Innocent Until Smeared Guilty

Here's a genuine conversation I had yesterday evening.

Me: Remember the Forest Gate raid?

Not me: No, which one was that again?

Me: You know, the one where they shot that guy and it turned out that he wasn't a terrorist?

Not me: Ah yes. But he was charged with something else, wasn't he?

Me: No, he was not.

The Crown Prosecution Service has advised police not to bring child pornography charges against a man shot during a terror raid in Forest Gate.

Yes, I know. I'm a barrel of laughs to be around on a Friday evening. Oh, a Friday evening, the government's favourite time to release news they'd rather we didn't hear. How interesting.

The CPS is an independent organisation, of course. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they decided to release this (potentially very embarrassing) information late on a Friday afternoon. Google News suggests that the first appearance of this news on the interwebs was the BBC report at 6.20pm. Yes, definitely a coincidence.

Anyway, what chance there'll be a proper investigation into the smear leak which caused the media to fatuously proclaim that this man was involved in child pornography?

By the way, this raid cost £2.2 million.

Also by the way, I wondered if there were any other stories brewing around the same time as the raid which the government would rather we didn't pay too much attention to. That same morning, 2nd June, the BBC released this report on a new video which appeared to confirm that U.S. soldiers had deliberately killed a number of Iraqi women and children. The video strongly supported the claim, made by the Iraqi authorities, that that the official U.S. military version of events contained a number of glaring inaccuracies.

The BBC would undoubtedly have given the government some advance warning of the fact that they were going to air with this story (as I understand it, this is S.O.P. for stories like these). And our government would undoubtedly have understood that substantial coverage of this new evidence in the British media would have been a problem for them and for the U.S. administration. By mid-afternoon, the Forest Gate raid was dominating the news to the exclusion of almost everything else. Handy.

That might be a genuine coincidence but I would put very little past the unscrupulous B'Stards who currently run this country. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that they made the whole thing up. I'm suggesting that the police had dubious intelligence from one source which suggested that these chaps might have had some involvement in terrorism. Rather than investigating this in a sensible manner, it is quite possible that political pressure on the police, pressure for a particular course of action within a particular time-scale, then turned that into the farcical, and almost fatal, raid which tool place that morning. Would you rule out the possibility that this government is capable of such things?

Tags: News, Politics, WonT

If Iran or Syria detained an American, Cheney is saying that it would be perfectly fine for them to hold that American's head under water until he nearly drowns, if that's what they think they need to do to save Iranian or Syrian lives.

Dick "no-brainer" Cheney has spoken.

Tags: News, Politics, Torture, Dick

New post from me over at The Sharpener.

Tags: Plug

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki gave an interview to Reuters yesterday. Here are a couple of extracts.

On who controls Iraq's security forces:

They [the Americans] think building Iraqi forces will need 12 to 18 months for us to be in control of security. We agree our forces need work but think that if, as we are asking, the rebuilding of our forces was in our own hands, then it would take not 12-18 months but six might be enough.

And:

If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq it is the Coalition. I am now prime minister and overall commander of the armed forces yet I cannot move a single company without Coalition approval because of the U.N. mandate.

On the recent raid on Sadr city:

There is also the way they go after people. The first time they tried to get Abu Deraa they killed and wounded 17 people and demolished two houses (and) they did not arrest him in either operation. I said we agree on arresting wanted criminals and we do not care whether they are Sunnis or Shi'ites, but that was not an arrest operation. Do you send in planes to arrest one person? There is no problem with the principle of arresting criminals but you should not harm people in the way you go to arrest people, spreading horror and at the risk of sabotaging political actions we have worked on.

I wonder how the people of the U.S. would feel if "arrest operations" of that sort were carried out in their own communities? How would you feel?

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

Guardian: CIA tried to silence EU on torture flights

The CIA tried to persuade Germany to silence EU protests about the human rights record of one of America's key allies in its clandestine torture flights programme, the Guardian can reveal.

