BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Government apologises for torture cover-up

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

THE government has apologised to two High Court judges after discovering that an MI5 officer misled them over the case of a British terrorist suspect allegedly tortured while in America’s extraordinary rendition programme.

Lawyers for David Miliband, the foreign secretary, said it was “a matter of great regret” that during “a full and independent review of the case” they had uncovered 13 new documents suggesting that the official account of Britain’s knowledge of what was happening to Binyam Mohamed was inaccurate.

The documents reveal as false the claim by a senior MI5 manager, known as witness A, in the High Court last year that the last information MI5 received from the CIA about Mohamed’s whereabouts was in February 2003. One letter says: “A sentence in the open witness statement of witness A, which stated the last interview report received by the Security Service was in February 2003, is incorrect.”

Mohamed, 31, has always claimed British intelligence officers were complicit in his treatment. His lawyers have forced the government to hand over 42 secret documents that support his assertions, including that MI5 officers interviewed him in Pakistan.

The government solicitors’ letter to Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones continues: “Their disclosure at this stage is a matter of great regret. We offer our apologies on behalf of all concerned.”

Mohamed, a British resident, flew home to Britain in February after release from Guantanamo Bay prison. He had been detained in the US extraordinary rendition programme since being arrested in Pakistan in 2002 on a false British passport.

He is considering legal action against the UK government over his claims that he was tortured in Pakistan with the complicity of MI5. He spent time in “dark prisons” in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan before being sent to Guantanamo in September 2004.

MI5 told the High Court last year that after February 2003 it had no knowledge of Mohamed’s whereabouts. At that time Mohamed was in a prison in Morocco, where he says his testicles were cut with a razor as part of a long and humiliating series of torture sessions.

The new documents were unearthed after detailed questioning of MI5 by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Two documents were initially discovered, prompting government lawyers to order further searches of MI5 and MI6 files.

Last month the attorney-general, Baroness Scotland, ordered an investigation by Scotland Yard into allegations that MI5 officers had tortured Mohamed.

By David Leppard and Kevin Dowling

Have Your Say: Government apologises for torture cover-up
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

“War Crimes” Memos Questioned

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

By Bob Patterson |

Before editorial writers across America get all discombobulated about the recently released memos that allegedly prove that the United States used extreme interrogation (should that be spelled “interror-gation”?) methods and that constituted the commission of war crimes, shouldn’t all Patriotic American pundits first establish if the so called memos were written on the very same typewriter that provided Dan Rather with his “proof” that President Bush went AWOL during his time of service in the Air National Guard? Isn’t the fact that Tuesday will be Ben and Jerry’s “free cone” day of much greater importance to all Patriotic American pundits such as the one writing this weekly installment from “the World’s Laziest Journalist”?

Patriotic Americans know that some aspects of warfare (such as the function of “Pine Gap” and the top secret hush-hush World War II Habakkuk Project) must be kept secret so that the enemy won’t be able to sabotage such efforts.

Hellfire, boys and girls, if the Democrats are going to go nuts over the assertion that if the Germans and Japanese were convicted of war crimes for doing what Bush sanctioned, that means that Bush was a war criminal is a logical conclusion; then let’s just have the conservative majority U. S. Supreme Court overturn the Nuremberg convictions! Without the embarrassing president, there will be no reason to play parlor games about inescapable logical conclusions and that will take the wind out of the Democrats’ sails.

It’s like the old puzzler: If God can do anything; can he make a rock so big that he can’t lift it? The Americans are the good guys and the idea that some intelligence gathering by professional interrogators constitutes a “war crime” is just as absurd as the aforementioned theological “riddle.”

Heck those methods had to be used to win the war on terror (which Bush did) and knowing that they were necessary brings up another point: why aren’t the various police departments in the USA permitted to use a harmless waterboarding session (or two) in the war on crime?

Have the dumb Democrats, who think that just because the United States established war policies at the Nuremburg Trials, they must follow them; ever heard of the boxing technique called a feint punch or the legendary chess move called the “ghost knight gambit”? The idea at Nuremburg was to shame others out of doing what was OK, so that in the future others would be fighting wars with the USA at a disadvantage, wasn’t it?

In their lead editorial on Saturday, April 18, 2009, the Los Angeles Times thundered: “Almost as shocking as the document’s catalog of cruelties are the Orwellian arguments with which their authors rationalized waterboarding, the withholding of food and other violations of human dignity.” Did they give the names of two people who can swear it was done to them, to the factcheckers, so that those wild assertions could be substantiated?

