. But by early 2008, Blackwater had largely receded from the headlines save for the occasional blip on the media radar sparked by Congressman Henry Waxman’s ongoing investigations into its activities. Its forces remained deployed in Iraq and

Such an arrangement could find Blackwater operating in an arena with the godfathers of the war industry, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. It could also see Blackwater expanding into

As populist movements grow stronger in

If there is one quality that is evident from examining Blackwater’s business history, it is the company’s ability to take advantage of emerging war and conflict markets. Throughout the decade of Blackwater’s existence, its creator, Erik Prince, has aggressively built his empire into a structure paralleling the US national security apparatus. “Prince wants to vault Blackwater into the major leagues of U.S. military contracting, taking advantage of the movement to privatize all kinds of government security,” reported the Wall Street Journal shortly after Nisour Square. “The company wants to be a one-stop shop for the U.S. government on missions to which it won’t commit American forces. This is a niche with few established competitors.”

In addition to providing armed forces for war and conflict zones and a wide range of military and police training services, Blackwater does a robust, multimillion-dollar business through its aviation division. It also has a growing maritime division and other national and international initiatives. Among these, Blackwater is in Japan, where its forces protect the US ballistic missile defense system, which, according to Stars and Stripes, “points high-powered radio waves westward toward mainland Asia to hunt for enemy missiles headed east toward America or its allies.” Meanwhile, early this year, Defense News reported, “Blackwater is training members of the Taiwanese National Security Bureau’s (NSB’s) special protection service, which guards the president. The NSB is responsible for the overall security of the country and was once an instrument of terrorism during the martial law period. Today, according to its Web site, the NSB is responsible for ‘national intelligence work, special protective service and unified cryptography.’” Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto reportedly tried to hire Blackwater to protect her as she campaigned for the presidency in 2007. Conflicting reports indicated that either the US State Department or the Pakistani government vetoed the plan. She was assassinated in December.

What could prove to be one of Blackwater’s most profitable and enduring enterprises is one of the company’s most secretive initiatives — a move into the world of privatized intelligence services. In April 2006, Prince quietly began building Total Intelligence Solutions, which boasts that it “brings CIA-style” services to the open market for Fortune 500 companies. Among its offerings are “surveillance and countersurveillance, deployed intelligence collection, and rapid safeguarding of employees or other key assets.”

As the United States finds itself in the midst of the most radical privatization agenda in its history, few areas have seen as dramatic a transformation to privatized services as the world of intelligence. “This is the magnet now. Everything is being attracted to these private companies in terms of individuals and expertise and functions that were normally done by the intelligence community,” says former CIA division chief and senior analyst Melvin Goodman. “My major concern is the lack of accountability, the lack of responsibility. The entire industry is essentially out of control. It’s outrageous.”

Last year R.J. Hillhouse, a blogger who investigates the clandestine world of private contractors and US intelligence, obtained documents from the office of the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) showing that Washington spends some $42 billion annually on private intelligence contractors, up from $17.5 billion in 2000. That means 70 percent of the US intelligence budget is going to private companies. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the head of DNI is Mike McConnell, the former chair of the board of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, the private intelligence industry’s trade association.

Total Intelligence, which opened for business in February 2007, is a fusion of three entities bought up by Prince: the Terrorism Research Center, Technical Defense and The Black Group — Blackwater vice chair Cofer Black’s consulting agency. The company’s leadership reads like a Who’s Who of the CIA’s “war on terror” operations after 9/11. In addition to the twenty-eight-year CIA veteran Black, who is chair of Total Intelligence, the company’s executives include CEO Robert Richer, the former associate deputy director of the agency’s Directorate of Operations and the second-ranking official in charge of clandestine operations. From 1999 to 2004, Richer was head of the CIA’s Near East and South Asia Division, where he ran clandestine operations throughout the Middle East and South Asia. As part of his duties, he was the CIA liaison with Jordan’s King Abdullah, a key US ally and Blackwater client, and briefed George W. Bush on the burgeoning Iraqi resistance in its early stages.

Total Intelligence’s chief operating officer is Enrique “Ric” Prado, a twenty-four-year CIA veteran and former senior executive officer in the Directorate of Operations. He spent more than a decade working in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center and ten years with the CIA’s “paramilitary” Special Operations Group. Prado and Black worked closely at the CIA. Prado also served in Latin America with Jose Rodriguez, who gained infamy late last year after it was revealed that as director of the National Clandestine Service at the CIA he was allegedly responsible for destroying videotapes of interrogations of prisoners, during which “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including waterboarding, were reportedly used. Richer told the New York Times he recalled many conversations with Rodriguez, about the tapes. “He would always say, ‘I’m not going to let my people get nailed for something they were ordered to do,’” Richer said of his former boss. Before the scandal, there were reports that Blackwater had been “aggressively recruiting” Rodriguez. He has since retired from the CIA.

The leadership of Total Intelligence also includes Craig Johnson, a twenty-seven-year CIA officer who specialized in Central and South America, and Caleb “Cal” Temple, who joined the company straight out of the Defense Intelligence Agency, where he served from 2004 to ‘06 as chief of the Office of Intelligence Operations in the Joint Intelligence Task Force — Combating Terrorism. According to his Total Intelligence bio, Temple directed the “DIA’s 24/7 analytic terrorism target development and other counterterrorism intelligence activities in support of military operations worldwide. He also oversaw 24/7 global counterterrorism indications and warning analysis for the U.S. Defense Department.” The company also boasts officials drawn from the Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI.

Total Intelligence is run out of an office on the ninth floor of a building in the Ballston area of Arlington, Virginia. Its “Global Fusion Center,” complete with large-screen TVs broadcasting international news channels and computer stations staffed by analysts surfing the web, “operates around the clock every day of the year” and is modeled after the CIA’s counterterrorist center, once run by Black. The firm employs at least sixty-five full-time staff — some estimates say it’s closer to 100. “Total Intel brings the…skills traditionally honed by CIA operatives directly to the board room,” Black said when the company launched. “With a service like this, CEOs and their security personnel will be able to respond to threats quickly and confidently — whether it’s determining which city is safest to open a new plant in or working to keep employees out of harm’s way after a terrorist attack.”

Black insists, “This is a completely legal enterprise. We break no laws. We don’t go anywhere near breaking laws. We don’t have to.” But what services Total Intelligence is providing, and to whom, is shrouded in secrecy. It is clear, though, that the company is leveraging the reputations and inside connections of its executives. “Cofer can open doors,” Richer told the Washington Post in 2007. “I can open doors. We can generally get in to see who we need to see. We don’t help pay bribes. We do everything within the law, but we can deal with the right minister or person.” Black told the paper he and Richer spend a lot of their time traveling. “I am discreet in where I go and who I see. I spend most of my time dealing with senior people in governments, making connections.” But it is clear that the existing connections from the former spooks’ time at the agency have brought business to Total Intelligence.

Take the case of Jordan. For years, Richer worked closely with King Abdullah, as his CIA liaison. As journalist Ken Silverstein reported, “The CIA has lavishly subsidized Jordan’s intelligence service, and has sent millions of dollars in recent years for intelligence training. After Richer retired, sources say, he helped Blackwater land a lucrative deal with the Jordanian government to provide the same sort of training offered by the CIA. Millions of dollars that the CIA ‘invested’ in Jordan walked out the door with Richer — if this were a movie, it would be a cross between Jerry Maguire and Syriana. ‘People [at the agency] are pissed off,’ said one source. ‘Abdullah still speaks with Richer regularly, and he thinks that’s the same thing as talking to us. He thinks Richer is still the man.’ Except in this case it’s Richer, not his client, yelling ’show me the money.’”

In a 2007 interview on the cable business network CNBC, Black was brought on as an analyst to discuss “investing in Jordan.” At no point in the interview was Black identified as working for the Jordanian government. Total Intelligence was described as “a corporate consulting firm that includes investment strategy,” while “Ambassador Black” was introduced as “a twenty-eight-year veteran of the CIA,” the “top counterterror guy” and “a key planner for the breathtakingly rapid victory of American forces that toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Black heaped lavish praise on Jordan and its monarchy. “You have leadership, King Abdullah, His Majesty King Abdullah, who is certainly kind towards investors, very protective,” Black said. “Jordan is, in our view, a very good investment. There are some exceptional values there.” He said Jordan is in a region where there are “numerous commodities that are being produced and doing well.”

With no hint of the brutality behind the exodus, Black argued that the flood of Iraqi refugees fleeing the violence of the US occupation was good for potential investors in Jordan. “We get something like 600 - 700,000 Iraqis that have moved from Iraq into Jordan that require cement, furniture, housing and the like. So it is a — it is an island of growth and potential, certainly in that immediate area. So it looks good,” he said. “There are opportunities for investment. It is not all bad. Sometimes Americans need to watch a little less TV. … But there is — there is opportunity in everything. That’s why you need situation awareness, and that’s one of the things that our company does. It provides the kinds of intelligence and insight to provide situational awareness so you can make the best investments.”

Black and other Total Intelligence executives have turned their CIA careers, reputations, contacts and connections into business opportunities. What they once did for the US government, they now do for private interests. It is not difficult to imagine clients feeling as though they are essentially hiring the US government to serve their own interests. In 2007 Richer told the Post that now that he is in the private sector, foreign military officials and others are more willing to give him information than they were when he was with the CIA. Richer recalled a conversation with a foreign general during which he was surprised at the potentially “classified” information the general revealed. When Richer asked why the general was giving him the information, he said the general responded, “If I tell it to an embassy official I’ve created espionage. You’re a business partner.”

In May, Erik Prince gave a speech in front of his family and supporters in his home state of Michigan. Security was extremely tight, and Blackwater barred cameras and tape recorders from the event. “The idea that we are a secretive facility, and nefarious, is just ridiculous,” Prince told the friendly crowd of 750 gathered at the Amway Grand Plaza. In Iraq, Blackwater has banked on the idea that it is a sort of American Express card for the occupation. But for the future, Prince has a different corporate model, as he indicated in his speech. “When you send something overseas, do you use FedEx or the postal service?” he asked.

There are serious problems with this analogy. When you send something by FedEx, you can track your package and account for its whereabouts at all times. You can have your package insured against loss or damage. That has not been the case with Blackwater. The people who foot the sizable bill for its “services” almost never know, until it is too late, what Blackwater is doing, and there are apparently no consequences for Blackwater when things go lethally wrong. “We are essentially a robust temp agency,” Prince told his fans in Michigan. He’s right about that one. A temp agency serving the most radical privatization agenda in history.

Jeremy Scahill is the author of the international bestseller, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, which has just been released in updated paperback form.

Guantanamo trials fall short, says Arbour

By Stephanie Nebehay | UN HIGH Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said yesterday that planned Guantanamo war crimes trials fell short of international standards and handing down death penalties would be “just not acceptable”.

In an interview with Reuters before leaving office on June 30, the former UN war crimes chief prosecutor chided the administration of US President George W Bush for last week’s decision to distance itself from the UN Human Rights Council.

It was much too soon to write off the Geneva forum set up two years ago, in which Washington could play an important role in defusing a perceived confrontation between members of the European Union (EU) and Islamic countries, according to Arbour.
The former Canadian Supreme Court judge, 61, is going home after deciding not to seek a second four-year term.

Arbour has long denounced the system created by the Bush administration to try suspected Al Qaeda operatives outside regular civilian and military courts, and alleged torture and secret renditions conducted in the US-led “war on terrorism”.

“In a process where the definition of a crime is somewhat more ambiguous, the standard of proof is lowered, the capacity to make a full answer of defence is lowered, the chances of wrongful conviction necessarily increases,” Arbour said.

“So to add the death penalty to that, it seems to me, is just not acceptable,” she said of the Guantanamo trials.

Arbour said international human rights law permitted the death penalty for the most serious crimes if trials are fair.

“There has to be impeccable due process, the process has to meet the highest standards of fairness,” she said. “Frankly, I think the military commissions … fall short in many respects.”

Shortcomings at Guantanamo included insufficient access to evidence by the defence. “I think the process is not adequate to justify recourse to the death penalty.”

The Pentagon has declared the trials a national priority and is doubling the number of military lawyers assigned to them even as critics say the government is rushing because it wants to influence US presidential elections in November.

Air Force Brigadier-General Thomas Hartmann, legal adviser to the Pentagon appointee overseeing the trials, told journalists visiting the US naval base in southeastern Cuba on Sunday that providing “fair, just and transparent trials” was its top duty.

Five accused Al Qaeda prisoners who could be executed if convicted of plotting the September 11, 2001 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people, appeared in court there for the first time last week after spending about three years in secret CIA prisons.
Even in trials held under a rigorous judicial system with proper defence, wrongful convictions can result, according to Arbour, an expert on Canadian and international criminal law.

The US State Department said last Friday that it would disengage from the UN Human Rights Council, except when there was an issue of “deep national interest”.

Arbour said US concerns included the Council’s “perceived fixation on the Middle East” and several resolutions dealing specifically with alleged abuses by its ally Israel.

But she suggested it was “premature to send such a negative signal” just as the 47-member forum has begun examining the rights records of all states. The innovative mechanism known as the Universal Peer Review is meant to overcome double standards.
“The sooner we can persuade the Americans to join the Council and reengage more fully, the better,” she said. – Reuters

Biometric scans raise spectre of Big Brother workplaces

Management-Issues | As the FBI embarks on a $1bn programme to build the world’s largest computer database of peoples’ physical characteristics, UK employers are being warned they need to think long and hard before introducing biometric technology such as iris, fingerprint and palm scans into the workplace.

British HR and employment law organisation Croner has said employers are increasingly turning to such technologies to enhance their security within the workplace, but there has as yet been little thought given to the possible data protection and human rights ramifications of doing this.

Biometric technologies can identify people by measuring an aspect of their anatomy or physiology through, for example, automatic fingerprint identification or iris and retina scanning.

The data captured is then converted into a biometric template against which the part of the body is compared when it is scanned.

The possible uses of the technology are wide-reaching and, in addition to protecting sensitive information, include controlling access to buildings and clocking-in systems.

Last month the FBI announced it was to spend $1bn building the world’s largest computer database of such physical characteristics, a project that observers warned would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals both within the U.S and people coming in from abroad.

Critics have expressed concern that people’s bodies will become de facto national identification cards and have argued that such initiatives should not proceed without proof that the technology really can pick a criminal out of a crowd.

Part of this 10-year project will see the agency retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks, so that they can be notified if employees have had any brushes with the law.

Within the UK, some employers are already looking to introduce such biometric systems to combat security breaches, said Croner, but any organisation doing so needed to be fully aware of the potential ramifications.

More widely, the UK Border Agency recently announced the use of fingerprint checks on all visa applicants.

So far 10,000 visa applicants have been identified that had previously been fingerprinted in connection with UK immigration or asylum cases.

Some schools have also introduced automated fingerprint testing systems into libraries for the loan of books and for cashless catering.

When introducing a new system using biometric technology, employees needed to be informed of the reasons for its introduction, how it works and the benefits to both employer and worker, advised Croner.

It is also good practice for the employer to hold meetings with staff to demonstrate it and answer any questions concerning its operation. It may be a good idea, too, to trial it before implementing it fully.

Employees, Croner added, will need to be reassured that their personal data (such as their fingerprints) will only be used for the purposes specified by the employer and that the information will be kept secure.

And employers need to ensure there are high standards of security in place to protect the information from being used for unlawful reasons or for any reasons which have not been communicated to the employees.

Finally, the information has to be protected from accidental loss, destruction or damage but that any biometric data is destroyed when it is no longer needed.

Gillian Dowling, employment consultant with Croner, said: “Advances in technology mean that this is now a realistic means of protecting property, data and personnel for employers and is no longer the exclusive preserve of high-security areas.

“Although it may sound futuristic, if the introduction is handled properly the benefits can be seen at all levels of an organisation in improved efficiency and security,” she added.

42-day detention - ‘It really is psychological torture’

With MPs voting today on a new, 42-day detention limit for terror suspects, Lee Glendinning spoke to a 23-year-old student about what it is like to be detained under the existing terrorism legislation.

By Lee Glendinning | “A minute goes like an hour and an hour like a day inside a cell … You lose all concept of day or night. There are no emotions: you can’t cry, you can’t laugh…

“Six days felt like six years. I dread to think what 42 days would feel like: 28 days is harsh enough … the idea of 42 days is phenomenal.

“The ironic thing is, paedophiles, murderers, bank robbers, kidnappers and extortionists are held for four days - 96 hours maximum time. And terror suspects are on a par with all of those.”

Rizwaan Sabir, 23, a student at Nottingham University, found himself detained in a segregated and sealed-off prison wing last month, arrested and held under the Terrorism Act after arriving at university and catching up with a friend for coffee.

For six days, he was kept in prison without charge, under 24-hour surveillance and interrogated daily about his views on al-Qaida and Islamic literature.

It was a subject close to his heart. Four months earlier, Rizwaan, who was doing his masters in international relations, had clicked on an al-Qaida document online while researching his dissertation, which focused on the difference between various military organisations. The document was an edited version of the al-Qaida training manual, downloaded from a US government website.

After completing a substantial chunk of the work in January, he sent the document to a colleague, Hisham Yezza, 30, who worked on campus and had access to a free printer.

On the morning of May 14, Rizwaan could have had no idea that his next week would be spent in a cell, accused of the commission and preparation of an act of terrorism, the issue of whether he would be charged or not hanging in the balance.

“After the coffee I put my stuff down and walked into the gents. As soon as I walked in, there were three policemen behind me saying ‘Don’t move! Don’t Move! Who are you?’ And I was like, ‘I’m a student. Who are you?’

“They said: ‘Well, we are police officers looking for someone who matches your description.”’

Shortly afterwards, they arrested him under section 41 of the Terrorism Act for the alleged commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism; Hisham Yezza had been arrested 10 minutes beforehand.

When Rizwaan reached the police station, the second floor had been entirely sealed off. It was, he said, like some form of solitary confinement.

“The restricted access made me feel like a real criminal. It felt like I was in the seventies - the lights were off and there was one table; all the cells were empty. I thought, ‘What the hell is going on here?’”

For the first 48 hours, he was told nothing, but was placed under 24-hour surveillance.

”They watched everything you did and wrote it down. I would read a book and they would write down what I was reading. They would follow me when I had a shower and stand right there. You couldn’t take one step out of the cell without someone following you. They would stop and do random searches of the cell. It was so humiliating

“Day six was the hardest. Knowing your life depends on a decision that someone else takes … when you have done something with the most clean-hearted intention. It really is psychological torture.”

Officers from the West Midlands counter-terrorism branch told him they were searching his car, computer and the family home, making him feel panicked about his family’s reaction. His mother, father, grandmother and two siblings were at home in the suburbs of Nottingham.

His colleagues on campus were also questioned in relation to the investigation, with the focus on whether he had a girlfriend, whether he drank alcohol and whether he had always worn a beard.

“They were quizzed by police for five hours … they said to my personal tutor that if this had been a young, blond, Swedish PhD student, then this would never have happened. The investigating officers were making these statements when I was detention.”

At one point, officers began asking him about tents they had found in his car, which he explained belonged to friends who had used them while taking part in a hunger strike.

”They found the tents and were trying to create an adverse influence. ‘Have you been camping?’ they asked ‘Are you planning to go camping? Have you been paintballing? Are you planning to go paintballing?”’

On the sixth day, without realising his freedom was imminent, he was told by a female police officer that the document he had looked at was deemed illegitimate for research purposes by the university, and if he ever looked at it again he could face further detention. He believed he was about to be charged.

He said: “It was breaking … absolutely terrifying, I was sitting there thinking, ‘God, am I ever going to get out of here?’”

When told he was to be released without charge, he walked into the room to speak with his solicitor.

“I was shaking so violently I fell to the floor. I went back to the room and just cried and cried … Somehow, I had managed to get my emotions back.”

Returning home to his family was traumatic in its own way: the house, he said, no longer felt like the home he knew. It had been searched, his belongings had been taken, his room felt like it had been rummaged through, and his home felt like it had been broken into.

He still feels a sense of dread when he sees police or hears a siren. He thinks about the possibility he could have been charged, that he could be waiting right now on remand for a court date. He finds the idea of returning to study a difficult one - although it is what he wants - and is seeking counselling for an experience he says has scarred him deeply.

Rizwaan’s colleague, Hisham Yezza, was also released without charge after six days, but he is now being held in a detention centre and contesting moves to deport him to Algeria.

Concerned about what he calls the climate of fear the government has created in Britain, which he says has in turn prompted a society of suspicion, Rizwaan feels the UK is becoming a place that does not allow a natural interest and involvement in politicisation.

“Police are paranoid that every Muslim who is young and has a beard and is slightly involved in politics is a national security threat,” he says.

“I was a regular student who was researching a phenomenon we encounter in today’s society.”

About this article

Close

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Wednesday June 11 2008. It was last updated at 01:11 on June 11 2008.

An alternative to oil?

By Lee Waters | Oil prices could reach $200 a barrel by the end of the year, and the cost of filling up is rising nearly as fast. Lee Waters, of sustainable transport charity Sustrans, explains why it’s time to explore better ways to get around without the car

FUEL protesters rarely have difficulty grabbing the headlines or gaining public sympathy. After all, who wouldn’t rather pay less to fill up their car?

It seems quite likely that the Government will again back down from its planned increase in petrol tax this autumn. But the way the price of oil has been going, who is going to notice an extra 2p a litre?

Surely it can’t keep on going up and up? Ten years ago the price of oil was trading at $13 a barrel. Five years ago it had doubled to $25. It hit nearly $140 last week. And we haven’t heard the last of it.

Most forecasters think the price of oil is going to stay high, and some even predict it will reach $200 a barrel by the end of the year.

Of course, it is not just the price of petrol that is affected. Our economy is heavily dependent on oil. The price of gas and the price of steel are all closely linked to the black stuff – so the cost of building and heating homes is going up.

And so too is food. The rising price of our weekly shop is closely linked to the rising price of fertiliser and animal feed – all of which rely on oil for their production. And of course there’s the cost of moving goods around.

Around 95% of our transport system is dependent on oil. We’ve been used to fuel costing the same as mineral water and we have designed our towns and cities around the assumption that we can all hop in the car.

But not everyone can. In communities like Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr, where 35% of families are car-less, many low-income families feel forced to “invest” in a car to access jobs and services. And as the cost of petrol goes up it will be the families on tight budgets that are hit the hardest.

Buying and running a car is already a major cause of people getting into trouble with debts, and those on low wages who do have cars spend nearly a quarter of their income on the cost of motoring.

As seductive as it seems, trying to match increases in oil with tax cuts is a road to nowhere.

We need to wean ourselves off oil or face a serious economic slump – that’s on top of the dramatic threat to our prosperity we face from climate change. Last year’s Stern report on the economic impact of climate change warned that unless we take urgent action on cutting carbon emissions we face a downturn greater than the combined effects of both World Wars and the Great Depression.

What’s to be done? There is a different way forward, which will have a wide range of benefits not just for our economy but also for the stability of our climate. But it’s going to require some decisive leadership to make it happen.

A transport system that’s resilient to rising fuel prices needs to remove our over-dependence on oil. By far the majority of our daily journeys are under three miles long, yet the current built environment makes walking, cycling or catching public transport a challenging, sometimes impossible option. But with a number of small changes accompanied by a big vision for a new approach to transport and the planning system, it’s quite possible to make these active and public travel choices the easier, more pleasant and more direct way to get to our everyday destinations.

Sustainable transport charity Sustrans has been working for 30 years on practical projects to enable anyone to walk and cycle right across the UK. And we know that this vision, of a different, more active way to get around, is what people want too – just six months ago, the public voted in their thousands for the Big Lottery Fund to give Sustrans £50m for “Connect2”, a scheme which will build walking and cycling connections across 79 communities throughout the UK, including 10 schemes in Wales.

What is clear from the rising price of oil is that we cannot carry on building a transport system which assumes everyone can jump in a car. Not only is this likely to be unaffordable but it is contributing to a catastrophic shift in our climate. Change is coming. We can either anticipate it and set Wales up as a leader in sustainable travel, or we can continue in a state of denial and delude ourselves that fuel tax cuts will save the day.

Lee Waters is director of the sustainable transport charity Sustrans Cymru

All British forces to be pulled out of Iraq within a year

Mail Online | All British forces are set to be pulled out of Iraq within a year, it emerged today. Plans for a phased withdrawal are back on track after a reduction in violence in Basra over recent months. Whitehall officials are now working on a new timetable for the move.

Killed in Afghanistan: From left, privates Charles Murray, Nathan Cuthbertson and Daniel Gamble died on Sunday, taking the British toll there to 100The pull-out of the remaining 4,000 troops serving in Iraq is sure to be seized on by Labour Ministers as proof that a line has finally been drawn under Tony Blair’s biggest foreign policy disaster.

The withdrawal is expected to be announced by the end of this year if the security situation remains positive - with the actual operation taking place sometime next spring.

At the peak of British military activity in Iraq in 2003 there were 26,000 soldiers deployed in the country as part of Operation Telic - as well as 4,000 marines, 5,000 sailors and 8,100 RAF personnel.

British commanders handed over security responsibility in Basra province to the Iraqis last December.

Gordon Brown had been hoping to announce the final pull-out earlier this year, but previous plans to reduce troop numbers to 2,500 were put on hold in March after a bout of violence dubbed the ‘battle of Basra’.

 
Coming home: British soldiers patrol the centre of Basra (file picture)

It is understood that the next announcement on troop numbers - the latest phased cut in numbers rather than the final withdrawal - will be made next month to the House of Commons.

On a recent visit to Basra, Defence Secretary Des Browne was able to walk the streets of what he described as a ‘ transformed city’.

The Prime Minister first announced last October that troop numbers in Iraq would be cut from 5,000 to 4,000.

His announcement, at the height of speculation about an autumn general election, triggered widespread criticism because the move was seen as being political.

Plans to cut numbers further this spring were put on hold when British forces became directly involved in fighting between the Iraqi army and Shia militiamen.

The Defence Secretary said recently that the ‘direction of travel’ of the withdrawal remained ‘clear’ but security had to be maintained by local forces.

However, any withdrawal of troops could take many months after a political announcement is made.

Recent secret discussions on the pull-out included Whitehall advisers, but the Government was refusing to comment fully today.

The Ministry of Defence insisted ‘no decisions’ had been taken about withdrawing troops from Iraq and said the suggestion that a final announcement could be made by the end of the year was ’speculation’.

The Prime Minister’s advisers have long hoped that he can gain a ‘peace dividend’ from the end of operations in Iraq, focusing instead on Afghanistan. It will release badly needed resources for the fight against the Taliban.

Whitehall insiders believe that despite the British death toll rising to 100 after three members of 2 Para were killed on Sunday, the battle against the Taliban is potentially an easier war to sell to the public.

US Congressman Moves to Impeach Bush

Belfast Telegraph | Former Democratic presidential contender, Dennis Kucinich, has called for the impeachment of George W Bush claiming that the president set out to deceive the nation, and violated his oath of office with the Iraq war.

The Ohio representative yesterday introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush on the floor of the US House of Representatives.

Kucinich unveiled a list of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes.

He accused Bush executing a “calculated and wide-ranging strategy” to deceive citizens and Congress into believing that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States.

He went on to say that Bush and Cheney lied to Congress and the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 and abused their offices in order to conduct the “War on Terror” following the 9/11 attacks.

“Bush misled the American people and members of Congress to believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction so as to manufacture a false case for war. President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office,” Kucinich said.

He has already introduced a similar impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney.

Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com, said: “We’ve waited seven years to find one Member of Congress brave enough to stand up for our Constitution, for which generations of Americans have fought and died.

“We are thrilled and honored that Dennis Kucinich has chosen to be that one genuine patriot.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDZ8seg4Nr4[/youtube]

“We congratulate him on his historic leadership, and pledge to do everything in our power to persuade Congress to adopt all 35 Articles and put George W Bush on trial before the Senate of the United States, exactly as the Founding Fathers wanted.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated that there will be no consideration of impeachment proceedings against Bush and said the idea was “off the table.”

Kucinich’s case: the 35 points
Article I

Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq

Article II

Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression

Article III

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War

Article IV

Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States

Article V

Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression

Article VI

Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114

Article VII

Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII

Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter

Article IX

Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X

Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI

Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII

Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources

Article XIIII

Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries

Article XIV

Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV

Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI

Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII

Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII

Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX

Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to ” Black Sites” Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX

Imprisoning Children

Article XXI

Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII

Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII

Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV

Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV

Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI

Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII

Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII

Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX

Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX

Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI

Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII

Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII

Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV

Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV

Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Take innocent people’s DNA off database, says Welsh MP

IC Wales | INNOCENT people would have their DNA taken off the Government’s controversial database under plans put forward by a Welsh MP. Jenny Willott, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff Central, will present a private Bill in the Commons today to reform the way the huge DNA register is run.

Almost one in 10 people in Wales have their data stored after a surge in the number of samples taken by police.

Many of those 264,420 records belong to people who have never been charged with any offence, yet they can be retained for 100 years.

More than 7,000 samples have been taken from Welsh under-16s.

Ms Willott said: “If you are not charged or you are acquitted then your DNA should be removed.

“An awful lot of people have only found out the hard way that this is not the case.”

Although the use of DNA technology has led to the clearing-up of several unsolved murders, including that of Cardiff prostitute Lynette White, killed in 1988, there are fears that the database is a breach of civil liberties.

The database is the biggest of its kind in the world, dwarfing those used – in samples per head terms – by the US and other European countries.

Ms Willott said: “People who have voluntarily given samples, say to help in a police investigation, can’t have their DNA taken off the register either, so potentially there are a lot of people affected.

“The UK really is out on a limb on this.

“We’re in a different league to other countries.

“I don’t think the public realise quite how far it’s going because it’s not very easy to find out, but I think that will change as more and more people are affected.”

She said she was not against the use of DNA as a crime-fighting tool, saying for some offences like burglary, the presence of DNA at the crime scene more than doubled the prospect of a conviction.

“But that doesn’t mean we have to hold everybody’s DNA,” she said.

“Collect the DNA from the crime scene, but don’t then hold it for 100 years. It’s a question of getting the balance right.”

Without any prospect of Government support, Ms Willott’s Bill has no chance of becoming law, but she does have supporters from all sides of the Commons, including Labour MP Keith Vaz, who chairs the influential Home Affairs Select Committee.

Also backing the Bill is Conservative MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire Stephen Crabb, who last year highlighted the case of constituent Jeffrey Orchard, a pensioner wrongly arrested for criminal damage.

