After praising Google last week, it's all gone horribly Pete Tong today.

See Blairwatch for more.

Google and Evil
So, Google has decided to kneel before the butchers of Tiananmen Square and censor itself in order to get market share "play a more useful role in China".

I fear that Google's ever so discrete and occassionally quite useful "sponsored links" will get no more clickage from this internet user.

Tags: News, Interwebs, China, Censorship

TTOAST

It's Tuesday's Token of Altruistic Subjective Thoughtfulness. Nice Blair is ahead of me again despite not feeling well (get well soon everyone). Splendid job.

So, I've got dry rot. Well, not me obviously, my flat. My neighbour('s flat) has it too. Towards the end of last year we had someone in to give us quotations to get it sorted. "Ouch" is probably the operative word. It's not going to be cheap. Neither of us really has the readies ready to get the work done. But it's already pretty serious and the longer we leave it, the worse it's going to get and the more it's going to cost. Not good.

I've basically been a bit worried about this since we got the quotations and have, for the most part, tried to pretend it'll just go away somehow. In the meantime, my neighbour has been a bit more constructive. He's found out that it's possible to do much of the work ourselves. He's arranged for a new appointment to get a new quotation, phoned me up to ask if I'd like to do the same, and taken the time to explain exactly what it would involve (the bit with the sledgehammers sounds fun). So, we've now had our new quotations and they are about half the price of the original ones. Result.

I'm not much of a one for DIY to be honest but it looks like I will be soon. Taking down walls and the like probably won't be too much of a problem but the putting things back together bit will be, er, interesting. The best part is, when I was explaining this to my neighbour, he offered to give me a hand with sorting everything out. Truly a gentleman and a scholar.

What kind gesture have you seen recently?

Tags: TTOAST

Success Defined

Reuters Alert Net (via):

Insurgents in Iraq mounted more than 34,000 attacks last year on U.S. and other foreign troops, Iraqi security forces and Iraqi civilians, a nearly 30 percent jump from 2004, the U.S. military said on Monday.

......

The number of insurgent attacks involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs), or roadside bombs, increased to 10,593 in 2005 from 5,607 in 2004, the military said. This figure includes IEDs found and eliminated by U.S. forces before rebels had a chance to detonate them.

Insurgent attacks using suicide vests rose to 67 in 2005 from 7 in 2004, the military said. Suicide attacks with car bombs rose to 411 in 2005 from 133 in 2004.

Feel free to read the US military's tortuous explanation as to why this means the coalition is succeeding. I can't make head nor tail of it. Perhaps I just don't have the intelligence to grasp what they're saying.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, does anyone honestly still think that the evil liberal media are desperate to exploit any opportunity to criticise President Bush and his Iraq adventure? There are a total of five reports on this in the entire google news index as I write this. Just to give a sense of pespective, there are over 800 indexed for that whale.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Media

A Free Press

So what's wrong with the Guardian? To their credit, they are one of the few newspapers to even mention that Blair was asked about rendition yesterday. But "Blair insists nothing to hide on rendition"? It's true that Blair did indeed do that. But he also made a startling admission (as mentioned yesterday)

Question: You have not made enquiries as to whether people have been illegally transported through this country from Place A to B?

Prime Minister: No.

The Guardian don't seem to feel that this was worth pointing out to their readers.

Despite all the controversy, Blair has not thought to phone President Bush, his closest ally, and just ask him whether this has taken place. It would be the simplest of tasks. He has not asked anyone to contact CIA HQ in Langley to ask them if they can provide him with an assurance that it hasn't happened so that he can put this controversy to rest once and for all. Why not?

This is surely the most significant admission concerning rendition to come out of yesterday's press conference. And yet the Guardian, who undoubtedly had a journalist present, chose to emphasise Blair's disingenuous insistence that he has "nothing to hide". Way to go, people. Let's hear it for the Fourth Estate.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair, Extraordinary Rendition, Media

Blair Does Listen!

What makes me laugh about these stories is the way the government types act incredulously. "Us? Spying? Why the very idea is laughable. Are you some sort of conspiracy nut?" Just saw Dennis McShane do this on Newsnight. So the British government doesn't spy on people? Don't be silly.

I've got no idea whether these allegations are true but I can say with some certainty that the British government do spy on the Russians and the Russians know they do and and vice versa. It's part of "the great game" and really no big deal. Happens all the time.