According to a secret intelligence report, the CIA offered to let Germany have access to one of its citizens, an al-Qaida suspect being held in a Moroccan cell. But the US secret agents demanded that in return, Berlin should cooperate and "avert pressure from EU" over human rights abuses in the north African country. The report describes Morocco as a "valuable partner in the fight against terrorism".

These are the good guys apparently.

As usual, our government has issued a non-denial denial.

The Foreign Office said yesterday that the government had "not approved and will not approve a policy of facilitating transfer of individuals through the UK to places where there are substantial grounds to believe they face a real risk of torture".

That is clearly not the same as saying "this has not happened and will not happen". In fact, this comment, just like every other one they make on the subject, is entirely consistent with the sort of "no questions asked" attitude which would allow the government to maintain a degree of plausible deniability.

Of course, you can only take plausible deniability so far before you start to sound unhelpful and evasive.

Tags: News, Politics, Rendition

An outstanding, thought provoking article over at The Ministry of Truth. A trademark long post but so very worth the time it'll take to read. Even if you're thoroughly fed up of reading about Iraq, this one is worth it.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

Change For Victory!

President Bush gave another press conference on Iraq today. It seems that I was right after all to predict that the congressional elections would force the Republicans to change course, just not in quite the way I was expecting. (Of course, Bush never actually said "stay the course". [Link Updated. Jon Stewart is the man. Via (due to my backlogged RSS reader).])

Before discussing the change, here a quick look at what hasn't changed. (Scroll down to The Change if you're after something new.)

If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves, and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East. They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia.

The fear! The fear!

(As a side note, it is interesting that Bush believes that there are "moderate" government's in the broader Middle East. Wonder who he means?)

It is true that the consequences of failure in Iraq will probably be dire but certainly not in the way Bush suggests. His obssession with control of Iraq's oil is showing though.

Basically all of Iraq's oil is located in Shiite and Kurdish controlled areas. The Kurds pose potential problems for Iran and Turkey (beacaue these two countries have sizable Kurdish minorities who might want to join a new independent Kurdistan) but no-one else; Kurds certainly won't be looking to divert their oil revenues towards the construction of a new evil empire.

Would a U.S. withdrawal threaten that situation? The uncomplicated answer is no. The coalition doesn't provide security in Kurdish Iraq, the pershmerga does. A U.S. military withdrawal isn't going to leave them at the mercy of Sunni extremists because there are essentially no U.S. troops up there to withdraw. Kurdish oil isn't going to fall into the hands of radical extremists in the foreseeable future.

So what about the oil in the Shiite areas of Iraq? Well, Iraq's religious Shiites are mostly interested in consolidating their new power, not expansion outside Iraq's borders. And even the most fanatical, Khomeini loving Shiite knows that they wouldn't be able to use their oil wealth to create a radical Shiite empire stretching across the predominantly Sunni Muslim world. It's a non-starter.

That leaves the prospect of Shiites losing control of their oil reserves to Sunni extremists. In truth, it is ridiculous to suggest that al Qaeda linked extremists could gain control of Iraqi oil reserves in Shiite areas. Shiites have the advantage of overwhelming numbers and the rising tide of sectarian hatred precludes the possibility that an al Qaeda type group could use any Shiite dominated area as a "safe haven". At most, Sunni extremists could continue to disrupt oil production.

Sunni extremists may be able to operate in some Sunni areas if the U.S. withdraws but there's no oil in these places. It's all desert. Unless they discover some way to manufacture WMD out of sand, they won't have any useful resources at their disposal. They certainly won't "gain access to vast oil reserves".

At a push, they might just conceivably be able to gain access some of the oilfields up at the boundary with the Kurdish region. There are plenty of Sunni's up there so there is a faint possibility that Sunni extremists could operate openly enough to be able to establish and profit from oil production at some distant future point. But then, the Kurds, protected by their pershmerga, are pretty keen to keep control of those oilfields too. If it comes to a civil war over control of these areas (as it mat well do), the well organised and well equipped Kurds will almost certainly win.

None of this is a secret as far as I'm aware.

Bush's scaremongering is a fiction based on a ridiculous simplification It is a propaganda weapon employed against the American people by his party and their useful idiots. Unusually, reporters were allowed to question the President after he'd said his piece. Not one challenged his fatuous nightmare scenario.

To be fair to the press corp, they have at least started asking a few awkward questions recently. Shame it was about four years too late but better late than never.

The Change

It was when Bush was questioned by reporters that the change I talked about at the start was fully revealed. Here are some examples from the Q&A.

And my point to the American people is, is that we're constantly adjusting our tactics to achieve victory.

And so we've made changes throughout the war, we'll continue to make changes throughout the war. But the important thing is whether or not we have the right strategy and the tactics necessary to achieve that goal. And I believe we do.

What will work is a strategy that's constantly -- tactics that constantly change to meet the enemy. And that's what I was describing in my speech, we're constantly adjusting. As the enemy changes, we change. War is not a -- this war, and other wars, they're not static. They're dynamic events. And we must adjust to meet those events, and we are.

And that's important for the American people to know, that we're constantly changing tactics to meet the situation on the ground.

These all tell the same story. The backstory undoubtedly went something like this:

Rove: Mr President, we're in trouble with Iraq. Have a look at this.

Bush: Gee, we're really getting a kicking in the polls, huh?

Rove: Yes, we are. Look at these focus group results. People are losing faith in the whole "stay the course" thing. It's just adding to the impression of quagmire and lack of progress.

Bush: This is bad. We need a new strategy fast. Some of our rubber stamp guys could lose their seats. Imagine if we actually had to defend our policies in a real debate...

Rove: I know Mr President, I know.

Bush: So what are we gonna do?

Rove: Well, I've got an idea. All you need to do is tell the American people that we're constantly changing tactics to meet the situation on the ground. Keep stressing the importance of change and downplay the stuff about staying the course. That should take the sting out of this till we get past the mid-terms.

Bush. Ya think?

Rove: Sure. Change equals progress. As long as you keep on saying things are changing, that'll give the impression that things are, well, changing. It should be enough.

Bush. Yeah, I see it. I like it. Let's do it.

(Pause)

Bush: But Carl?

Rove: Yes, Mr President?

Bush: Won't the American people notice that things are not actually changing. Won't they realise that my words don't actually make things better in the real world?

(They both burst out laughing)

Rove: Good one, Mr President. You had me going there for a second. Won't they notice? Ha ha. That is good...

Bush: Hee hee hee hee! Gotcha!

As we've also got a leadership which treats us like idiots, I feel able to offer my heartfelt sympathies to those on the other side of the pond. Unfortunately, there appear to be enough actual idiots in both countries for this sort of thing to be reasonably effective.

That said, it does seem that things really are changing in the U.S. in ways that Bush and his spinmeister won't like at all. More and more Americans are starting to see through the spin and evasions. In fact, I'm starting to feel cautiously optimistic that the Republicons will finally get the trouncing they deserve on the November the 7th.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Republicons

Robert over at the Sharpener makes some very good points.

One of the key problems with revisionism is that when successful, it negates any possibility that lessons can be learned from past mistakes. In this case, certainly in the U.S., the Republicons are already well down the road to blaming the liberals for their failed policies just as they did after Vietnam. If they succeed, it'll only make yet another similar tragedy more likely in the future.

I'd also add that the point of saying "we told you so" is not to make us feel smug. It gives me no pleasure to say it (far from it, it actually makes me very angry indeed and I desperately wish we'd been wrong). But it must still be said. The point is that the leaders who got things so wrong must be held to account. The benefit of hindsight is not a vaild defence if you've ignored or ridiculed the huge number of people who had the foresight to correctly understand the consequences of this folly.

Update

While we're on the subject of revisionism, here's a quick word for those who now argue that "everyone" believed Saddam had WMD and posed a significant threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
- Robin Cook, 18th March 2003

Perhaps Dave "Blair tricked me into supporting this war" Cameron wasn't in the House when Cook made that statement.

Today, we have a defence against revisionism which was not available to previous generations. Much of what has transpired over the last few years has been archived in a reasonably accessible form. It cannot be erased from the record, no matter how embarrassing the record might be to those in power. We, the little people, can still see the truth. That at least, provides a sense of hope for the future.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

Common Ground

In a break from our normal schedule, here's something which happened in the real world.

I was out visiting family yesterday. When their six year old got home from school, he was in a very good mood indeed. Once he'd opened his school bag, the reasons for his happiness became obvious; he'd been given a party bag with sweeties in it to tkae home. Hmm, sweeties...

Inside the bag was a short note explaining a little about Ramadan and the custom of giving gifts to children to celebrate Eid. The note didn't say who had given the gifts. Trying to break through the excitement caused by the much anticipated eating of the sweeties, his dad asked who had brought them into school. We were informed that "Mavi" had brought one in for everyone in the class. His Dad, trying to put a face to the name, asked him if Mavi was a boy or a girl. "He's a boy daddy, just like me!" was the exasperated reply.

That really warmed the cockles of my cold cynical heart, I can tell you.

This almost to good to be true story is actually true. No liberties have been taken in the retelling.

Tags: Real World

Those evil Muslims, er, were not responsible for "Hounding Out our Brave Heroes" despite the Scum's outraged frothings.

That's Rupert Murdoch's Scum, determined disseminators of the sort of insidious propaganda which'd make Goebbels proud.

An unjustified comparison? No, I don't think so. Just replace "Muslim" with "Jew" in these fictitious hate stories and see how acceptable they are then.

Tags: News, Politics, Prejudice, Murdoch's Minions

United States of Denial

Dubya has told another whopper.

Well, listen, we've never been "stay the course..."

Yes, he really did say that.

Another extraordinary segment:

BUSH: The fundamental question is: Are we on our way to achieving a goal, which is an Iraq that can defend itself, sustain itself and govern itself and be an ally in the war on terror in the heart of the Middle East?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it seems like every month we're going farther from that.

BUSH: Well, I don't know why you would say that. I mean…

STEPHANOPOULOS: The casualties are going up.

BUSH: … if that's the definition of success or failure, the number of casualties, then you're right. But that's what the enemy knows. See, they try to define success or failure. I define success or failure as to whether or not the Iraqis will be able to defend themselves.

Even writing this seems entirely superfluous but wouldn't the casualty rate be a reasonable guide as to whether Iraqis are able to defend themselves? Not in Bush World apparently. Dead Iraqis are enemy propaganda, nothing more. I guess that's the way he and his cabal justify their continuing denial of the bloody consequences of the invasion of Iraq.

It's not just the Americans though. Major General Richard Shirreff, commander of UK forces in Basra, today said "there are signs we are beginning to see a tipping point where success breeds success".

It appears that the lunatics really are running our asylum.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, George Bush

Unhappy with the lack of subservience in a section of your community? Are their complaints causing you embarrassment? We have the answer! Simply create a brand new community with New Labour's finest astroturf? Grassroots so real, you'll barely notice the difference!

Guaranteed to agree with every word you say (or you take your money back).

Tags: News, Politics, New Labour, WonT

The Fear

The Republicans have launched a new campaign ad for the congressional elections.

Original ad can be viewed here.

Here are two questions so simple that even the Republicans should be able to answer them.

1. Is the central method of terrorism based around spreading fear?
2. Should we help?

Answers on a postcard to:

Yes, I Want to Help Bin Laden Scare the American People
The Whitehouse
Washington
The United States of America

Tags: News, Politics, WonT, Republicons

This week's Scottish Blog Roundup is out now. Written by me so slightly late and not quite as good as when doctorvee does it but still definitely worth a look for all the top posts of the week.

Tags: Blog

Here are two links which go rather well with the film linked in the previous post.

New York Times: FOR the past several months, I’ve been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” (via)

BBC: A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq. Alberto Fernandez's made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera. The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly - but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

On Wednesday, Newsnight, in collaboration with the Guardian, showed a ten minute film from Iraq. From my time studying the U.S. military and particularly their approach to counter-insurgency (asymmetric warfare was what I mostly studied in my Honour year), this film is completely consistent with what I'm sure is happening all over Iraq. As pretty much any independent academic in this field will tell you, the U.S. military is particularly ill-suited to counter-insurgency operations. They simply are not trained to deal with the sort of situation they were always going to face in Iraq. The training they do receive concentrates almost exclusively on bringing overwhelming force to bear against a conventional military force. In many cases this means they are trained to act in ways which are in direct conflict with well accepted counter-insurgency doctrine.

An on the ground look at the activities of the 101st Division of the US army in Iraq, the film illustrates what's really going on out there as well as any report I've seen. It is now available to view on the Guardian website. I urge you to watch it and to encourage others to watch it too.

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq

For those who are worried about that'll happen to this country when the great leader finally goes, fear not.

Tony Blair is to chair a review of Labour party policy due to report next spring, indicating that the prime minister may not bow out from office until early next summer.

Mr Blair has secured cabinet backing for six committees to be established as part of the review, called "Pathways to the Future", which will set out the future challenges for the government and the country.

For people who are not living in a fantasy world however, the fact that the soon to step down PM is determined to exert as much influence as he possibly can on the future direction of the Labour Party and the country is just another sign of his unshakeable messianic belief in his own wisdom. His absolute conviction that he alone is capable of taking the "right" decisions is going to characterise his retirement just as much as it has characterised his time in office.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

An excellent article in the Independent from the ever sensible Henry Porter.

The limits of liberty: We're all suspects now

Identity cards. Number-plate surveillance. CCTV. Control orders. The list of ways in which the Government has sought to manipulate and define the limits of our liberty grows ever longer. Ten years ago, the novelist and polemicist Henry Porter would have felt silly speaking out about human rights in Britain. But that was before the most fundamental assault on personal freedom ever undertaken. Now, he argues, it's time we woke up to reality

Read the rest.

No really. Do.

Tags: News, Politics, Liberty, Tony Blair

Matricide

An interim report on political party funding has been released, It offers a number of ways to bail the Labour Party out of enormous mess it has made of its own finances reform the process. The Labour Party's reaction:

Labour chairman Hazel Blears said the party was "absolutely committed to increased transparency and accountability in political party funding".

This is the party whose leader knowingly and deliberately took the decision to circumvent the very transparency rules he introduced. Absolute commitment, my arse.

Blear's statement is a perfect example of the way the Labour Party operates under Blair. They appear to believe that if they endlessly repeat the same words and phrases, those words and phrases will be the truth. And it doesn't seem to matter to them if these statements are utterly fatuous, ridiculous, hypocritical or downright wrong. All that matter is that repetition equals truth.

Yesterday, as well as repeating a completely inaccurate description of the results of the Iraqi elections, Blair yet again conflated a disparate series of problems into one all encompassing evil. He appears not to have any concerns about the fact that many informed observers are asking whether he's a simpleton who doesn't understand the realities of the world he lives in or a mendacious liar who deliberately attempts to mislead the British public. He cares not. All that matter is that the endless repetition of words and phrases equals truth.

The question is, how do you deal with this situation? Clearly, it isn't democracy in any meaningful sense when the Prime Minister and his party are allowed to mislead the electorate on a daily basis without being challenged. What do you call a society in which the ruling party is able to present their own propaganda as the truth and where any dissenters will be shown "no quarter"?

When General Dannatt spoke out about the Iraq war, there were those who rather laughably suggested that it was the beginnings of some sort of coup. For them, the military has a duty to follow orders and keep their mouths shut in all circumstances. The obvious problem with that attitude is summed up in one word: Nuremberg.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that our action in Iraq is directly comparable to the Holocaust.
The point is that the Nuremberg trials established beyond question that members of the armed forces have moral responsibilities which stand above any orders they have been given by their commanders. In the case of Iraq, with the government adopting their "our words are the truth" policy while in the real world British soldiers risk their lives and hundreds of Iraqis die every week, senior civil servants and military personnel surely have a moral duty to speak out.

And that leads us back to the suggestion that General Dannatt was somehow trying to instigate a military coup. Not a credible suggestion, as I said, but an interesting idea nonetheless. I suspect I'm not the only one in this country who thought, perhaps just for a moment, that maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. The army dismisses parliament, introduces a fair voting system (they could use the Labour Party's broken promise on holding a referendum on electoral reform as a further justification), organises and holds new elections and we'll finally have something resembling representative democracy in this country. The very fact that Blair's mandate to subject the U.K. to his semi-dictatorial rule comes from only 22% of voters says everything about the current system.

A military coup might be just what we need. And if Blair complains, we'll just get some squadies to endlessly repeat "we're acting on the express will of the British people" until he is forced to concede that it has become truth.

In reality, this idea is very much tongue in cheek; a military coup to dissolve the mother of parliaments isn't an option. But even though I'm a committed democrat, there's some part of my brain which did genuinely consider the possibility. I strongly suspect I'm not the only one either.

That itself is quite an achievement for the man who once promised to clean up politics.

Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair

Blair Tinted Spectacles

David Cameron got Blair's back up today by having the temerity to ask the Prime Minister about the situation in Iraq. Unlike last week, when Blair expressed his "sympathy and condolences to the families of those members of our armed forces who have lost their lives" during parliament's summer recess, the PM had no British deaths to hide behind this week. No condolences were offered to the families of the hundreds of Iraqis who have died in the last seven days. Obviously.

Cameron asked him if he agreed with General Dannatt that the original goal of establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq should be downgraded.

Our policy remains to make sure that Iraq continues as a democracy. We have a democracy in Iraq for the first time in that country's history. Seventy percent of the people came out and voted in the election... and what's more they voted for a non-sectarian government in which the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds all work together.

Yet again, the question must be asked. Is this a deliberate lie or the expression of the fantasy of a dangerously deluded idiot?

Here, not for the first time, are the indisputable facts. The top four parties in the December elections were:

1. United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) - 5,021,137 votes, 41.2% of total, 128 seats
2. Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan (DPAK) - 2,642,172 votes, 21.7% of total, 53 seats
3. Iraqi Accord Front (IAF) - 1,840,216 votes, 15.1% of total, 44 seat
4. Iraqi National List (INL) - 977,325 votes, 8.0% of total, 25 seats.

One of those parties, the INL, is a non-sectarian party in which the Sunnis and Shia and Kurds all work together and the other three primarily represent the interests of specific sectarian groups. That's how they presented themselves at the election.

"They voted for a non-sectarian government in which the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds all work together." Well, eight percent of those who voted did so it's not a total fabrication but even a committed Blairite must surely concede that it wasn't a remotely truthful desciption of the situation.

So, was he deliberately lying or does he genuinely believe the fiction he's pedalling?

Blair's parting shot to Cameron on Iraq is also worth noting, not least for the visible anger with which it was delivered.

The policy of standing up and fighting these extremists abroad and at home is the right one and there will be no quarter given to those who oppose us.

All hail the Great Leader for he is wise beyond question. Those who would question the infallible wisdom of the Great Leader are despicable traitors and must be silenced immediately. No quarter will be shown to those who oppose Him.

His messianic complex is getting worse. How much more damage will this man be allowed to do while the Labour Party sit on their hands?

Tags: News, Politics, Iraq, Tony Blair