Post subject: there are more questions than answers: anne clwyd :newsnight
there are more questions than answers: anne clwyd :newsnight
some of these questions need to be answered, some are rhetorical some are better left unanswered and some are due to my ignorance and some are facile and naive - war going on/factions dom and internat and all that
there are many more that can be asked so please add any you feel
the questions are grouped at the start of the interview transcrip and at the end a] because the focus is on the uk human rights envoy "portfolio/role" and the role of a human rights envoy generally
and b] cos i tend to front load everything from i hear the first few sentences..... a blessing an a curse.... and what i cant fit in precisely to interview i just kept for the end
Quote:
NewsNight transcript
Posted by Don MacKeen on November 17, 2005, 4:37 pm, in reply to "Help: NewsNight transcript"
[added questions by sir jay- and one or two coorections alternative interpretation of transcript...low audible sections.
mp3 available from.... see end of article ]
Hope this isn't too long - and if someone has already done this - oops! I knew my 10 years as a secretary wouldn't go to waste (can't guarantee on the accuracy any more than Ann Clywd can guarantee human rights!)
Newsnight 15 November 2005
P = Paxman/C = Ann Clywd/S = Fareed Sabri
P: Well, here with us in the studio is Ann Clwyd who is the Prime Minister’s Human Rights Envoy in Iraq
QUESTIONS :
what precisely is this role?
who precisely is it sanctioned by? : parliament?, the primeminister?, fco civil/diplo service?, other : eg europe?[wrt to european human rights law] are there other human rights envoys? eg us, aus,un- do they liase? etc
QUESTIONS : what is the portfolio/job description of such a role? :
is it a full time job?, does it demand more time than a full time mp can give?
does the human rights envoy serve any other portfolios that demand on time above and beyond homelife and being an mp?
if so is it appropriate to hold/spend time on such positions? bearing in mind the importance in both reality and in morality and for the sake of the coalition approach to the war- politically and strategically wrt public relations and staded aims of spreading democracy and upholding democratic values?
P: .....ctd.....and Fareed Sabri who speaks for the Iraqi Islamic Party, from a Sunni organisation.
[not dealing with that side someone else can do it if they feel appropriate]
P : ...ctd...Uh, Ann Clwyd – Human Rights Envoy, it rings pretty hollow when you hear of something like this, doesn’t it?
C: Well, its shocking what’s happened and obviously I’ve known uh since May that there were serious concerns amongst the Sunnis because I saw a delegation from the Sunni community in May when I was in Iraq who made various allegations, handed me documents and also photographs
QUESTIONS : is it obvious that you have known since may? :
how many times have you mentioned the allegations in the uk?, iraq?, any other political media? human rights org? newsprint? radio interview? since knowledge of this came to you in may?[any refs welcome]
QUESTIONS : have briefings/questions/answers to this issue been made/given in the uk houses of parliament?/hansard?/ committee?
QUESTIONS : have you seen any other delegation?
how many times - since may - have you been in iraq as a human rights envoy?
how many times...details please... and how many approaches have delegations from here[uk] or there[irq] made approaches to your official role/office in regard to these or other allegations of abuse in irq?
what was the time lag[if any] between the development of serious concerns re human right violations in iraq [e by iraqi citizens]and the meeting cited in irq in may?
QUESTIONS : what happens to documents and photographs such as were given to you [in the general case] in terms of responsibility for such documents/concerns wrt portfolio in uk?
didyousee to it that copies were made of the said documents and were they brought home to the uk?
are ther any other documentations from same or different delegations that have been channelled through you/your office?
is your office in the uk?
do you have an office /staff in irq?
and are they able to represent in cases whenyou are absent from iraq wrt liasing with the uk and irq authoritiesor[un/eu/ human rights groups]?
who holds responsibility when you are not in iraq?
QUESTIONS : when were you last in iraq.how many days / visits are appropriate for a uk human rights envoy.
C :...ctd.... I passed these on to the British Embassy who in turn passed these on to the President of Iraq and we asked for these matters to be investigated.
QUESTIONS : are you certain the information got to the president of iraq vis a vis your responsibility as human rights envoy?
when did he recieve them?
and at what intervals did you check for follow up?
especially in terms of who he delegated responsibility for investigating the allegations?
doesit encourage omission when your responsibility is issued[ via the docs and photos] in iraq singly [ieaway from parliamentary scrutiny]
P: As far as you’re concerned have the British and the Americans done everything possible –
S: No.
P: - to take up these investigations?
S: No, of course not. Because we’ve been - in the past 6 months we have been telling the Americans, the British, we’ve been telling the media I myself have been telling the media in this country for the past 6 months of what’s happening. This is the tip of the iceberg. We – I mean you see there is uh from our point of view there is at least thousands of people killed and tortured and massacred by the security forces, by the Interior Minister. When Laith Kubba says that he doesn’t know about it we have told him told himself personally – We told Laith Kubba, we told Ibrahim al-Jaafari about this months ago, they have done nothing. They knew about it. In fact the Interior Minster Bayan Jabr he is one of their closest allies and he has been torturing people in hospitals not just in the Interior Ministry.
P: Do you accept we[acc...cut off] must shoulder some of the responsibility for this?
C: Well as I said I was there in May last[ month?], [and i] passed these claims on to the Iraqi authorities. But[i mean] it has been a matter of some concern. We’ve heard these allegations and uh there is no human rights minister in Iraq. There is no independent organisation which can investigate claims of this kind and there should be both those things there.
P: It makes a nonsense of claims that somehow the British and the Americans and whoever can leave Iraq at the end of next year doesn’t it?
C: Well I think you know after 35 years of abuse it takes a long time for people’s mindsets to change. And I think we’ve been trying the help the Iraqis in giving them human rights training, through getting police advisers –
P: Can it have worked? [not sure about this one]...[{well/but?}it clearly hasnt worked?]
C: Well it takes a long time to get it – uh - police advisers [over?] from this country over to [inaudible]....[advise the iraqui {police?}]
S: It takes one visit to the Iraqi prisons to find out what is happening we’ve been telling -
C: Well I’ve been to the Iraqi prisons –
S: We’ve been telling the British government and the Americans for the past 6 months of the abuses and the killings. You could find every day, you could find tens of people have been thrown out of - outside the city have been tortured and drilled. They’ve drilled people with drills.[i mean {and?}] This is what happens in the Interior Ministry. And you know about
it and you’ve done nothing.
P: OK, we are where we are now.
S: Yes.
P: What do you propose?
S: We propose now an independent investigation. We don’t believe the[ government of?] Ibrahim al-Jaafari[not?] nor Laith Kubba. Those people have been told about what’s happening [ed] and they are implicated. We need a United Nations - a United Nations
P: It was they who made it public!
S: Sorry? I mean –
P: Uh…
S: You see we need an independent inquiry. We need the United Nations to be involved. Because those people we cannot trust them we have been telling them what’s happening [...ed?], what’s happening in the past few months and they’ve done nothing. They’ve done now; they’re talking about it because the American government has told them what’s
happened.
P: You see the difficulty as far as we’re concerned presumably, you say you’ve told the British government but where we are now–
C: The Iraqi government. I told the iraqui government
P: Sorry the British government to tell the Iraqi government, yes. Uh where we are now with the constitution as it is and a government in place British and indeed American influence is decidedly limited isn’t it?