The Moscow Times says that these allegations have been made on the record by "Sergei Ignatchenko, the chief spokesman for the Federal Security Service, or FSB". To be honest, the Russian government's mock outrage is totally unconvincing. Putin, was a lieutenant colonel in the KGB after all. You can't help but wonder if he's feeling nostalgic for those good old Cold War days.

Putin is a worrying fellow. It looks like this affair is designed to exert pressure on various human rights NGO's inside Russia more than anything else. It's probably also a warning to the British and other Western governments that the Kremlin has no intention of allowing foreign governments to promote too much "civil society" (democratic society presumably) in the Motherland, above board or otherwise. Worrying.

We're still quite a long way from the days when Mutually Assured Destruction was the only thing stopping World War Three though. Who remembers those public information films? "If the Soviets launch a full scale nuclear attack against Britain, and you don't have access to a suitable bomb shelter, hide under your mattress." I presume that was just to give you something to do in the four minutes before you died. Very considerate.

I really do remember having "what would you do in the four minutes" conversations at school, in fact. Ah, these young people today. They just don't know what it was like to live in a world which was always four minutes from total oblivion. You just don't get honest to goodness fear like that these days.

And did you know, when I was young, I used to live in a hole in the road... Sorry, this post has waffled off at a tangent.

Anyway. Putin. Worrying fellow.

Tags: News, Politics, Spy Rock, Russia

Visit the UK: No Questions Asked

Tony Blair's monthly press conference transcript is up. What words of wisdom can we find? This appears to be an exchange between one reporter and the PM (minus discussion about the Iraqi election results which may turn up in another post).

Question: Prime Minister, you said a moment ago you didn't know anything about the allegations made in Moscow this morning. I think probably for some of us, that is surprising. It was reported 4 or 5 hours ago, you are coming to a public press conference.

Prime Minister: No, I didn't see it until I saw it on teletext, I am not saying I haven't asked about it.

It is interesting to hear that the prime Minister gets these important news stories straight from, er, teletext. Here was me thinking that the Foreign Office would be desperate to inform the prime minister that the Russians were accusing the UK of spying on them. Let's not bother, they must have thought, the PM will probably see it on teletext. It's an efficient system, I'll grant you. Very little waste.

Question: They are keeping secrets from you. It is your choice, but I mention it only because on a number of occasions we have been in a similar situation here in London, which has caused controversy since your last press conference, was the matter of rendition, where you said in both the Commons and at press conferences that you didn't know much about it. People have since alleged well you must have done, and obviously you know more about it now. So I wondered if you could give us an up-date on this issue which has aroused so much heat but not much light?

Prime Minister: Right, on rendition, I may be able to offer you neither heat nor light. All I have said about it is that I know America has this practice. We don't. I think Jack has disclosed any of the cases that have ever been put to us, but as far as I am aware the Americans do not operate this, except in circumstances where the law of the country concerned, and the consent of the government concerned are compatible with what they are doing. But I don't know any more about it than that.

You might want to note the "as far as I'm aware the Americans...". It's important for the next question.

Question: You have not made enquiries as to whether people have been illegally transported through this country from Place A to B?

Prime Minister: No.

There you have it; plausible deniability laid bare. He goes on to again refer to Jack's half-arsed "investigations" but the key truth is in that one word: No. Despite the mounting evidence of questionable CIA activities on British soil, the prime minister has not made enquiries as to whether the US government has illegally transported people through this country.

I wonder if you could just pretend that there's another rant about Blair's mendacity here. I feel a little queasy now and may have to go and lie down for a bit.

Tags: News, Politics, Extraordinary Rendition, Tony Blair

Murdoch's just this guy

The evil one speaks. Rupert Murdoch, the Australian, US based media baron, possesses what is arguably the most important political opinion in the United Kingdom. If, in the fullness of time, he and his newspapers decide to back Cameron, it'll almost certainly have some affect on the general election result. As such, anyone who's anyone at Westminster will have listened to and analysed every nuance of every word of this interview.

That's sort of odd when you think about it.

At the moment it looks like he's going to continue to back New Labour. He threw a few criticisms in there and a few hints that Cameron might be an acceptable future prime minister. He's very committed to Blair's education reforms and wants the Tories to support Blair even if the "Labour Party is so stupid" as to oppose the proposals.