Mr Orchard, 73, had his fingerprints, photograph and DNA taken, but was cleared before the case reached court.

The database does have its backers, however. Senior judge Lord Justice Sedley said last year that everyone should be included on it.

The Government is funding an inquiry into public attitudes towards the database which is being carried out by the Human Genetics Commission, a body that advises ministers.

Can the US empire strike back?

By Alex Callinicos | Despite opposing the war, Obama is committed to US imperialism. Imagine, in a galaxy far, far away, an empire in decline. A disastrous military adventure and the rise of new powers have exposed its weakness. To cap it all, the emperor himself is generally despised as a provincial clod.

But now his successor has to be chosen. What better way to rehabilitate the empire in the eyes of others than to select as emperor an eloquent, dynamic, relatively young man – a man who, while being utterly safe, not only belongs to the group of imperial subjects who are victims of its greatest historical injustice, but whose father comes from a foreign country and who himself spent some of his childhood in another?

Maybe this seems too cynical a view of Barack Obama’s bid for the US presidency. The success of his campaign for the Democratic nomination has been driven by a huge popular revulsion against George Bush’s discredited administration and by the desire finally to heal the wound in US society caused by slavery and racism.

But the real power of the US president lies abroad. President John F Kennedy asked Richard Nixon in 1961, “It really is true that foreign affairs is the only important issue for a president to handle, isn’t it? I mean, who gives a shit if the minimum wage is $1.15 or $1.25 in comparison to something like the confrontation between the US and Cuba.”

And, on foreign policy, there seems to be a big divide between the two presidential candidates. John McCain, the Republican nominee, is in favour of keeping US troops in Iraq for “maybe one hundred years”.

Obama, by contrast, gained his edge on Hillary Clinton in large part thanks to his opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He is officially committed to withdrawing all US combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president.

But, in judging what Obama would actually do in the White House, it’s essential to remember what presidential elections are really about. Dominated by money – Obama’s victory over Clinton was clinched by his superior fund-raising – they are about choosing the leader who can best look after the global interests of US capitalism for the next four years.

Long before President Jimmy Carter officially proclaimed it in January 1980, a key objective of US foreign policy has been militarily and politically to dominate the Middle East. The current surge in the oil price has made securing this objective even more important.

So it’s striking, as the Washington Post has pointed out, that “when Mr Obama opened his general election campaign this week with a major speech on Middle East policy, the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration – or that of John McCain”.

Obama made the speech to the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the key pro-Israel lobbying organisations. He seems to have had two aims. The first was to ­reassure a suspicious audience that his opposition to the Iraq war did not in any way weaken his support for Israel.

“Let me be clear,” Obama said. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable, Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” He said he had been opposed even to letting Hamas contest the Palestinian elections in 2006 and promised Israel $30 billion US aid over the next ten years.

Secondly, Obama sought to toughen his line on Iran. He has been attacked by Bush and McCain for “appeasement” for promising to negotiate with the Islamic Republican regime in Tehran.

Not radical

Obama’s position isn’t exactly radical. The December 2006 report of the Iraq Study Group, headed by Jim Baker, pillar of the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, recommended negotiating with Iran as a way of getting out of the Iraq morass.

But Obama was determined not to allow McCain to outflank him. “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” he told AIPAC.

This would include “aggressive, principled diplomacy” backed up by tougher sanctions and the ultimate sanction of force: “I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel.”

This change in tone isn’t just about defeating McCain in the general election. The military surge hasn’t brought peace or stability to Iraq, but it has bought the US time to pursue its long term plans for the country.

The secret draft agreement for a “strategic alliance” between the US and Iraq revealed last week in Socialist Worker and the Independent indicate what these plans are – permanent US military bases in Iraq and the right for the Pentagon to pursue its operations without the say-so of its client regime.

Democratic senators have denounced the proposal. Nevertheless, it is absolutely certain that Obama will fill what the Washington Post calls “the gap in his Middle East policy” by watering down his proposal to withdraw all US troops in Iraq.

But if president Obama would probably offer only more of the same in the Middle East, what difference would he make overall to the US empire?

After the Cold War, commentators talked about “the unipolar moment” – about overwhelming US global power. The Iraq debacle has reminded the world instead of US relative decline – a perception reinforced by the economic rise of China and the credit squeeze engineered by Anglo-American financial speculation.

Instead of the swaggering arrogance of power symbolised by Bush, Obama would offer the world’s ruling classes a different face of the US – one ready to negotiate and to cooperate, and in particular to address the issue of climate change rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.

But this more open stance would still rest on US military power – Obama wants to increase the size of the armed forces. He would make an attractive black emperor but he would still have his legions massed behind him.

Ex-Army Officer Admits Taking Bribes for Iraq Contracts

AP | A retired Army lieutenant colonel pleaded guilty Tuesday to steering a Pentagon contract for warehouses in Iraq to a contractor in return for $4,000 cash and a $5,000 trip to Thailand.Levonda J. Selph pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy in U.S. District Court as part of a plea bargain with the government in which she agreed to cooperate with the investigation. The Virginia resident also agreed to pay the government $9,000 in restitution and serve a prison term.

She agreed to sentencing guidelines that could result in a prison term of up to two years and nine months. The length will be set by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 14.

The government said that in 2005 Lt. Col. Selph of the Army National Guard served in Baghdad as head of a selection board that awarded an annual $12 million contract to build and operate Defense Department warehouses in Iraq. The winning contractor was not identified by name in the court documents.

Selph admitted she leaked confidential government information about the contract to the head of the winning contracting company and helped him submit phony bid packages on behalf of six separate companies he controlled “to create the appearance of competition, when, in fact, no competition existed.” In return, she was paid $4,000 by the contractor and took a trip with his wife to Thailand during which he paid $5,000 for Selph’s airfare and accommodations.

The Heinous Crimes of George W. Bush in 35 Articles of Impeachment

By Elaine Brower & Cheryl Abraham | Monday, June 9, 2008 was an astoundingly historic night for the United States of America. In the evening a mild mannered Congressman named Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) took to the floor of the House of Representatives and began to read a startling document, a document laying out 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush.  

For five hours Congressman Kucinich read clearly and concisely each of the 35 counts against President Bush. Occasionally taking sips from a cup, Kucinich didn’t falter, didn’t take a break, and didn’t seem to tire with the long reading, in fact right up to the last article Kucinich, with unwavering passion, said for the 35th time that evening:

“In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.” 

These 35 astounding, criminal, impeachable, and in many cases monstrous offenses were spoken out loud for all to hear and watch on CSPAN.  So where was the rest of the media, the supposed fourth estate? Where’s the in-depth public reporting on this occasion? Where’s Nancy Pelosi who has said all along that impeachment was “off the table” because she had seen no evidence for any criminal wrongdoing by the president and if anyone had such evidence could they “please let her know”. The evidence was read for the world to hear last night, it is now a matter of public record, and it couldn’t be more obvious that George W. Bush has committed an incredible amount of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Two Articles That Could be the Undoing of a President 

Let’s focus on 2 key articles presented yesterday.

Article XIV states:  “Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

Article XVIII states:  “Torture:  Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy.” 

Above all the other crimes committed by George Bush, these Articles could hold the key to waking up the members of the House Judiciary Committee who have been staunchly following the line of the House Speaker by not pursuing impeachment investigations. 

Interestingly enough, yesterday just a short time prior to Kucinich making his historic presentation, the House Judiciary Committee, specifically John Conyers (D-Illinois), and Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), officially “invited” Scott McClellan to testify under oath, and be subject to perjury charges should he lie, to be asked about the following matters:

 (1)    What role did Bush, Cheney and key administration officials take in the effort to reveal the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson – thus destroying her network and putting lives in jeopardy?

(2)    What role did Bush, Cheney and key administration officials take regarding the firing of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?

(3)    What role did Bush, Cheney and key administration officials take in conspiring to blatantly break U.S. and International laws prohibiting the use of torture? 

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Florida), a co-sponsor of these articles of impeachment, has been demanding that the Judiciary Committee subpoena McClellan, as well as Rove, Rice and Powell.  McClellan’s testimony in conjunction with what this resolution is presenting in Articles XIV and XVII (see background information at http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/news.asp?ItemID=255), could rip open a gaping hole in this administration’s armor that will ultimately result in its destruction.

Will the media be silent then?  Why aren’t these articles of impeachment making their way right now into the public arena to assure that investigations into these articles begin immediately? Former president Bill Clinton was investigated and impeached in the House for perjury and obstruction of justice over lying about an illicit sexual affair, and then later was cleared in the Senate of the charges in only 21 days. There wasn’t a paper, tabloid, or TV station in this country that didn’t cover every sordid detail of the investigation that led up to those “high crimes and misdemeanors” –  what is the explanation for the echoing silence in the face of the astounding and mountainous amount of evidence of the bloody crimes of George W. Bush?

Why does Bush get a free ride in the media – a media that has so obviously silenced this story, for such heinous crimes as torture, falsely leading a nation to war, rendition, imprisoning children as young as ten years old, spying on American citizens without a warrant, obliterating the Posse Comitatus act, etc. What has changed in the media from non-stop coverage of the impeachment proceedings of a president in 1999, to the resounding silence we hear in 2008? Will our ‘leaders’ in D.C. take the reading of these charges seriously and begin impeachment hearings now?

John Conyers and others have said that impeachment hearings could or would jeopardize Obama’s chances to win in the November election and therefore an election win is of far more importance than protecting the rule of law and bringing those who’ve committed unprecedented and historical harm to our nation and the world to justice.

It is now up to the people of conscience to not let the historical significance of June 9, 2008 go unheard and unacknowledged! We must openly and publicly thank Kucinich, and Wexler, for their courage and for bravely and succinctly putting forth all the crimes of George W. Bush.  We must take it upon ourselves to hound and haunt Conyers and Nadler to listen to us.

The people must do their utmost to spread this information as quickly as possible to everyone they know.  Contact the media and hold them accountable for their silence and complicity in the face of the enormous evidence of the high crimes and misdemeanors committed on such a massive scale by the Bush regime.  We must, in our millions, demand that the time for impeachment is long overdue. 

We must make a firm commitment to Drive Out the Bush Regime, because we and the world really can’t wait. (for more information see www.worldcantwait.org) 

Translate: