of every major city remained, in which we celebrated an end to the war. All this required building - and with money and resources in short supply, this was not always done particularly well. Source: eyewitnesstohistory.com The Bltiz , bombing from the air, was over six years, and killed about 43,000 people while destroying over a million homes. Casualties were greatly reduced, because people were used to running for bomb shelters as soon as sirens sounded. This was usually at night, and lasted for many hours. Source: worldwar2exraf.co.uk * Americans have not suffered a widespread attack since the country was formed, in living or spoken memory, but their perspective might have been broadened as to the real costs of war with the benefit of such experience. The very notion of Blair & Bush's "Churchillian victory" over Iraq is deeply insulting to ancestors and older relatives from the war, who understand what genuine sacrifice from a nation means. * Industry had been turned entirely to war production, and major re-tooling was required for a return to civilian purposes. A lot of men returned from war to unemployment, and the wounded and war widows needed looking after. The rate was pretty favourable at 2%, but there was some annoyance that Britain had been given a loan, while other countries - particularly those who had started the war - were given free aid under the Marshall Plan and saw their economies boom. Some of us have speculated for the last few years whether, following this final payment, we can have our own leader instead of a stand-in for US Republicans. The Death Sentence The last death sentences in the UK were carried out in August 1964, just around the same time the US Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, outlawing discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin. Labour returned to power in 1964 with a priority of abolishing capital punishment, and on 28th October 1965, a bill by MP Bill Silverman received Royal Assent (the final stage in passing law), to suspend the death penalty. On 16th December 1969, the House of Commons passed law that capital punishment be permanently abolished. The last people condemned by a rejected law: Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans, simultaneously executed in different prisons at 8am, on 13th August 1964. They were convicted of murdering a man in the course of robbing him. About half of all convicted murderers had their sentences commuted to "life", which meant 10-12 years. This was considered particularly unfair by condemned prisoners, because the basis for either death or 10 years was pretty arbitrary. The rate of about 11 hangings a year was fairly consistent. The European Union is opposed to the death sentence in all cases. So it was with some considerable revulsion that we witness Saddam Hussein's lynching, purportedly at the result of a democratically elected government's application of due process. That war criminals should be tried in the Hague is both recognised by International Law, and understood worldwide as the only means to properly achieve a fair hearing and justice. It is the only way the world can have any confidence that even a semblance of justice has been delivered. Saddam Hussein was fully expecting a drum- head court, such as he had for many of his own victims. He knew full well a true investigation into his crimes would never be allowed, less still himself a chance to implicate his more serious fellow criminals. Lawyers assassinated, judges removed, and Saddam was finally convicted of killing over 148 people who had risen up - some of whom may well still be alive. In Fallujah, We killed unknown hundreds if not thousands because they were not readily submitting to occupation and had apparently risen up, but Saddam can only do such things while on the side of angels, as we are at all times. When we looked at his crimes retrospectively, when he had become an Official Enemy instead of Official Friend, the outcome was obvious from the start. * Meanwhile, the USA enjoys the dubious company of Iran, China and Saudi Arabia plus others generally regarded as poor on human rights, particularly by the US.. This can interfere with legal process, since European countries cannot - under article 11 of the European Convention on Extraditions - allow a country to have a prisoner who may be subject to the death penalty. As Robert Fisk put it in The Independent recently, either you are for the death penalty, including gruesome lynchings for possibly innocent people, or you against it - even for the likes of Saddam Hussein. It's as simple as that. * Happy 2007 everyone! -Glenn Barder. glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk
link	post comment

The Treachery of Blair	[Dec. 14th, 2006\|09:07 pm]
21/12/2006 Comrades, There are worse things than losing an election. Having an election stolen counts, but losing your party to the opposition is that much worse. When you lose your party to a bunch of fanatics in a foreign country, whose views are diametrically opposed to the founding principles of your party, the problem becomes a disaster. During the run of normal takeovers a brutal dictator is brought in, the opposition silenced or killed, and dissent rooted from the press. Politicians have long been bribed, threatened or blackmailed away from opposing the ruling elite too much. But rarely has a popular opposition been stolen before our eyes, and the values of the incumbent entirely accepted by the opposition before taking over. And this against popular sentiment. It is unprecedented in British politics - and America needs to be very, very careful the same does not happen there. The origins of the Labour party In order to fully understand the depth of Blair's betrayal, it's necessary to understand what Labour was, prior to becoming "New" Labour. Labour was founded in Farrington Street, London, in 1900. It was formed to represent the working class, and give a true political arm to the unions that had long fought for the interests of the vast majority of the country. James "Kier" Hardy was one of two MPs as the first representatives of the British working class. Or another way, he was the first representative of a party which was not given entirely over to providing for the gentrified classes. In his younger days, he had organised unions in various collieries (mines) in Lancashire, and became Britain's first ever socialist MP in the general election of 1892. Merthyr Tydfil, in south Wales, was once the source of vast amounts of profit. Coal mines and iron smelting, fueled by the destruction of most of the Forest of Dean, provided vast fortunes while the workers lived on subsistence wages. It is said that more wealth was extracted from the Rhondda Valley (South Wales, again) than was taken from India during time of the British Empire. With wages mostly only redeemable in "truck shops" owned by the Iron Masters and pit owners, the 10,000 population of Merthyr Tydfil had a single tap for water between them in the mid nineteenth century. Meanwhile, the Iron Masters and Coal Masters lived in absolute splendor, lives as distant from their workers as today's Saudi Kings are to the average westerner. The roots of the Labour party were from the unions that represented the underclass, the working people that generated the country's wealth. Labour was the party representing those not born into wealth. The idea it might sell out to corporate interests even while an unpopular Conservative party was about to be kicked out was unthinkable. Yet Blair managed it. Stealing the Opposition Blair came to power as the prodigy of John Smith, who led the Labour party out of the dark days into the inevitable successor of a deeply unpopular Conservative rule. John Smith, even more tragically for humanity as history plays out, died in 1995. Considerably more popular than incumbent PM John Major, he would have become Prime Minister at the next election. John Smith was renowned for his honesty and adherence to core principles. Source: BBC The charismatic Blair took over, despite severe misgivings about his true loyalties. The popular press (The Mail, Sun, Express, Times, Telegraph et al, all owned by heavily biased business interests) started to coddle Blair and assurances were granted. They stopped providing institutional support for the Tories - their mismanagement of the economy was enough for the ruling classes to Think The Unthinkable, and stump for their interests despite the association of a Labour movement. "New Labour" was born, and - to the horror of everyone expecting a progressive government after 18 years of Thatcherism - the new government only offered more of the same. What nobody expected, even the earlier advisers to Blair, was that he became to be nothing less than a US Republican plant. Source: UK Government Having mastered the art of political spin with his henchman Alistair Cambell, Peter Mandelson set about promoting Blair into an unstoppable force. This was necessary to stop the Tories, and "Things Can Only Get Better" was their campaign song. Everyone believed it. We were all wrong. Peter Mandelson - another very dubious character - was a founder of "New" Labour, and achieved the distinction of being sacked twice from the Cabinet. He advised on the "Cool Britannia" initiative. An open, all inclusive, happy-clappy "Third Way" was to replace any existing dispute. Source: BBC Despite this third way unfailing being for the benefit of his sponsors, Blair somehow thinks this magic will serve him in his last few months, and that he will actually be trusted as a honest broker in the Middle East. Blair has a long and ignoble history of selling out to large-scale interests. Rich people have always beguiled him, and his holidays are invariably taken in the comfortable surroundings of some extremely rich benefactor. Whether it be corrupt foreign leaders like Berlusconi or rich pop stars, Blair never tired of their company. Source: Telegraph If toadying to the rich and famous was deemed by his apologists tolerable in order to gain a necessary credibility with press barons, Blair certainly has gone the extra mile. Blair's Achievements Given Blair's premiership is in its last few months, it is appropriate to review some of his more notable contributions to British society: A diminished UK reputation worldwide The Iraq war in particular, subservience to a fanatical US president, an increasingly authoritarian governance at home and indifference to military adventurism of America's friends have ruined the reputation of Britain. Many millions of people now hate the British for what they see as an unprovoked attack on an unarmed Muslim country, not to mention continuing a holiday with a laissez faire attitude to the bombing of Lebanon. The rather generously high esteem in which the British were held is destroyed, with no gain to show for it. Damaged credentials of the PM office The British have always had quite some respect for the Prime Minister's office. Not so much as an article of faith, but a trust in the integrity of civil servants to be competent, and not to lie on matters of grave seriousness. This is shattered. The result is that nobody can believe the PM about anything, which puts Blair in an untenable position. If we cannot trust the Prime Ministers judgement, his word, nor any supporting evidence he purports to came from independent analysts, his probity or motives, then the country cannot follow his lead - even if he happens to be honestly warning us on some genuine pending danger. Such a discredited figure is not only unfit for office, but a serious danger to the security of the country. Attack on working class movements Union membership has continued its decline, with non-union jobs, contracting out vital services to agency staff, "New" Labour has steadily distanced its relationships with union organisations while becoming ever closer to big business. Unions and core Labour principles are treated as an embarrassing relatives, best avoided or humoured at best. The influence of Unions has long since vanished from the horizon. Blair feels they can only gain salvation by being lectured to on the old fashioned foolishness of their ways, and is often rather hurt at their lack of gratitude after having the wonders of the free market explained to them. Destruction of Parliament as a place for debate A record number of women became MPs (Members of Parliament) at the 1997 general election. These were referred to, in the unabashed sexist attitude of most of our British press, as "Blair's Babes". They soon earned the title, rubber- stamping every last initiative from the executive, and falling over themselves to appear in the media heaping praise on "Tony". Decisions are made by Blair's sofa-style government, and the facts made around the policy. Focus groups and newspaper editorials have superseded Parliament in determining policy. Creeping privitisation Thatcher's "selling off the family silver", as Harold MacMillan put it (Tory PM 1957-1963) gained privitisation a bad name. Higher bills and reduced service was the general experience, so "New" Labour had to take a different approach to achieve the same goals. PPP's - Public-Private Partnerships and PFI's - Private Finance Initiatives were mechanisms for transferring money to the private sector, ensuring public risk and private profit. Many public services suddenly found themselves under private management, with reduced conditions for workers rehired (on rolling contracts) for their previous posts. Entire hospitals have been built under PPP's, with the State paying private companies at least 10% of their initial costs annually, more for numerous staff contracts, and the entire hospital is owned by the private company after 25 years. Railway carriages are leased at a third of their purchase cost on an annual basis for decades. Returns are staggering for private "investors", and examples endless. Favourable loans are of course available for such low risk ventures. Corruption of the honours system There are many titles which society - to a lessor degree now - holds in esteem. An OBE or MBE (Order/Member of the British Empire) is traditionally granted for a notable contribution to society. Knighthoods (becoming a Sir, or Lord) are supposed to be conferred to one of great achievement, who is then entitled to sit in the Upper Chamber, the unelected counterpart to Parliament, The House of Lords. This has considerable power. Imparting these honours for political favours has long been a low-level scandal, but Blair has yet again gone much further. He is the only British sitting MP to be officially questioned by the police, the evidence he sold honours for cash in political donations is undeniable. Eliminating free public education The beginning of the end for the working class was the elimination of free access to education. The Tories started it of course, with Thatcher grinding down grants paid to students. Eventually grants were eliminated, but Blair went further. For the first time, students now pay tuition fees - despite a clear pledge in "New" Labour's manifesto, which not only promised not to introduce charges, but to legislate to prevent them. This was not a popular decision at all, Blair pushed it through for his own reasons. * Space does not allow for a full airing of Blair's treachery, but Thatcher herself considers Blair and "New" Labour to be her ultimate achievement. That alone says all you need to know about Blair, and his betrayal of the party. The party itself has betrayed not only the working class who brought it into existence, but Britain as a whole, in robbing us of any true choice in direction. The natural party of business interests used to be the Tories. A slicker, more competent version has overtaken them, from an unimagined source. This is not simply a matter of governing badly. Such can be tolerated. Thatcher governed incompetently because of corruption, but at least in the direction she clearly stated. Thatcher hated unions, the working class and loved money and corporate interests, everybody understood her motives. Thatcher might be a criminal, but not a traitor in the sense of Blair. Blair has not only sold the country to corporate interests, far further than Thatcher ever dared to dream, and introduced a level of authoritarianism unmatched in British history, but has out-righted the right. The Conservative party regularly attacks the government from the left, simply because they cannot keep pace with the rightward progression of "New Labour". Thank you for your time. May everyone have the merriest Christmas, and best wishes for the new year. - Glenn Barder ---------------------------------- glenn_barder@yahoo.co.uk Previous articles: One Cheer for Democracy Off to War Faith in the State Prisons Health Concerns immigration, racism and more terrorist fears Terror, and fear of debate in a stifling atmosphere
link	post comment

navigation

[	viewing	\|	most recent entries	]
[	go	\|	earlier	]