C: Well I raised again these matters with the Deputy President of Iraq who was in this country yesterday and uh [and] he , [i] I told him what the allegations were because we knew about them yesterday and uh he didn’t seem to know anything about it. Now I find it extraordinary that the Minster of the Interior, who after all himself was tortured, many of his family were killed –
S: But he’s killing people now.
C: Should actually – [you know]
S: He’s killing people now everybody knows it.
C: Should actually know that this is going on under his ministry. I find that extraordinary.
S: Well you could find that [when/well?]before he came to power he said we will – uh -we will attack Sunni areas and that’s what he said it, he said it –
C: But he was tortured himself.
S: Yes but why would he torture now people?
C: Well indeed that’s question I’m asking -
S: Yes, we have to have an independent inquiry then.
C: [inaudible][well] there is an indepdent [enquiry]
S: We shouldn’t leave it to Ibrahim al-Jaafari. I mean Ibrahim al-Jaafari is not an independent, I mean he’s a guy from the government, [I mean?/and] he’s one of the closest allies of uh uh Bayn Jabr. So how could he have an inquiry, an independent inquiry?
C: Anyways, he’s not going to be running the inquiry, other people are going to be running the inquiry –
S: He’s a close ally so.
C: There will be an inquiry. It may not be the kind of inquiry you want. But you should press I think for a human rights minister and an independent commission that can investigate complaints of this kind.
P: Is it your view that that uh British, American and other forces should stay there until such time as human rights can be guaranteed in Iraq.
C: Well I think that it’s important to be able to guarantee human rights in Iraq.
P: Is it your view we should stay there until they can be guaranteed because that could be a very long time.
C: I think – well possibly but I think it’s important. We have been trying to train the Iraqis in human rights. We’ve set up conferences for the Iraqis on human rights with all the NGOs. We’ve been trying our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche. We want to help them I think –
P: Alright we’ll leave it there. Thank you both very much indeed. Thank you.
MORE QUESTIONS
what is your record on asking for indep enq in cases of abuse in the uk?
is there a human rights commissioner in the uk and if not do you ever come out in favour of one?
what is the european union position on human rights commissioners?
what is un on human rights comissioners?
what precedents are there.?..eg kosovo? rwanda? further historical examples?
without drawing easy comparisons- and very darkly and cynically-
in light of your arguments re human rights abuses pre shekinah or shock and awe/shockin war, do you think human rights envoys are deployed for media/other services or for assuaging/influencing public opiniion re irq and/or are they presented as such by the media then now or in the future?
when will we be seeing some comments in the house and more comments on newsnight to show the progress/ or lack of progress of the investigation.?
if you were offered a similar role in the future would you accept it and what advice would you give to a future human rights envoy?
refs from the m/l board[ any ive missed/pertinent/bservations/extras please feel free to add]
Re: don mack - thanks a great deal[ ref below]
Posted by Peter Fainton on November 17, 2005, 7:06 pm, in reply to "don mack - thanks a great deal[ ref below]"
Thanks. You can download and listen to this on links provided here:
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1132223733.html
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Peter Charles on November 15, 2005, 11:52 pm, in reply to "Help: NewsNight transcript"
Here is the Audio from that part of the show.
Quality Audio too.
http://s65.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2HPU15DJNQ5FO3PKFA16OAMO73
Link: Quality Audio
request
Posted by focus on November 16, 2005, 12:21 am, in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
can you put up [from newsnight] the whole of the interview between mr.paxman and mrs clwyd- in mp3 [audio only]
precisely to include : minutes 07:30 to 13:00 of the newsnight broadcast
all the best,f
Post subject: some context - to give a little context
some context - to give a little context
perhaps some are a little tenuous to the specific of mrs clwydd
though relevent in the sense of the questions ive added,
the broader issue of human rights envoys generally
and the precariousness and perhaps impotence
or crassness of such a position in time of war.
especially when the organisation that is being represented
is involved in said war.
echoes of the criticism of libya as head or member of the un hum rights board ?
compiled at 0440 am 24/11/05- in the order they appear in the board
apologies if previous entries have fallen off
you can post them in.
oh yes - ill probly edit it to make the lines sit nicer wrt to spaces
between lines etc, or any contribs from the board i missed- but thats it
Quote:
Crying Wolf: Media Disinformation and Death Squads in Occupied Iraq
Posted by David Sketchley on November 12, 2005, 2:01 pm
The phenomenon of death squads operating in Iraq has become generally accepted over recent months. However, in its treatment of the issue, the mainstream media has zealously followed a line of attributing extrajudicial killings to unaccountable Shia militias who have risen to prominence with the electoral victory of Ibramhim Jafaari’s Shia-led government in January.
The following article examines both the way in which the information has been widely presented and whether that presentation has any actual basis in fact. Concluding that the attribution to Shia militias is unsustainable, the article considers who the intellectual authors of these crimes against humanity are and what purpose they serve in the context of the ongoing
occupation of the country.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FUL20051110&articleId=12
Happy Iraq ...
Posted by Gerry on November 12, 2005, 7:31 pm
... under the jackboot of Uncle Sam.
According to channel 4 news this evening:-
35,000 have been detained (sent to concentration/torture [surely interrogation: Ed] centres) since the beginning of hostilities.
13,000 languish in these places as I write.
About 600 have actually been convicted of any offence (90 day detention philosophy)
Anyone know know how many were in detention in the last five years of Saddam's rule?
Ex-Powell Aide Suggests Pre-War Memo Was Kept From Bush
Posted by Ekk on November 12, 2005, 11:35 pm,
in reply to "Happy times for builders of prisons"
This should be explosive (includes mention of how prisoners should be treated), - no , not +will+ be explosive, but +should+ be if we/you uk/US truly had a free press.
Obviously the 'elected president' is a puppet to the partisan/peculiar interests of an unelected elite/cabal.
Ekk
PS. I know, you knew that, but we're talking about the 'sheeple' thing = as in feed the people sh*t!
Ex-Powell Aide Suggests Pre-War Memo Was Kept From Bush: A former top official in the Bush administration is suggesting that a White House memo outlining the need for hundreds of thousands of troops for the Iraq invasion was kept from the president. Wilkerson, a retired U.S. army colonel, said he believed that then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice or her deputy, Stephen Hadley, had blocked the memo
Link: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10969.htm
Re: Ex-Powell Aide Suggests Pre-War Memo Was Kept From Bush
Posted by Peter Fainton on November 12, 2005, 11:53 pm,
in reply to "Ex-Powell Aide Suggests Pre-War Memo Was Kept From Bush"
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/
Several intereresting quotes in today's press
Posted by David Sketchley on November 13, 2005, 6:42 pm
The first is a quote of a quote:
"Beatty said he thought actors did not "necessarily make good politicians", adding: "Ronald Reagan, who was a friend of mine with whom I disagreed strongly on many things, once said to me, 'I don't see how in today's world a person can be a politician without being an actor'."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TR1F3RU2BA2ZFQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0xml=/news/2005/11/13/wbeatty13.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/13/ixportal.html
What is the one word that springs to mind?
Blair.
The second:
"We are facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: we will never back down."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1869607,00.html
No, and this surprised me too, it is not a quote about current US foreign policy. These words were uttered by George W. Bush.
What about these quoted in the same article in the Sunday Times:
"Like Bush, Tony Blair is also uncompromising in the face of the terrorist threat. He, too, is intent on ratcheting up the powers of the state."
"“This isn’t a police state,” Chakrabarti (director of the civil rights group Liberty)said. “But the danger is that the rule book is being thrown away. We’ve come a fair way down a slippery slope.”"
Finally, from the Sunday Herald:
"One MP last night: “This would be a golden opportunity. It would be pay-back time for Blair over the way he manipulated parliament before the Iraq war in 2003. "
&
"We have been promised 200 signatures and are now hopeful this process will go ahead as it should have last year. There will be a vote and an investigation will be set up. Does this have the potential to finish Tony Blair? Yes it does"
Blair faces new inquiry into Iraq war
http://www.sundayherald.com/52851
Here's hoping.
Re: Several intereresting quotes in today's press
Posted by Spike on November 14, 2005, 2:33 am,
in reply to "Several intereresting quotes in today's press"
Another interesting quote I saw today was by Ian Pearson,who is minister for trade and investment and who also calls himself human rights minister.
"there are never any contradictions between human rights,which are always relevant,and doing business"
This is from an article in the business section of The Independent,where its fair to say HIS contradictions are given the soft touch.
However,it seems from reading the article that the only person who calls him "human rights minister"is himself,which probably explains his cognitive dissonance on this issue.
Not wanting to be Conspiratorial!
Posted by Neil on November 13, 2005, 7:46 pm
But does anyone know any links or references, or anything that might link the recent suicide of
an Officer in the Military Police, who were conducting investigations into alleged war crimes
and mistreatment of Iraqis by British Army personnel and the even more recent collapse of the
case against members of the Parachute regiment?
One wonders if the two were connected in some, innocuous way?
Many Thanks,
Neil
NYT: "abuse tantamount to torture was national policy, not merely the product of rogue
freelancers"
Posted by David Sketchley on November 14, 2005, 10:00 am
Washington — How did American interrogation tactics after 9/11 come to include abuse rising to
the level of torture? Much has been said about the illegality of these tactics, but the strategic
error that led to their adoption has been overlooked.
Josh Cochran
The Pentagon effectively signed off on a strategy that mimics Red Army methods. But those
tactics were not only inhumane, they were ineffective. For Communist interrogators, truth was
beside the point: their aim was to force compliance to the point of false confession.
Fearful of future terrorist attacks and frustrated by the slow progress of intelligence-gathering
from prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Pentagon officials turned to the closest thing on their
organizational charts to a school for torture. That was a classified program at Fort Bragg, N.C.,
known as SERE, for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape. Based on studies of North
Korean and Vietnamese efforts to break American prisoners, SERE was intended to train
American soldiers to resist the abuse they might face in enemy custody.
The Pentagon appears to have flipped SERE's teachings on their head, mining the program not
for resistance techniques but for interrogation methods. At a June 2004 briefing, the chief of the
United States Southern Command, Gen. James T. Hill, said a team from Guantánamo went "up
to our SERE school and developed a list of techniques" for "high-profile, high-value" detainees.
General Hill had sent this list - which included prolonged isolation and sleep deprivation, stress
positions, physical assault and the exploitation of detainees' phobias - to Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, who approved most of the tactics in December 2002.
Some within the Pentagon warned that these tactics constituted torture, but a top adviser to
Secretary Rumsfeld justified them by pointing to their use in SERE training, a senior Pentagon
official told us last month.
When internal F.B.I. e-mail messages critical of these methods were made public earlier this
year, references to SERE were redacted. But we've obtained a less-redacted version of an
e-mail exchange among F.B.I. officials, who refer to the methods as "SERE techniques." We
also learned from a Pentagon official that the SERE program's chief psychologist, Col. Morgan
Banks, issued guidance in early 2003 for the "behavioral science consultants" who helped to
devise Guantánamo's interrogation strategy (we've been unable to learn the content of that
guidance).
SERE methods are classified, but the program's principles are known. It sought to recreate the
brutal conditions American prisoners of war experienced in Korea and Vietnam, where
Communist interrogators forced false confessions from some detainees, and broke the spirits of
many more, through Pavlovian and other conditioning. Prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation,
painful body positions and punitive control over life's most intimate functions produced
overwhelming stress in these prisoners. Stress led in turn to despair, uncontrollable anxiety and
a collapse of self-esteem. Sometimes hallucinations and delusions ensued. Prisoners who had
been through this treatment became pliable and craved companionship, easing the way for
captors to obtain the "confessions" they sought.
SERE, as originally envisioned, inoculates American soldiers against these techniques. Its
psychologists create mock prison regimens to study the effects of various tactics and identify
the coping styles most likely to withstand them. At Guantánamo, SERE-trained mental health
professionals applied this knowledge to detainees, working with guards and medical personnel
to uncover resistant prisoners' vulnerabilities. "We know if you've been despondent; we know if
you've been homesick," General Hill said. "That is given to interrogators and that helps the
interrogators" make their plans.
Within the SERE program, abuse is carefully controlled, with the goal of teaching trainees to
cope. But under combat conditions, brutal tactics can't be dispassionately "dosed." Fear, fury
and loyalty to fellow soldiers facing mortal danger make limits almost impossible to sustain.
By bringing SERE tactics and the Guantánamo model onto the battlefield, the Pentagon opened a
Pandora's box of potential abuse. On Nov. 26, 2003, for example, an Iraqi major general, Abed
Hamed Mowhoush, was forced into a sleeping bag, then asphyxiated by his American
interrogators. We've obtained a memorandum from one of these interrogators - a former SERE
trainer - who cites command authorization of "stress positions" as justification for using what he
called "the sleeping bag technique."
"A cord," he explained, "was used to limit movement within the bag and help bring on
claustrophobic conditions." In SERE, he said, this was called close confinement and could be
"very effective." Those who squirmed or screamed in the sleeping bag, he said, were "allowed
out as soon as they start to provide information."
Three soldiers have been ordered to stand trial on murder charges in General Mowhoush's
death. Yet the Pentagon cannot point to any intelligence gains resulting from the techniques that
have so tarnished America's image. That's because the techniques designed by communist
interrogators were created to control a prisoner's will rather than to extract useful intelligence.
A full account of how our leaders reacted to terrorism by re-engineering Red Army methods
must await an independent inquiry. But the SERE model's embrace by the Pentagon's civilian
leaders is further evidence that abuse tantamount to torture was national policy, not merely the
product of rogue freelancers. After the shock of 9/11 - when Americans desperately wanted
mastery over a world that suddenly seemed terrifying - this policy had visceral appeal. But it's
the task of command authority to connect means and ends rationally. The Bush administration
has too frequently failed to do this. And so it is urgent that Congress step in to tie our detainee
policy to our national interest.
M. Gregg Bloche is a law professor at Georgetown University and a visiting fellow at the
Brookings Institution. Jonathan H. Marks, a barrister in London, is a bioethics fellow at
Re: NYT: "abuse tantamount to torture was national policy, not merely the product of rogue
freelance
Posted by Peter Fainton on November 14, 2005, 10:48 am,
in reply to "NYT: "
More on US torture in this forum article, for those who may not have heard or read HRW on
Muslim Rights, Wind, Fallujah, Guantanamo, War Criminal, US Meltdown
Posted by antony on November 14, 2005, 11:17 am[glob echo]
Sarah Stephen: Muslims denied presumption of innocence
In the early hours of November 8, some 400 police cordoned off streets in suburbs across
Sydney and Melbourne. With helicopters hovering overhead, heavily armed officers made 17
arrests. One suspect allegedly opened fire on police before they shot him in the neck. He was
rushed to hospital.
Mike Whitney: US Senate votes to end freedom:
The denial of habeas is the beginning of tyranny
None of the Guantanamo inmates have ever been charged with a crime. The Senate vote
ensures that they never will know why they are being held or of any legal means to defend
themselves. In case after case, the Bush administration has taken the position that the president
is above the law and can imprison "terror suspects" according to his own discretion.
Eulà lia Iglesias: U.N. Food Expert Condemns U.S. Tactics in Iraq
Jean Ziegler, the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, made waves last month
when he accused U.S. and British forces of using food and water as weapons of war in
besieged cities in Iraq.
AFP: Americans don't torture - except when we do
The CIA is reported to be operating a network of covert prisons in eight countries around the
world, including Afghanistan, Thailand and several former Soviet bloc nations in Eastern
Europe, where terror suspects are questioned. The White House wants the CIA to be exempt
from a law that would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of detainees in US
custody.
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Did anyone see...
Posted by rich on November 14, 2005, 10:30 pm
...Anthony Scrivener QC on, BBCNEWS24 during the weekend? (Sunday I think). He was
talking about New Labour proposals to do away with juries in big fraud cases on the grounds
that they take too long. He said that those kind of trials would take just as long anyway - jury or
not - and went on to give his view that Bliar intends to abolish juries for +all+ trials and that the
gubment will appoint judges. He also mentioned the fact that there isn't a dictatorship in history
that hasn't abolished jury trials. He was very strong in his views and was giving a stark
warning of dire consequences should Bliar get his way. I did a google search to see if there
was a recently written article (since the 28 day thing) by AS but couldn't find anything. Anyone
else?
Re: Did anyone see...
Posted by dereklane on November 14, 2005, 11:40 pm,
in reply to "Did anyone see..."
Its the first I have heard - but I do know that in Australia, in the wake of civil liberties being
whittled by anti-terror legislation and labour reforms taking away so many rights of the worker,
they have introduced legislation as well to remove the unanimous verdict in favour of majority,
in relation to juries. Not quite the same, but still completely against accepted convention on the
subject.
The western countries do seem to be taking tips from one another based on the worst legislation
of each country at the moment...
derek
This was in the Independent one month ago mentions detention without trial
Posted by dan on November 15, 2005, 12:05 am,
in reply to "Did anyone see..."
Anthony Scrivener QC: Iraq war and repressive laws are Blair's true and lasting legacy
Published: 13 October 2005
It was inevitable that in the wake of the London bombings Tony Blair would take the opportunity
to promote a further raft of repressive measures aimed at terror suspects. The timing is perfect.
The public is anxious. By going to war in Iraq the civilian population in this country has been
propelled into the front line.
Mr Blair's starting point is that if the police consider some new repressive measure to be
necessary then he should take notice. There is no question of the onus being in favour of civil
liberties - in fact civil liberties do not get a mention.
The Government wants to create a new criminal offence of glorifying the commission or
preparation "(whether in the past, in the future or generally)" of acts of terrorism. It is already an
offence to incite someone to commit a crime. The meaning of "incitement" is well established
and means "to encourage" or "to persuade". These words draw an understandable dividing line
between incitement to commit an offence and freedom of speech.
But the Government is not satisfied with this. The new offence, apart from being
incomprehensible and unworkable, does not distinguish between terrorists who are bad and
freedom-fighters like the French Resistance and Nelson Mandela who are not. It constitutes a
serious curtailment of the freedom of speech.
The police want to hold a terrorist suspect for renewable 14-day periods up to a maximum of
three months. As one retired judge recently remarked - this looks like internment. The fact is that
the police do not always get it right and many suspects will end up not being charged with any
criminal offence.
It is true that terrorist investigations tend to be far reaching. Extending the maximum period to
say six weeks may be justified in certain cases after appropriate judicial scrutiny. Longer than
this would not be justified. There is another point.
As many experts will point out, admissions made after or during long periods of detention often
turn out to be unreliable.
Then there is the problem of trying to deport persons who have already been accepted as
refugees back to the country where it has already been accepted they have a "well founded
fear of being persecuted" simply on an undertaking by that country to be nice to him. Such an
undertaking is impossible to monitor and the proposal cannot be implemented without amending
the Human Rights Act - what a triumph that would be for the terrorists.
Will the Iraq war and these repressive measures be the true lasting legacy of Mr Blair and his
UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law
Posted by David Sketchley on November 15, 2005, 4:27 pm,
in reply to "look at this? re detained medics irq"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051115/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq
Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law
Posted by Peter Fainton on November 15, 2005, 4:39 pm,
in reply to "UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law "
http://members.boardhost.com/DT3rd/msg/1132049267.html
Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law
Posted by focus on November 15, 2005, 5:22 pm,
in reply to "Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law "
peter,
know anything about this?
quoted in the aljazeera article over at persist of vision
"The US-led force is able to detain Iraqis under an exception to the Geneva Conventions -
which govern the treatment of civilians in wartime - granted by the 15-nation UN Security
Council in June 2004. "
correct me if i'm wrong but did the media slip this one past?
all the best,f
Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law
Posted by Peter Fainton on November 15, 2005, 5:30 pm,
in reply to "Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law "
It's not something that has been well advertised in the media, to my knowledge anyway.
Chomsky can provide some interesting background on voting trends at the UN and I think you
Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law
Posted by Peter Fainton on November 15, 2005, 6:25 pm,
in reply to "Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law "
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request
of the Government of Iraq and, having regard to the letters annexed to this
resolution, reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force as set forth in
resolution 1546 (2004) and decides to extend the mandate of the multinational force
as set forth in that resolution until 31 December 2006;
source PDF: http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/2930120.html
see also: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions05.htm
of interest:
http://www.irinnews.org/webspecials/civilprotect/chronology.asp
and:
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/auoy.htm
Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law
Posted by focus on November 15, 2005, 6:47 pm,
in reply to "Re: UN Report: The Iraqi army & multinational forces violated international law "
thanks peter , especially like the last two refs
also in the forum re un documentation:
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1160
Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by dan on November 15, 2005, 7:56 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4440134.stm
Iraq detainees 'found starving'
An Iraqi soldier guards Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad (file photo)
There have been persistent claims of abuse by Iraqi security forces
Iraq's government says it has begun an investigation into the alleged abuse of more than 170
detainees held by Iraqi security forces in Baghdad.
The prisoners, many malnourished and some showing signs of torture, were found when US
troops took control of an interior ministry building on Sunday.
The US raid followed repeated enquiries by the parents of a missing teenager.
Iraq's prime minister has promised to find those responsible for any abuse. Most of those held
were Sunnis.
'Hard evidence'
The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the discovery will not come as a surprise to
many Iraqis.
There have been persistent allegations of abuse by members of the Shia-dominated security
forces, our correspondent says.
But Sunday's discovery is hard evidence and officials believe it may be the tip of the iceberg.
Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari
Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari said the prisoners had now been moved
There are suspicions the building may also have been used as a base for a militia called the
Badr Brigade, which has links to senior government officials, our correspondent adds.
The facility is reported to be in the central Jadiriya district of Baghdad.
Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari told reporters: "I was informed that there were 173 detainees held
at an interior ministry prison and they appear to be malnourished.
"There is also some talk that they were subjected to some kind of torture."
He said the prisoners had now been moved to a better location and would be given medical
care.
The head of Iraq's largest Sunni political party said he had personally spoken to government
officials about claims of torture in government detention centres but his complaints had been
dismissed.
Mohsen Abdul-Hamid told the Associated Press news agency he had been told the prisoners
were "former regime elements".
'Systematic abuse'
Human rights group Amnesty International welcomed Mr Jaafari's decision to order an
investigation but urged him to expand the inquiry to cover all allegations of torture.
Amnesty also asked him to make the results public.
"There have been many reports of torture and maltreatment of Iraqi detainees by the Iraqi police
and security forces belonging to the Ministry of the Interior such as the Wolf Brigade,"
spokeswoman Nicole Choueiry told Associated Press.
"Amnesty International recently received information of four people who were tortured while
detained by Iraqi security forces."
Iraq's new police force has faced repeated allegations of systematic abuse and torture of people
in detention by human rights groups, as well as allegations of extra-judicial killings.
A report by pressure group Human Rights Watch earlier this year said methods used by Iraqi
police included beating detainees with cables, hanging them from their wrists for long periods
and giving electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body.
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by Luke on November 15, 2005, 8:06 pm,
in reply to "Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes
on."
This seems like an argument to keep foreign troops in Iraq.
Maybe the Americans are trying to create reasons for them to stay.
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by John on November 15, 2005, 10:43 pm,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
Exactly the argument Paxman has just fed Ann Clwyd on Newsnight.
surely the deployment of clwyd is diproportional to ....[nm]
Posted by focus on November 15, 2005, 10:50 pm,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by Ted on November 15, 2005, 11:05 pm,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
--Previous Message--
: Exactly the argument Paxman has just fed Ann
: Clwyd on Newsnight.
Some of you people are a joke - Paxman was clearly bringing out that gov claims that they
might be able to withdraw troops as early as next year are absurdly optimistic. These latest
revelations make civil war more likely. This is a criticism of Blair and co.
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by Ekk on November 16, 2005, 2:36 am,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
Paxman was
: clearly bringing out that gov claims that
: they might be able to withdraw troops as
: early as next year are absurdly optimistic.
: These latest revelations make civil war more
: likely. This is a criticism of Blair and co.
If the US/uk Bush/Bliar intentiion has actually always been to keep the occupation troops in Iraq,
then Paxman just helped to furnish/further the/their argument/excuse, for the 'need' that US/uk
troops must remain.
A 'humanitarian need', since Iraqis are obviously not capable of meeting humanitarian standards
of behaviour themselves.
Ekk
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by Ted on November 16, 2005, 4:50 pm,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
What total rubbish. So your conspiracy theory is that Paxman was not challenging Blair's
claims that they may be able to start withdrawing troops next year, but that he was secretly
trying to help out Blair and Bush by giving them an excuse for staying there. Apart from the fcat
that Paxman is unlikely to want to help any poilitician - he considers them to be "lying
bastards", the last reason Blair would want to put forward for staying is that the regime he
helped to install is no better than Saddam's.
Your prejudiced view of the BBC (they are not the enemey, believe it or not) leads you to
absurdly convoluted and implausible (except to a few people here) conspiracy theories.
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by Ekk on November 16, 2005, 6:55 pm,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
User logged in as: Ekk
It's quite simple, really.
Bush/USA could not have gone into Iraq without Bliar/UK.
Bliar/UK could not have gone to war if the BBC had publicly blown the 'fixing the intelligence'
cover up.
Paxman is part of that 'cover'.
Ekk
PS, but Bliar is our bastard, as was Saddam at one time .
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by Ted on November 16, 2005, 9:13 pm,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
No. it's just simple-minded - a rather different thing.
Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it goes on.
Posted by Ekk on November 16, 2005, 10:40 pm,
in reply to "Re: Iraq detainees starved and tortured by Iraqi security forces - bbc - and so it
goes on."
Look here I'm not in the mood to pick a fight with you, especially since in my personal life I'm
known as a peacemaker.
Ok, call me simple then.
During and after watching the Paxman interview/broadcast I was left with the impression, that
this was framed (conscious or subconsciously?) to facilitate the need/requirement of
keeping/maintaining US/uk occupation troops in Iraq.
Since many/most viewers are more innocently simple still in their political observations, no
doubt many/most were left with the same impression, namely that we can't leave these
crazy/cruel inhumane Arabs to their own devices.
KISS
Ekky
PS Hitler thought much the same about Slavs incl. Ukrainians.
Re: It made BBC News at Ten
Posted by George_HK on November 15, 2005, 10:41 pm,
in reply to "It made BBC News at Ten"
It was a disgraceful report.
Just imagine for a second if you substituted "US" with one of the "enemies". They would be
strung out for lying, using abominable weapons and there usual whiners would be shouting for
those responsible to be put on trial (yes clwyd, I'm talking about you).
Now because the US did all this, they did their best to downplay it even getting people in to
effectively say "well it wasn't illegal, don't worry about it"
Grade A BBC. As much as we should expect and excatly why they should be removed from
broadcasting.
they didnt deploy clwyd did they? - must be desperate/sick[nm]
Posted by focus on November 15, 2005, 10:47 pm,
in reply to "Re: It made BBC News at Ten"
Re: they didnt deploy clwyd did they? - must be desperate/sick[nm]
Posted by John on November 15, 2005, 10:52 pm,
in reply to "they didnt deploy clwyd did they? - must be desperate/sick[nm]"
They deployed her on Newsnight where she told of how the Americans and we are attempting
to teach human rights to the Iraqis and how we might have to stay in Iraq until human rights are
guaranteed (after being fed the idea by Paxman).
Racism, the Churchill school!!!
Posted by gabriele on November 15, 2005, 10:59 pm,
in reply to "Re: they didnt deploy clwyd did they? - must be desperate/sick[nm]"
literally: "we have been trying to train iraqis in human rights"!!!!
They learn quickest if you half drown them then beat them (nm)
Posted by dan on November 15, 2005, 11:15 pm, in reply to "Racism, the Churchill school!!!"
Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by gabriele on November 15, 2005, 11:05 pm
Does anybody know how to get the transcript of Newsnight - (today nov. 15) ? Thank you... It
would just be great to publish the transcript, with no comments...
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by antony on November 15, 2005, 11:08 pm,
in reply to "Help: NewsNight transcript"
There is no transcript, from what I recal, but you can view it again at
video ripping software to make a copy as it will get replaced in 24 hours
PLEASE, CAN ANYONE RECORD IT?
Posted by gabriele on November 15, 2005, 11:10 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
I would do, but my VCR doesn't work... what a filmmaker... !
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by George_HK on November 15, 2005, 11:43 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
As if by Magic
Link:
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Ted on November 15, 2005, 11:10 pm,
in reply to "Help: NewsNight transcript"
Yes, especially the very good report on the discovery of tortured Iraqis, with Clywd given a
hard time by Paxman and the Sunni representative making it clear that this was only the tip of
the iceberg.
Do some of you ever give the BBC any credit for anything ? I'm all for criticism when they get it
wrong, but not never-ending nit-picking about everything.
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by gabriele on November 15, 2005, 11:13 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
hard time? as when he asked her if we needed to stay there to protect human rights (he asked
this three times) and then she said: "we have been trying to train iraqis in human rights"
hard times? it seems to me more of an hearth attack... for me to watch!
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Ted on November 15, 2005, 11:44 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
Of course it is giving her a hard time because she supports Blair and he'd rather get out and
certainly not have to stay because the regime he put in is so brutal. Try watching with a bit
less prejudice.
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by focus on November 15, 2005, 11:31 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
didnt see it ted, just responding to the post
while i am crit of bbc- though by no means just the bbc- i certainly give them credit where it is
due, when they sail as close to the edge of mainstream as they can - given what theyre under,
and who collectively they are, also when their e-mails come back with improved detail
respect, differentiation and reasoning- even if i dont agree with them always
all the best ted,f
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Ted on November 15, 2005, 11:47 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
Good for you, I wish more people here were as balanced.
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Don MacKeen on November 16, 2005, 10:09 am,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
Could you please define what you mean as "balanced"? I thought Ann Clwyd sounded like a
true imperialist - "we have been trying to train the Iraqis in human rights"..."we have been trying
our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche" - is that what "we" have been doing
when we take part in an illegal war, using WMDs against civilians, torturing people, etc?
Paxman just let her go on and on, and did not ask her to explain how "we" had the right to do
any of this.
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Ted on November 16, 2005, 5:17 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
"balanced" referred to focus's comments about criticising the BBC sometimes and also
acknowledging when it got some things right. Try it.
>Paxman just let her go on and on, and did not ask her to explain how "we" had the right to do
any of this. <
Try listening before misrepresenting, Paxman actually interrupted her several times and
allowed the Sunni rep to interrupt her and state his position quite fully. It included this:
JP: It makes a nonsense of claims that the US and UK can leave next year doesn't it ?
JP: Clearly it's not worked
Interruption from Sunni rep, who was allowed full statement
JP: Brit and American influence is clearly limited
Interruption from Sunni rep
JP (to Clywd): Is it your view that Brit and US forces should stay there until human rights can
be guaranteed ?
JP: repeated
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Don MacKeen on November 17, 2005, 4:48 pm,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
I did listen to , in fact I've typed up the transcript - I think we just have a different take on it. Yes,
Paxman did ask Ann Clywd a couple of times about "syaing until we have guaranteed human
rights" - but what kind of a question is this? Since when have "we" (the UK, the US) cornered
the market in human rights? The closing exchange went this way:
"P: Is it your view we should stay there until they can be guaranteed because that could be a
very long time.
C: I think – well possibly but I think it’s important. We have been trying to train the Iraqis in
human rights. We’ve set up conferences for the Iraqis on human rights with all the NGOs.
We’ve been trying our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche. We want to help
them I think –"
-and I know they probably ran out of time, but I really can't imagine (maybe I'm being unfair)
Paxman saying something like "Do we have the right to say anything about human rights, after
Abu Ghraib, after the use of WP, after the deaths of 100,000 civilians?"
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by focus on November 15, 2005, 11:22 pm,
in reply to "Help: NewsNight transcript"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
the only thing i can suggest is to click on watch again on the above link and "do it yourself"
the replay is available for 24 hrs
i dont know if one can "record" it from ones computer like a video from tv- that would, bundled
up- in various formats- be a good web resource - surprised the bbc doesnt do it itself
but then a] loses ctrl of own archive
b] runs risk of having itself reflected at itself from persons who dont necessarily sculpt an
"appropriate" agenda
still reckon they should bite the bullet and do it though - in a certain language- remain
Re: Help: NewsNight transcript
Posted by Peter Charles on November 15, 2005,
11:52 pm, in reply to "Help: NewsNight transcript"
Here is the Audio from that part of the show.
Quality Audio too.
http://s65.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2HPU15DJNQ5FO3PKFA16OAMO73
Link: Quality Audio
request
Posted by focus on November 16, 2005, 12:21 am,
in reply to "Re: Help: NewsNight transcript"
can you put up [from newsnight] the whole of the interview between mr.paxman and mrs
clwyd- in mp3 [audio only]
precisely to include : minutes 07:30 to 13:00 of the newsnight broadcast
all the best,f
Re: request
Posted by George_HK on November 16, 2005, 12:54 am,
in reply to "request"
I have the 81Mb real media video stream from the URL I posted above. Does anyone have
many thanks - great stuff[nm]
Posted by focus on November 16, 2005, 2:26 am,
in reply to "Re: request ann clwyd mp3"
NewsNight transcript
Posted by Don MacKeen on November 17, 2005, 4:37 pm, in reply to "Help: NewsNight
transcript"
Hope this isn't too long - and if someone has already done this - oops! I knew my 10 years as
a secretary wouldn't go to waste (can't guarantee on the accuracy any more than Ann Clywd
can guarantee human rights!)
Newsnight 15 November 2005
P = Paxman/C = Ann Clywd/S = Fareed Sabri
P: Well, here with us in the studio is Ann Clwyd who is the Prime Minister’s Human Rights
Envoy in Iraq, and Fareed Sabri who speaks for the Iraqi Islamic Party, from a Sunni
organisation.
Uh, Ann Clwyd – Human Rights Envoy, it rings pretty hollow when you hear of something like
this, doesn’t it?
C: Well, its shocking what’s happened and obviously I’ve known uh since May that there were
serious concerns amongst the Sunnis because I saw a delegation from the Sunni community in
May when I was in Iraq who made various allegations, handed me documents and also
photographs. I passed these on to the British Embassy who in turn passed these on to the
President of Iraq and we asked for these matters to be investigated.
P: As far as you’re concerned have the British and the Americans done everything possible –
S: No.
P: - to take up these investigations?
S: No, of course not. Because we’ve been - in the past 6 months we have been telling the
Americans, the British, we’ve been telling the media I myself have been telling the media in this
country for the past 6 months of what’s happening. This is the tip of the iceberg. We – I mean
you see there is uh from our point of view there is at least thousands of people killed and
tortured and massacred by the security forces, by the Interior Minister. When Laith Kubba says
that he doesn’t know about it we have told him told himself personally – We told Laith Kubba,
we told Ibrahim al-Jaafari about this months ago, they have done nothing. They knew about it.
In fact the Interior Minster Bayan Jabr he is one of their closest allies and he has been torturing
people in hospitals not just in the Interior Ministry.
P: Do you accept we must shoulder some of the responsibility for this?
C: Well as I said I was there in May last month, passed these claims on to the Iraqi authorities.
But it has been a matter of some concern. We’ve heard these allegations and uh there is no
human rights minister in Iraq. There is no independent organisation which can investigate
claims of this kind and there should be both those things there.
P: It makes a nonsense of claims that somehow the British and the Americans and whoever
can leave Iraq at the end of next year doesn’t it?
C: Well I think you know after 35 years of abuse it takes a long time for people’s mindsets to
change. And I think we’ve been trying the help the Iraqis in giving them human rights training,
through getting police advisers –
P: Can it have worked? [not sure about this one]
C: Well it takes a long time to get it – uh - police advisers over from this country over to
[inaudible]
S: It takes one visit to the Iraqi prisons to find out what is happening we’ve been telling -
C: Well I’ve been to the Iraqi prisons –
S: We’ve been telling the British government and the Americans for the past 6 months of the
abuses and the killings. You could find every day, you could find tens of people have been
thrown out of - outside the city have been tortured and drilled. They’ve drilled people with drills.
This is what happens in the Interior Ministry. And you know about it and you’ve done nothing.
P: OK, we are where we are now.
S: Yes.
P: What do you propose?
S: We propose now an independent investigation. We don’t believe the government of Ibrahim
al-Jaafari nor Laith Kubba. Those people have been told about what’s happening and they are
implicated. We need a United Nations - a United Nations
P: It was they who made it public!
S: Sorry? I mean –
P: Uh…
S: You see we need an independent inquiry. We need the United Nations to be involved.
Because those people we cannot trust them we have been telling them what’s happening,
what’s happening in the past few months and they’ve done nothing. They’ve done now; they’re
talking about it because the American government has told them what’s happened.
P: You see the difficulty as far as we’re concerned presumably, you say you’ve told the British
government but where we are now–
C: The Iraqi government.
P: Sorry the British government to tell the Iraqi government, yes. Uh where we are now with
the constitution as it is and a government in place British and indeed American influence is
decidedly limited isn’t it?
C: Well I raised again these matters with the Deputy President of Iraq who was in this country
yesterday and uh he and I, I told him what the allegations were because we knew about them
yesterday and uh he didn’t seem to know anything about it. Now I find it extraordinary that the
Minster of the Interior, who after all himself was tortured, many of his family were killed –
S: But he’s killing people now.
C: Should actually –
S: He’s killing people now everybody knows it.
C: Should actually know that this is going on under his ministry. I find that extraordinary.
S: Well you could find that before he came to power he said we will – uh -we will attack Sunni
areas and that’s what he said it, he said it –
C: But he was tortured himself.
S: Yes but why would he torture now people?
C: Well indeed that’s question I’m asking -
S: Yes, we have to have an independent inquiry then.
C: [inaudible] there is an indepdent
S: We shouldn’t leave it to Ibrahim al-Jaafari. I mean Ibrahim al-Jaafari is not an independent, I
mean he’s a guy from the government, I mean he’s one of the closest allies of uh uh Bayn
Jabr. So how could he have an inquiry, an independent inquiry?
C: Anyways, he’s not going to be running the inquiry, other people are going to be running the
inquiry –
S: He’s a close ally so.
C: There will be an inquiry. It may not be the kind of inquiry you want. But you should press I
think for a human rights minister and an independent commission that can investigate
complaints of this kind.
P: Is it your view that that uh British, American and other forces should stay there until such
time as human rights can be guaranteed in Iraq.
C: Well I think that it’s important to be able to guarantee human rights in Iraq.
P: Is it your view we should stay there until they can be guaranteed because that could be a
very long time.
C: I think – well possibly but I think it’s important. We have been trying to train the Iraqis in
human rights. We’ve set up conferences for the Iraqis on human rights with all the NGOs.
We’ve been trying our very best to get human rights into the Iraqi psyche. We want to help
them I think –
P: Alright we’ll leave it there. Thank you both very much indeed. Thank you.
bbc :iraq detainee abuse
Posted by ceemac666 on November 16, 2005, 5:39 am
'Hard evidence'
I saw signs of physical abuse by brutal beating, one or two detainees were paralysed and
some had their skin peeled off various parts of their bodies
Hussein KamalDeputy interior minister
BBC NEWS World Middle East US 'troubled' by Iraq abuse claim.htm
Fact .....Caroline Hawley is bbc correspondent in Baghdad
ergo...Caroline Hawley( as should any respectable journalist) should be expected to follow up
any lead obscure or otherwise
which might carry some importance if shown to be factual.
How therefore can one explain the following .
The allegations are a deep embarassment for the Iraqi government,says bbc correspondent
Caroline Hawley in Baghdad
But she says , however shocking, they will not come as a major surprise to many Iraqis
There have been persistant allegations of abuse by members of the shia dominated security
forces,she say.
But Sunday,s is hard evidence and OFFICIALS BELIEVE it may be the tip of the iceberg
There are suspicions the building may also have been used as a base for a militia called the
Badr Brigade,and that such militias may have
infiltrated Iraq,s security services,our correspondent adds.
Persistant allegations...???? by whom...??? of what ....???? abuse....???
Question.......What sort of journalist/correspondent is aware of "persistant allegations " yet does
absolutely nothing to bring them to the attention of the public or make no attempt whatsoever to
pursue such allegations?
Answer.....Someone, while masquerading as a correspondent /journalist,broadcasting
apparently authentic on the spot reportage, is content to act as a mouthpiece for Iraqi officialdom
and its coalition puppeteers without ever venturing outside the high security hotel complex that
is the home to the so called free press.
Then again I may be unjustly critical of Ms Hawley.The other possibility is that she has indeed
pursued such allegations and that her editors have judged such reports as trivial.
In either case what point is served by an "on the spot" reporter who is neither on the
spot,unable to follow up genuinely newsworthy leads,or is completely disregarded by her
Madrid opens inquiry into CIA 'torture' flights
Posted by The Editors on November 16, 2005, 9:22 am
Madrid opens inquiry into CIA 'torture' flightsBy Elizabeth Nash in Madrid
Published: 16 November 2005
The Independent
Spain has launched a judicial inquiry into allegations that CIA aircraft may have secretly used a
Spanish airport to transport terror suspects to clandestine interrogation camps, Jose Antonio
Alonso, the Interior Minister, said.
If the allegations proved true, Mr Alonso warned, "we would be looking at extremely serious,
absolutely intolerable acts that violate rules for treating prisoners in a democratic society, and
would demand a government response that would affect bilateral relations". The dispute deals a
further blow to US-Spanish relations, already bruised by Spain's withdrawal of troops from Iraq
last year.
Spain's intelligence service, the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia, knew CIA planes were making
stopovers on Spanish soil and urged the American agency to stop the flights, El Pais
newspaper said yesterday.
The Spanish request was prompted by a police report last June that said 10 flights were found
to have used Palma de Majorca airport.
The CIA never acknowledged a connection with these flights, in which terror suspects were
allegedly taken to third countries for interrogation in a programme known as "extraordinary
rendition", El Pais said. Jose Bono, Spain's Defence Minister, said there was no proof the US
had engaged in "illicit activities", and declined to criticise Washington. "We have no evidence,
we have no proof, so I am not prepared to put a friendly, allied government on the spot on the
basis of supposition and rumour," he said.
Mr Bono recently visited the US to rebuild relations damaged by Spain's withdrawal of troops
from Iraq. Bringing home Spanish soldiers was the first political decision by Jose Luis
Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government elected last March, just after Islamist terrorists
attacked Madrid and killed 191 people. Majorcan police were alerted to the "prison planes" by
newspaper investigations of suspicious flights landing in or leaving the island's airport from
March last year. Reports in El Diario de Mallorca led residents to denounce to the authorities the
alleged illegal detentions, kidnappings and torture, El Pais said. Local prosecutors asked police
to investigate, who found that four planes had made at least 10 stops in Majorca between
January 2004 and January this year.
One flight arrived from Algiers on 22 January 2004 and took off the next day for Macedonia.
There it allegedly collected a Lebanese-born German man, Khaled Masri, and took him to Kabul
where he was beaten and interrogated over alleged links with al-Qa'ida. Other flights reportedly
went to and from Libya and from Bucharest to Washington. Destinations included Ireland,
Morocco and Sweden; countries of origin included Algeria, Romania and Egypt, El Pais said.
The planes were said to be US-registered and used by Stevens Express Leasing, listed by
The New York Times among those used by the CIA to transport suspects.
Mr Alonso urged caution: "The matter is in the hands of a judge and we will see what his
conclusions are." The row has killed any nascent Spanish-American rapprochement. "I cannot
Where does Paxman get the nerve...
Posted by themos on November 16, 2005, 10:58 am
... to suggest that the discovery of organised paramilitary torture units, trained by the US, can
possibly be a reason for prolonging the US presence in Iraq?
Salvador Option
Posted by Neil on November 16, 2005, 1:21 pm,
in reply to "Where does Paxman get the nerve..."
Ideal justification to remain longer and train more such units in the aim of achieving stability and
ensuring that Iraqis can carry out Fallujah like operations. At which time the Iraqi security forces
are reconstituted as a set of well organised and centrally controlled paramilitary militias or Death
Squads. Once the population is sufficiently terrorised and traumatised elections can be held in
an emerging climate of stability.
The US and the UK can withdraw safely during this process after removing a dictator and
making Iraq "safe for democracy".
I think this is basically the Iraqi version of the Salvador option, referring to the techniques
successfully deployed by the US and their proxies in El Salvador back in the 80s.
This was being referred to openly in the media and by the Bush administration and their
supporters in PNAC last year. Seems to have gone quiet recently which probably means that
the option is being pursued vigorously at the moment.
You can't expect the intrepid Paxo to ask, or even suggest, that it is surely the responsibility of
the occupying US and UK forces to ensure that newly trained Iraqi security forces, with whom
they undertake joint operations, conduct themselves according to international norms as
understood in the UN, Geneva and Hague conventions?
Obviously such an expectation is absurd!
Cheers,
Neil
Saddam to blame for Iraqi torture of Sunnis - apparently
Posted by Steve on November 16, 2005, 11:31 am
BBC: "Anne Clwyd MP, the UK government's human rights envoy in Iraq, said she had raised such allegations with Iraqi authorities back in May. 'It is shocking what has happened,' she told Newsnight. 'After 35 years of abuse, it takes a long time for people's mindsets to change ' She said the UK had been trying to help bring about a cultural change by providing human rights training to Iraq security forces."
Yes........(as Paxman used to say). That would probably explain the mass executions and routine disappearences by Iraqi secruity forces that the BBC and Clwyd, amongst others, are happily ignoring.
TheThe last remnants of democracy disappear down the drain
Posted by Kebz on November 16, 2005, 1:08 pm
Terror suspect to be extradited to US
Staff and agencies
Wednesday November 16, 2005
A supporter of Babar Ahmad protests outside Bow Street magistrates' court on May 17
A supporter of Babar Ahmad protests outside Bow Street magistrates' court on May 17. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty
The home secretary, Charles Clarke, today ordered the extradition of a British terror suspect to the US.
Babar Ahmad's family said they would appeal against his extradition at the high court.
The US alleges that, between 1998 and 2003, Mr Ahmad used internet sites and an email to raise money to support terrorism in Chechnya and Afghanistan.
In May this year, Bow Street magistrates court ruled that 31-year-old Mr Ahmad could be sent to the US to stand trial, but left the extradition decision to Mr Clarke.
At the Bow Street hearing, Mr Ahmad's lawyers argued that the court should rule against extradition because he could face the death penalty in the US.
However, the US embassy provided a diplomatic note saying prosecutors would not ask for Mr Ahmad to be executed if he was convicted.
District judge Timothy Workman concluded that the risk of the death penalty being imposed by a civilian court was "negligible", as was the prospect of Mr Ahmad being held as an enemy combatant at a facility such as Guantánamo Bay.
Speaking at the hearing, the judge said he expected the "difficult and troubling case" would need to be examined by the high court.
Mr Ahmad was first arrested at his home in Tooting, south-west London, in December 2003 by anti-terrorist police.
He was later released without charge but was rearrested in August 2004 after the extradition request from the US. He is currently being held in Woodhill prison, Milton Keynes.
A website set up as part of the campaign to free Mr Ahmad today quoted him as saying: "This decision should only come as a surprise to those who thought that there was still justice for Muslims in Britain. I entrust my affairs to Allah and his words from the Qur'an."
A spokesman for his family said the decision marked "a sad day for Britain and even sadder day for British Muslisms".
He said family members had tried "every legal and democratic means to fight this decision", including protests and a petition with more than 15,000 signatures.
The decision to extradite would send a "message to British Muslims that there is no legal and democratic means to air your concerns ... you must use other ways to get justice".
"If the floodgates for extradition are allowed to be opened, it will be British Muslims that will be targeted - the very people the British government was hoping to win support from in the fight against terrorism," the spokesman added.
Mr Clarke had an initial 60 days in which to approve or reject the judge's decision, and was twice given two-month extensions because of the "complex representations made about the case".
Today, a Home Office statement defended the time it had taken for a decision to be made.
Legal battles surrounding extradition cases have been known to drag on for years, but the Home Office said the new strict time limits introduced in the Extradition Act 2003 were having "positive effects", with many cases being resolved in six months or less.
Britain's longest-serving extradition prisoner is Rachid Ramda, an Algerian wanted in France in connection with the 1995 Paris Metro bombing. He has been in jail in the UK for 10 years, and has been involved in nine separate legal extradition proceedings.
The 2003 Act introduced procedures under which a wanted person has only a single right of appeal to the high court, with a further right of appeal to the House of Lords if leave is granted.
An appeal against Mr Ahmad's extradition could go to the high court on a judicial review application.
While in prison, the former IT worker stood as a candidate in the last general election on a platform opposing the Iraq war and alleging human right abuses by the US and UK.
He contested the London seat of Brent North for Peace and Progress, the human rights party founded by the actors Corin and Vanessa Redgrave.
His election literature called for a tightening of extradition rules and an end to "police brutality and torture".
Speaking at a press conference to launch Mr Ahmad's campaign, Ms Redgrave said that detention without trial and Home Office control orders were "reminiscent of Stalin and
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
printer friendly 