Do you know that some managers subscribe to the view that it never hurts to remind people that they're expendable every once in a while? This can, they argue, focus their attention and increase their desire to perfom to an acceptable level. But I digress.

On Cameron, Murdoch said this:

If you believe everything he says, there's not going to be an alternative between him and a New Labour government.
(06:30 mins)

I can't help wondering if Tim noticed that one.

Tags: News, Politics, Murdoch, NewsCorp

Blowback

Here are some interesting remarks made by President Reagan in 1987 after a meeting with a delegation of resistance leaders from Afghanistan.

I expressed our nation's continued strong support for the resistance and our satisfaction with the large step the Afghan resistance took toward unity in choosing a chairman for the first time.

And as the resistance continues the fight, we and other responsible governments will stand by it. The support that the United States has been providing the resistance will be strengthened, rather than diminished, so that it can continue to fight effectively for freedom.

On behalf of the American people, I salute Chairman Khalis, his delegation, and the people of Afghanistan themselves. You are a nation of heroes. God bless you.

That's Chairman Yunis Khalis of the Islamic Union of Mujahidin.

The New York Times mentioned Khalis in an article describing how US special forces tried to orchestrate the capture bin Laden at Tora Bora in late 2001.

A theologian and warrior of considerable repute, Khalis knew the Americans well: he had fought for them two decades before... he had accepted Washington's largess, and over the years, as the war against the Soviet occupiers progressed, Khalis, among the seven resistance leaders, would receive the third-largest share of the more than $3 billion of weapons and funds that the C.I.A. invested in the jihad. As the godfather of Jalalabad, the capital of the province of Nangarhar, Khalis controlled a vast territory, including Tora Bora. It had been a key operational center for his fighters during the anti-Soviet war. And it was a key operational center for Osama bin Laden now. The caves were so close that Khalis could see them from the verandah of his sprawling stucco home.

Remarkable. Perhaps this "hero" could provide some assistance to the US effort.

It was... during the war years that bin Laden first met Khalis; the two men became very close friends. Indeed, when bin Laden returned to Afghanistan in May 1996 from his base in the Sudan (after the United States insisted that the Sudanese government expel him), it was Khalis, along with two of his key commanders - Hajji Abdul Qadir and Engineer Mahmoud - who first invited him. And it was also Khalis who, later that year, would introduce bin Laden to the one-eyed leader of the Taliban, Mullah Muhammad Omar, who had fought with Khalis - and would later become his protégé - during the jihad.

Ah well, maybe not.

Michael Scheuer, the former head of the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit... told me recently... "Osama lost his father when he was young, and Khalis became a substitute father figure to him. As far as Khalis was concerned, he considered Osama the perfect Islamic youth".

OK, definitely not. Not even worth asking, to be honest.

In late October or early November, according to Scheuer, American operatives went to see Khalis to seek his support. "Khalis said that he was retired and doing nothing now," Scheuer told me. "It was the last time" American intelligence officials saw him. "It was so bizarre! Didn't anybody know about Khalis's friendship with bin Laden? Or that Khalis was the only one of the seven mujahedeen leaders who remained neutral about, and sometimes even supported, the Taliban?" He shook his head and then went on: "And even after Sept. 11, indeed in spite of it, as soon as our bombing of Afghanistan began, Khalis issued a well-publicized call for jihad against U.S. forces in Afghanistan."

Er, right, er... er, right. The US special forces asked bin Laden's substitute father if he fancied helping to capture Osama and topple the Taliban. This was the man who had invited bin Laden back to Afghanistan in 1996 and introduced him to the Taliban leadership. This was a man who had called for jihad against US forces. And he said no? Amazing...

So, Yunis Khalis; terrorist or freedom fighter?

Tags: US Foreign Policy, Afghanistan, Reagan, Bin Laden

Look! Over there...

So, anything interesting going on this weekend apart from the extremely embarrassing revelations about Oaten's private life and the death of that whale?

Why yes, I do believe there's another thrilling enstallment of lies, damned lies, and New Labour.

Act 1

Independent on Sunday:
Pressure over the use of British airports for secret CIA torture flights increased dramatically yesterday after it emerged that a Foreign Office minister misled Parliament over a meeting between the UN and UK civil servants about the issue.

The Independent on Sunday has learnt that Lord Triesman, the Foreign Office minister, misled peers when he told the House of Lords that no such meeting had ever occurred.

But Martin Scheinin, the UN Human Rights Commission's special rapporteur, travelled to London to hold meetings with Home Office and Foreign Office officials between 21 and 22 November last year. He raised concerns about the issue of "extraordinary rendition" - the policy of moving terror suspects to countries that use torture - and is so concerned following the lack of disclosure that he is writing to ministers.

Act 2

The Observer:
Ruth Kelly has suppressed a crucial report warning her plans for schools could drive a wedge between rich and poor children, The Observer can reveal.

The academic research warns that giving schools control over which pupils they admit could increase social segregation. This is precisely the claim made by Labour MPs in revolt over the reforms and until now denied by Kelly.

Its authors have been told by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) to postpone publication of their study, which will not now be released to the Commons Education Select Committee which is set to report on the Kelly's education white paper this week.

Act 3

Chicken Yoghurt (on the police storing the DNA of innocent children):
It looks very much to me as if the government and the police (as Sir Ian Blair reminded us, an apolitical organisation) have colluded on an agreed line to take on this matter. What other explanation? Mental telepathy? Did Hyde copy Burnham's homework?

Finale

Tony Blair is first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Does he, I wonder, understand that he's radicalising people with his obsession with control and the stifling of dissent? Does he understand the frustration felt by people living under a government displaying such contemptable levels of duplicity? Does he realise that he shows a complete lack of respect for rational debate and the democratic process? Does he see that behaving as he does undermines the very institutions he puports to hold dear?

I don't know. Perhaps he's been in his Westminster bubble for so long that he genuinely can't see it. Perhaps he believes that the ends justify the means. Perhaps he can't see that this is how authoritarianism takes root and freedom is lost. Or perhaps he really is a idiot.



Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

Joining the Dots

A follow up to yesterday's post about the outing of Mark Oaten by the News Of The World. Having thought about this, I've decided to go a little further than a vague deniable insinuation.

Here are the dots.

Mark Oaten's indiscretion was revealed by the News Of The World (via), the Sunday edition of the Sun (the Murdoch owned Sun is, of course, famous for it's rather unhealthy relationship with the prime minister.) At the risk of sounding like a patronising arse, I suspect it's fair to say that most NOTW readers will read the story and go "Mark who?". Oaten's scalp is hardly high profile (do your own baldy joke). This has led some to question what the point of this outing is. It seems unlikely that it'll generate much in the way of a boost in sales.

Oaten was the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman. He, along with David Davis for the Conservatives, refused to give in to the government/Sun bullyboy tactics over the 90 days without charge proposal.

You might remember that before it was put to the vote he said "the home secretary should act now to amend this illiberal and dangerous piece of legislation". Or you might not remember. Oaten's role in Blair's blackest day might have already been forgotten by most people in the country. That he was once high on the Sun's list of traitors may also be forgotten.

I tell you what though. I bet I can name at least two other people in this country who do remember. Can you guess? OK, here's a clue. Their initials are TB and RW.

Now to me, joining these dots seems to reveal a picture of something very nasty indeed. As a self confessed cynic, and Lib Dem voter, it's hard to say whether I'm being objective about this. Was this a hatchet job driven by a desire for revenge? Or should I order the bacofoil baseball cap?

Tags: News, Politics, Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrats, Mad Dog Murdoch

Uncompromising Investigative Journalism

Now that is a surprise.

As a Liberal Democrat voter, and as someone who detests the "journalism" of Murdoch's minions, I'm not sure if I can be objective about this. The question is, does it matter who Oaten chooses to associate with in his free time? Does it affect his ability to be an effective politician? Why does anyone care who the man sleeps with?

I honestly think this is gutter journalism of the worst kind. Do the public really need to know? I think we would be better served if journalists spent more time investigating the politics of politicians. I think the public would be better served if journalists did not turn idle pub chatter into melodramatic headlines just when the government was getting a bit of stick in the media. I think the public would be better served if journalists did not misuse the word traitor in an attempt to stifle dissent, smear political opponents, curry favour with the government, and promote their owner's agenda.



But maybe that's just me.

Tags: News, Politics, Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrats, Mad Dog Murdoch

Cover Up or Not?

Blairwatch has an excellent summary of the current status of the al Jazeera memo. It appears that either the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minster's Official Spokesman is being economic with the actuality.

They have issued contradictory statements about the existence of "any memos or notes that record President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar". The Cabinet office said it "holds information which is relevant". The PMOS says the memo "doesn't refer to bombing the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar."

Even in that strange world of half truths, meaningless denials and deliberate misdirections which politicians inhabit, it's hard to see how both statements can be true. It seems to me that the PMOS's denial removes the possibility that Blair can milk this for political purposes.* He's on record. He is offically not a restraining influence on President Bush.

If the memo is released and that denial was untrue, well, it's always the cover-up that gets you in the end.

* Subject to a caveat I left in a comment to the Blairwatch post.

Tags: Al-Jazeera Memo, Politics

Creeping Compulsion

We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports.
- Labour Party manifesto 2005

It's a cliche but sometimes you wonder whether New Labour have already complied their own Newspeak dictionary.

Voluntary (adj.)
Done or undertaken of one's own the government's free will

Anyone who needs to travel oversees as part of their paid employment would certainly have difficult with the suggestion that applying for a passport is a voluntary decision.

But the real worry in the manifesto commitment is the use of the word "initially". The government's strategy has been clear for quite some time. The first step was to sell this as a voluntary scheme even though it's clear to anyone with two brains cells to rub together that a voluntary ID card scheme cannot possibly even begin to deliver any of the alleged benefits which have been attached to it.

It was obvious from the start that this was a first step on the road to compulsion. It was obvious that the government were deliberately downplaying the idea of compulsion in order to establish the idea of a national identity register while intentionally not explaining that you would have to be forced to register, law abiding citizen or not, if the scheme was to have any useful purpose. It was obvious that this was yet another example of the Blair government displaying a total lack of respect for the intelligence of the people of this country.

Worryingly, it appears that the government now believe that they have "moved the debate on" to the extent that they can openly start to discuss forcing people to register.

The question is should you require - and I think ultimately, unless there is compulsion, you won't get the benefits of an ID card system - is it right to compel those that don't have a passport also to get an ID card? I think it is, I think it will become inevitable that you need reliable means of identification, both to stop people stealing your identity, and also making it much, much easier for you to deal with the state. You won't every time you want to change something have to fill in a long form, life will just become much easier.

I think the government takes the view that to get the full benefits they will ultimately have to become compulsory."
- Lord Falconer, 20/01/06

This will need a vote in parliament. Falconer is the first to start the softening up exercise.

The government will, of course, wait until the register is already up and running and costing money before they actually put this to the vote - "Look, what I'm saying is, we have this system in place, and it is simply common sense to make the best possible use of it in order to protect the citizens of this country".

I'm on this list.* Are you?

* Strictly speaking, I'm not. I'm one of the 11,000+ people on the earlier pledge.

Tags: News, Politics, ID Cards

Google Power

Google is resisting attempts by the US Justice Department to access information about searches and website indexing. The information has apparently been requested in order to collect infomation about the effectiveness of US online pornography laws. The information would not provide direct information on individuals using Google services.

But:

Privacy groups say any sample could reveal the identities of Google users indirectly. And they say the demand is a worrying precedent, because the government also wants to make more use of internet data for fighting crime and terrorism.

It's that thorny issue of the balance between protection from potential terrorists and protection from unwarranted and potentially dangerous uses and abuses of state power. As Blair says "the question is: where does the balance fall, and that is a matter of judgment." Given his current occupation, and given the fact that he genuinely appears to believe that his government can do no wrong, that the very idea is an absurdity, you've got to wonder whether he's in the best position to make that judgement.

Anyway, Can you imagine if the US Justice Department got their hands on the data about my google searches?

Terror, terrorist, terrorism, bin Laden, al Qaida, President Bush, Tony Blair, Whitehouse, Downing Street, Zarqawi, Iraq, Insurgents, Home Office, Pentagon, suicide bombing, London Bombing, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, Hamas...

To name but a few recent examples.

If the US had this information, would I be taken off a bus and disappeared for five months? I wouldn't be too happy with that, to be honest.

In reality, of course, it's very unlikely to happen to me; I've got an English sounding name and white skin. Anyone interested in these issues who does not have similar "protection" might want to reconsider the way's they use their search engines though. Microsoft and Yahoo are both cooperating with the US administration. For now, Google remains defiant. More power to them.

Tags: News, Politics, Civil Liberty, Interwebs, Extraordinary Rendition

Weasel Words

Jack's latest mendacious missive has been released to parliament.

We have found no evidence of detainees being rendered through the UK or overseas territory since 11 September 2001.

But Jack, we know that the government is trying to "move the debate on from the specifics of rendition". As such, a reasonable person must conclude that you're probably not looking very hard to find evidence of it happening. What we want is an absolute assurance that it has never happened. Can you give us one? It's a simple question.

I'll wait till I get hold of the full statement before offering any further opinions.

Tags: News, Politics, Extraordinary Rendition, Rendition Memo, Strawman

Those Results in Full...

The Iraqi elections results have now been declared.

• United Iraqi Alliance: 128 seats
• Kurdistan Alliance: 53
• Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni): 44
• Iraqi National List (secular-based): 25
• Iraqi Front for National Dialogue (Sunni): 11
• Other parties: 14

These are important numbers. It appears that they will represent the political situation in Iraq for the next four years.

The parliament has 275 seats. For an overal majority of one, a party would need to get 138 seats. Under the new constitution, this simple majority is all that's required to pass bills into law on most issues. The UIA, the Shiite Islamic theocratic fundamentalist alliance, is 10 seats short of achieving that simple majority. That they did not win the 138 seats they required is a small glimmer of light in a very dark situation. In practise, as the most powerful party, they are unlikely to struggle to get the extra 10 votes they need when required.

The constitution requires a two thirds majority in support of some legislation, including ammendments to the constitution (although in some cases this reverts back to a simple majority if a stalemate results from the two thirds stipulation). The number required to carry through new laws in this case is 184 (or 92 to block them). The UIA and the Kurdish Alliance together have 181 votes. Not quite enough. On the other hand, the parties who protested the election results and those who seek to ammend the constitution have not reached the 92 seat they need to be block legislation either.

Much depends on the 14 seats won by the other parties. ABC News has reported that 5 of those seats were won the the Kurdish Islamic Group. (The ABC report studiously avoids mentioning that it is now extremely likely that over 2000 US soldiers have died so that Islamic fundamentalists can dominate Iraq - curse those evil liberals.) Will the UIA be able to garner the 10 seats it needs for a simple majority from these others? Will the Kurdish Alliance again form an alliance with the UIA as part of a deal over continuing movement towards full Kurdish autonomy? If they do, will they find the extra three votes they need to achieve the two thirds majority?

If I was a betting man, I know where I'd put my money. Sadly.

* Who said that the UIA would get "around 130 seats" almost exactly one month ago? To be fair, it was already fairly obvious to most people. Not, apparently, to Marcus though.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq Elections

Indefatigability

It's no secret that the Bush and Reagan administration's have employed many of the same people.

For example, Donald Rumsfeld was famously employed as President Reagan's special envoy to Iraq in 1983. It was, of course, in this role that he shook hands with Saddam Hussein. This happened at a time when the US State Department (pdf) had "information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons (CW)". Rumsfeld, however, did not bring up the subject of weapons of mass destruction during his 90 minute discussion with Saddam. Perhaps that is why, according to official documents (pdf), the brutal dictator showed "obvious pleasure" during the meeting

He did raise the issue in a meeting with Tariq Aziz. In his own words (pdf), "I made clear that our efforts to assist [in the Iran-Iraq war] were inhibited by certain things, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and Human Rights". This appears to be the only reference Rumseld made to CW or Saddam's brutal internal oppression methods during his two and a half hour meeting with Aziz.

In later years, of course, Rumsfeld was to show a great deal more concern over Saddam's WMD capabilities and his oppression of the Iraqi people. Back then, he opined that Saddam's continuing use of CW and his Human Rights abuses were inhibiting the US government's ability to provide assistance to the vicious dictator's oppressive regime. In those days, Rumfeld was mostly concerned with US foreign policy goals. He was specifically concerned with maintaining and expanding US influence in the Middle East and ensuring that the oil flowing out of Iraq was not disrupted. This can be clearly seen in Rumsfeld's own record of his conversation with Aziz (3rd pdf linked above).

Iraq was a country I wished to visit. It was clear from a geostrategic standpoint. We had interests that were similar and that it was worth talking about the similarities and differences in our views... We were ready if they [Saddam's government] felt that a higher profile in the relationship would be useful in indicating to the world that relations between our countries are important and that there are more similarities than differences.

I noted that Iraq's oil exports were important. We talked about the best ways to increase their output. Would be [sic] the possibility of their having a pipeline connected to Saudi Arabia. He said that even without pumping stations Iraq could increase from 500,000 bpd [probably, it's slightly smudged] to 1.2 million bpd; with pumping stations output could go up to an even higher number. I raised the question of a pipeline through Jordan. He was familiar with the proposal. It apparently was a US company proposal.

So it's actually sort of moving when you realise that Rumsfeld has become a compassionate humanitarian in the years since these meeting occurred. Why, it almost brings a tear to my eye.

Tags: US Foreign Policy, Donald Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein , Iraq

You may not be aware of it but hamsters are at one with the force.

This isn't the hamster you are looking for. This is some other hamster.

Sorry. How could I not link though?

Tags: Hamsters

Everying you ever wanted to know about the market price of large quantities of Scandium Oxide.

Tags: G-Juice

More on the rendition memo

Surprise and fear...

The official word from the PMOS:

Put to him that if the UK was a member of the Council of Europe then any rendition taking place on its soil would be illegal, the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that Jack Straw had dealt with the issue of rendition in his statement on the 12 December. It had been a comprehensive statement and the PMOS suggested that journalists read it carefully. Anything we did in relation to rendition was in compliance with our obligations under international law. As Jack Straw had said, we had had no requests for rendition since 9/11.

*Reads statement again*

*Thinks*

*Looks up definition of disingenuous*

*Thinks*

*Looks up definition of ambiguous*

*Thinks*

*Looks up definition of git*

*Laughs at photo of Straw in dictionary*

More from the PMOS:

He said it was a classic case of people getting over-excited by a leaked memo rather than actually reading the content of it.

The leaked memo is available via the article in the New Statesman (previous experience shows that you only get one free access to this per day). I would also recomend reading it in full.

Here's one point of interest.

Is extraordinary rendition legal?
9 In the most common use of the term (ie involving real risk of torture), it could never be legal, because this is clearly prohibited under the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT). But the CAT prohibition on transfer applies to torture only, not to CID*. (This may explain the emphasis on torture in Rice's statement).
* [cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment]

Here we have an official confirming that they suspect the US administration might be moving people around in order to subject them to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. The official clearly outlines the way in which emphasis and careful phrasing might have been used by Rice to avoid denying that this occurs. The memo was written partly "with a view to PMQ's on 7 December" so I think it's reasonable to assume that Blair was aware of it's contents.

Strange then, that on 22nd December, he said:

[A]ll I know is that we should keep within the law at all times, and the notion that I, or the Americans, or anybody else approve or condone torture, or ill treatment, or degrading treatment, that is completely and totally out of order in any set of circumstances."

Aha. Gotcha.

Except that it's at times like this that you fully appreciate just how mendacious Blair's words are. We should keep within the law?

*Looks up definition of axiomatic*

Did he actually rule out the possibility that extraordinary renditions have led to ill or degrading treatment of detainees? He said that "the notion" that it has happened is "totally out of order". Well, yes, it is. Does that tell us anything about whether it has actually happened though?

So many questions. Having read the memo's advice on "handling" this, the government's statements can be very clearly seen to be deliberately misleading. As such, it seems that a fully independent investigation is absolutely essential.

Pressure is mounting.

Update

Observations over at Obsolete and PDF link to the full memo.

Channel 4 News tonight reported that Jack Straw is going to make a written statement to the House of Commons tomorrow. A written statement? One that can be carefully scripted in order to "avoid getting drawn on detail"? So that no questions on those details can be directed at the Strawman? Good grief, I've woken up inside a Yes Minister halloween special.

Let me issue a written statement of my own:

Jack Straw, the foreign secretary of the United Kindom, is a devious, morally vacuous coward.

Unlike Straw, I am prepared to answer public questions on my written statement. Feel free.

Tags: News, Politics, Extraordinary Rendition, Rendition Memo