While the Democrats media dupes fill the air with eloquent (Pulitzer Prize time coming up soon) righteous indignation about the gathering of necessary intelligence for America in the war on terror, Patriotic American pundits will turn their attention to other more important topics such as: The music festival at Coachella, the race in Long Beach, the gathering of hippies (the Sixties are over boys and girls) in Berkeley to celebrate the People’s Park’s 40th birthday this coming week, - why heck even the specialized graffiti sneakers for sale on Telegraph Avenue, are of much more relevance to the true Americans who will be ignoring all the ducky lucky reaction to a few innocuous interoffice memos from the past.

Didn’t Journalism legends Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein establish that newspaper reporters are supposed to be unbiased observers and no propagandists pushing their interpretations off on a gullible and vulnerable audience? So why are all the “this proves Bush was a war criminal” stealth editorials being inserted into the news stories about some old government paperwork?

When President George W. Bush was in office, there wasn’t a single hint that anything untoward was happening in the White House, but now that a Democrat is in charge, the lapdogs are anxiously trying to outdo each other in their vicious (partisan) disapproval of President Obama’s other party predecessor.

Quote of the week. Groucho Marx (AKA “43″) once said: “This morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got there; I’ll never know.”

Now, the disk jockey will play Groucho Marx’s hit song “Hello, I Must Be Going” while you listen to that, I must be going. Have a “Night at the Opera” type week.

Have Your Say: “War Crimes” Memos Questioned
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Obama presidency keeps some Bush secrets

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

WASHINGTON - Despite a pledge to open government, the Obama administration has endorsed a Bush-era decision to keep secret key details of an FBI computer database that allows agents and analysts to search a billion documents with a wealth of personal information about Americans and foreigners.

President Barack Obama’s Justice Department quietly told a federal court in Washington last week that it would not second-guess the previous administration’s decisions to withhold some information about the bureau’s Investigative Data Warehouse.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights advocacy group, had sued under the Freedom of Information Act to get records showing how the FBI protects the privacy of Americans whose personal information winds up in the vast database.

No public list of databases
As a result, there is no public list of all the databases the FBI sucks into this computer warehouse; no information on how individuals can correct errors about them in this FBI database; and no public access to assessments the bureau did of the warehouse’s impact on Americans’ privacy.

“In light of all the fanfare at the highest levels of the administration about a new transparency policy, it’s remarkable that not one word of additional material has been released as a result of that new policy,” said David Sobel, the foundation’s lawyer in the case.

The administration’s handling of the decision fit a pattern that emerged this month: Highly visible announcements when Obama breaks with Bush policy in order to open hidden government files, but an almost stealthy rollout of decisions when Obama endorses secrecy.

“There has been a lack of consistency on the part of the administration when it comes to secrecy issues,” said James Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an open government advocate. “They do seem to be torn between two conflicting tendencies: One is openness and other is a control-the-news tendency. But it’s still early in the administration, so I cut them some slack for not having this fully thought out yet.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler offered a different explanation: “Some withholdings are necessary in order to protect privacy, national security and other interests.”

There’s no lack of openness when Obama changes Bush policies.

On his first day in office, Obama reversed a policy on releasing government documents so there is a “presumption in favor of disclosure.” Attorney General Eric Holder promptly beat Obama’s deadline by two months for issuing new guidelines that urged release unless “foreseeable harm” would result.

Secret legal opinions opened
With a flourish, the Justice Department has opened two batches of secret legal opinions crafted to support Bush’s anti-terrorism polices. Just Thursday, four Bush-era legal opinions that relaxed restrictions against torture of prisoners were made public, accompanied by a department news release and a statement from Obama.

In contrast, the decision to endorse Bush’s withholding of records about the FBI’s data warehouse was filed in federal court last Monday with no other public word from the current administration.

On April 3, the Obama administration issued no presidential statement or general Justice Department news release when it told a federal court in San Francisco that a lawsuit by AT&T customers to stop domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency must be halted to avoid disclosing state secrets.

Instead, a court brief containing the decision was filed electronically with the San Francisco court at 8 p.m. EDT Friday.

Schmaler said the department had a statement prepared in case anyone called to ask about the filing. But in the NSA case, and the FBI case, the department did not follow the Bush administration practice of e-mailing reporters a copy of government briefs in newsworthy cases as soon as they are filed with a court.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said Bush invoked the state secrets privilege too often, and Holder has ordered a review of those cases. But Obama has since reasserted it in two cases where Bush earlier claimed it to prevent disclosure of his anti-terror tactics.

The NSA wiretapping case, filed shortly before Bush left office, was the first time Obama asserted the privilege on his own to try to kill a suit.

Last Monday’s decision not to release additional documents about the FBI data warehouse was the first one about a pending case since Holder issued the new freedom of information standard and said Bush-era decisions involved in pending suits could be revisited.

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton had given the government 60 days to decide whether the new guidelines might alter its position. The government’s response declining to disclose more data did not say whether the Justice Department used the time to re-evaluate the Bush-era decisions.

Comparing the Obama decisions, attorney Sobel said, “The `torture’ memos affected a handful of people while this database potentially affects millions of American citizens. The average American was not likely to be tortured at the Guantanamo Bay prison, but they are likely to have information about them in this massive database which remains a black hole. We don’t even know what material they’re collecting.”

Begun in 2004, the data warehouse contains at least 53 databases that are refreshed regularly. Nearly three-quarters of the data comes from outside the FBI. Some 13,500 FBI agents, 2,000 FBI analysts and selected other federal, state and local law enforcement officers on joint task forces with the FBI can access the material, which includes unclassified documents and data classified confidential or secret, but not top secret.

Censored documents released
The heavily censored documents already released show the warehouse contains the FBI’s electronic case files; its lists of people and groups “associated with” violent gangs and terrorist organizations; criminal histories from the National Crime Information Center; messages between the FBI and other agencies; newspaper stories from around the world; data about lost, stolen or fraudulent passports; CIA intelligence reports; suspicious banking activity reports; and lists of people barred from aircraft or subject to extra searches before flying.

But the names of more than half the data sets in the warehouse are blacked out.

In the Justice Department’s brief, FBI freedom of information chief David Hardy said that “knowledge of the data sources … would enable individuals involved in criminal or terrorist activities to adapt their activities and methods to avoid detection.” New department guidance for deletions like this cautions agencies to “ensure that they are not withholding based on speculative or abstract fears.”

The released documents also show the FBI assessed the data warehouse’s impact on the privacy of Americans, but won’t make those assessments public because it believes federal law doesn’t require that.

The new Justice guidance, however, says agencies “should not withhold information simply because (they) may do so legally.” It urges release of information that can be made public without “foreseeable harm.”

The Associated Press

Have Your Say: Obama presidency keeps some Bush secrets
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Councils’ surveillance powers under review

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

By Sarah Bunney |

A MOVE to review councils’ use of anti-terror laws to spy on the public has been welcomed by campaigners and politicians who fear we increasingly live in a Big Brother-style society.

Councils across the nation have been putting us under surveillance for suspected offences from dog fouling and dropping litter to counterfeiting and loan sharking.

Concerns these powers – given to public authorities under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) – were being used for “trivial offences” have prompted Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to launch a review.

The Tories and Lib Dems say Ripa had become a “snooper’s charter”.

Incidents in Wales include CCTV being installed in school toilets.

And last summer Wales on Sunday revealed how councils were using Ripa, which was originally brought in to help police and the security services combat serious crime and terrorism, to spy on their own employees.

Data released under the Freedom of Information Act found Conwy council used Ripa to monitor an employee who was under suspicion of taking drugs while at work, and Denbighshire council used the powers as it suspected an employee was using a council vehicle for his own use.

Newport council admitted using powers to check on a council employee who was at home while claiming to be working.

The same council put another employee under surveillance for allegedly working while on sickness absence.

For spying on the public, Bridgend council was Wales’ Ripa hotspot, with 254 authorisations within three years.

Jenny Willott, Liberal Democrat MP for Cardiff Central, said yesterday: “We definitely need to have a review of these powers. It’s becoming clear that they are not always being used in the way they were intended, and some councils are clearly abusing surveillance powers.

“The only way to tackle that is to look at what they are being used for, seeing how often and how they are being used. Then decisions can be made about the best way to deal with that and under what circumstances they should be needed.”

Liberty’s director of policy Isabella Sankey said: “There is no question that surveillance is a vital tool in the battle against serious crime and terrorism, but reports that mothers are tailed by council officers policing school catchment zones has seriously undermined public trust and confidence.

“We hope that the Government is now ready to listen to these concerns and restrict broadly drafted powers that have been widely used and abused.”

The dad of a 15-year-old girl who was spied on by CCTV cameras in her school toilets also welcomed the review. Anthony White, who took his daughter Jade out of Ysgol Dyffryn Teifi, Ceredigion, in January, said he was annoyed and upset that the school were allowed to install the cameras.

He said: “If a girl was standing looking in the mirror and adjusting her bra, the cameras would capture all of that. The toilets are the only place in school where a pupil can actually go for a bit of privacy, whether it’s a boy or a girl.”

Jade now attends another school after her parents withdrew her from the Welsh-language comprehensive.

Anthony added: “Other female pupils won’t go to the toilet there now because of the cameras – they wait until they go home. It’s about time something was done about the use of cameras in totally inappropriate places.”

A Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) spokesman said: “Local authorities in Wales have duties under a wide range of laws to ensure certain rules are observed in the community, which are important in enabling councils to tackle the kinds of issues such as trading standards and public health issues.

“Where covert action is necessary for councils to enforce these laws, Ripa controls councils’ actions and ensures that people’s right to privacy is not unduly breached, as well as controlling the actions of council officers, making the council liable and totally accountable for its actions, and providing local people with the means to challenge councils about the way in which they do their work.

“The WLGA is currently working with Welsh councils to review their use of powers under Ripa, reviewing what these powers should be used for and ensuring they are used appropriately.”

JADE White’s dad took the 14-year-old out of school in January after CCTV cameras were installed in the toilets.

Anthony White, from Llandysul, said the cameras at Ysgol Dyffryn Teifi in Ceredigion were an “outrageous invasion” of his daughter’s privacy.

She said: “I am not going back while the cameras are there. It must be against the law to have them there.”

Her dad added: “The school is being pathetic. They don’t need security cameras in toilets.

“The whole place is like they’re on Big Brother. There are cameras all around the school, outside and in the corridors.”

Ceredigion Council said it had installed the cameras after incidents of “major concern”.

Spokeswoman Anwen Francis said: “Any such viewing of CCTV footage is undertaken by senior members of staff having Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) clearance.”

Have Your Say: Councils’ surveillance powers under review
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

The grim RIPA and the Surveillance state

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

Labour’s polling has at last picked up that many people hate their surveillance society. They tell us today they will look at their much hated Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to try to stop Councils using snooping powers against us for “minor” offences. Why not repeal it, and the rest of the surveillance society they have introduced, including ID cards and email snooping? Because they are not serious about this.

They just don’t get it. We hate this government’s abuse of state power. We loathe its bullying and harassment of our daily lives. We dislike its thought police. It wants to poke and pry into every facet not just of our lives but of our minds. It forces people to use politically correct language, deals aggressively with anyone who disagrees with it, intercepts emails and conversations, arrests an Opposition Spokesman for doing his job and misrepresents or lies about its opponents. It has placed so many cameras on the streets. It constantly tries to frighten us by talking up the terrorist threat. It wastes our money on intimidating adverts to tell us what latest tax we have to pay or what latest law we have to obey.

Now they think they can spin their way on to the good side of the Surveillance society debate by blaming Councils for over eagerness to do on a local scale what this government does so often on a national scale. It has the advantage for their spin machine of letting them tell people they do understand that we are angry about the absue of power. It brings the added advantage that as Labour is so unpopular many Councils now have a Conservative majority. I have no time for any Conservative Council that uses the powers disproportionately. This government has so over centralised that if local government is now too prying and unpleasant it may be because this government gave the powers and often makes them use them. It has put Councils under its control with their endless regulations,circulars, star system and threats of central intervention if Councils do not comply.

I never recall problems with the rubbish collection service before this government and the EU was let loose on it. Now we have the battle of the bins with Council after Council under the impression they have to go over to fortnightly collection, a policy hated by most of the angry Council taxpayers.

This government decided to wage a war against the motorist. This government went on the attack against employers and small businesses. In their passion to spend more of our money and dictate to us what we should think, they forgot that the public might see through the spin. That is why they have been trying to find a way of “turning” the websites and blogsphere. Infuriatingly to them the world of the web wont agree with the Labour way of looking at and talking about a problem as the BBC so often obligingly does.
http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2009/04/17/the-grim-ripa-and-the-surveillance-state/

Have Your Say: The grim RIPA and the Surveillance state
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 19th, 2009 at 5:39 pm and is filed under War & Terrorism News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: