WHAT THE PENTAGON’S DUMPING IN YOUR OCEANS

2

It is no secret that the U.S. military has used the ocean as trashcan for munitions in the past. Peter discussed at the Old DSN how federal lawmakers were pressing the US Army to reveal everything it knows about a massive international program to dump chemical weapons off homeland and foreign shores. “The Army now admits that it secretly dumped 64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste – either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.” Brian pointed me to the Daily Press’s in depth coverage of this whole issue. Registration is free and only takes a minute or two and is extremely worthwhile. Included at the site are maps of disposal sites (downloadable as pdfs), stories, descriptions of items dumped including nerve and musturd gas, and rather depressing pictures some are below the fold (all from Daily Press).

Hundreds of dolphins washed ashore in Virginia and New Jersey shorelines in 1987 with burns similar to mustard gas exposure. One marine-mammal specialist suspects Army-dumped chemical weapons killed them.

An Expectation of Online Privacy

1

If your data is online, it is not private. Oh, maybe it seems private. Certainly, only you have access to your e-mail. Well, you and your ISP. And the sender’s ISP. And any backbone provider who happens to route that mail from the sender to you. And, if you read your personal mail from work, your company. And, if they have taps at the correct points, the NSA and any other sufficiently well-funded government intelligence organization — domestic and international.

You could encrypt your mail, of course, but few of us do that. Most of us now use webmail. The general problem is that, for the most part, your online data is not under your control. Cloud computing and software as a service exacerbate this problem even more.

Your webmail is less under your control than it would be if you downloaded your mail to your computer. If you use Salesforce.com, you’re relying on that company to keep your data private. If you use Google Docs, you’re relying on Google. This is why the Electronic Privacy Information Center recently filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission: many of us are relying on Google’s security, but we don’t know what it is.

This is new. Twenty years ago, if someone wanted to look through your correspondence, he had to break into your house. Now, he can just break into your ISP. Ten years ago, your voicemail was on an answering machine in your office; now it’s on a computer owned by a telephone company. Your financial accounts are on remote websites protected only by passwords; your credit history is collected, stored, and sold by companies you don’t even know exist.

And more data is being generated. Lists of books you buy, as well as the books you look at, are stored in the computers of online booksellers. Your affinity card tells your supermarket what foods you like. What were cash transactions are now credit card transactions. What used to be an anonymous coin tossed into a toll booth is now an EZ Pass record of which highway you were on, and when. What used to be a face-to-face chat is now an e-mail, IM, or SMS conversation — or maybe a conversation inside Facebook.

Remember when Facebook recently changed its terms of service to take further control over your data? They can do that whenever they want, you know.

We have no choice but to trust these companies with our security and privacy, even though they have little incentive to protect them. Neither ChoicePoint, Lexis Nexis, Bank of America, nor T-Mobile bears the costs of privacy violations or any resultant identity theft.

This loss of control over our data has other effects, too. Our protections against police abuse have been severely watered down. The courts have ruled that the police can search your data without a warrant, as long as others hold that data. If the police want to read the e-mail on your computer, they need a warrant; but they don’t need one to read it from the backup tapes at your ISP.

This isn’t a technological problem; it’s a legal problem. The courts need to recognize that in the information age, virtual privacy and physical privacy don’t have the same boundaries. We should be able to control our own data, regardless of where it is stored. We should be able to make decisions about the security and privacy of that data, and have legal recourse should companies fail to honor those decisions. And just as the Supreme Court eventually ruled that tapping a telephone was a Fourth Amendment search, requiring a warrant — even though it occurred at the phone company switching office and not in the target’s home or office — the Supreme Court must recognize that reading personal e-mail at an ISP is no different.

Bruce Schneier

US airstrikes kill scores of civilians in Afghanistan

0

By Bill Van Auken |

On the eve of a tripartite summit in Washington which the Obama administration has organized with the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, reports from Afghanistan indicate that US air strikes in western Farah province have killed and wounded scores of civilians, many of them women and children.

Villagers from the remote Bala Baluk district near the Iranian border put the death toll as high as 150, according to local government officials.

According to accounts from the region, US forces battling insurgents who had moved into the area called in air strikes. A bomb struck mud-brick houses in the village of Gerani, where civilians had taken refuge from the fighting.

A provincial council member in Farah province, Abdul Basir Khan, told the Associated Press that villagers had brought truckloads of mangled corpses of bombing victims to the provincial capital to prove that women and children had been slaughtered in the US attack. The official said that villagers had gathered in front of the local government office, crying and shouting.

“It was difficult to count [the bodies] because they were in very bad shape,” said Khan, adding, “Some had no legs.” Villagers told him that 150 people had been killed, he said.

“These houses that were full of children and women and elders were bombed by planes,” Mohammad Mieem Qadderdan, a former top regional official who had witnessed the carnage, told the media. “It is very difficult to say how many were killed because nobody can count the number. People are digging through rubble with shovels and hands.”

The spokesman for the US occupation forces in Afghanistan, Col. Greg Julian, acknowledged that US forces had fought a battle in the area and reported that wounded Afghans had sought medical treatment at a military base in Farah. “We offer our condolences to those affected by today’s operations and will immediately investigate the claims to determine what happened,” he said in a pro forma statement.

Qadderdan said that the death toll was “worse than Azizabad,” referring to a US air strike last year that killed at least 90 Afghan civilians, two-thirds of them children, in the western province of Herat. He estimated the death toll in this latest air strike at “more than 100” and said that ten houses had been destroyed.

In the Azizabad incident, US warplanes targeted a large crowd that had gathered near a local airfield to commemorate the 40th day since the death of a local leader. The US military initially claimed that all those killed had been participating in a meeting of Taliban militants. Reports and photographic evidence from the scene, however, exposed this claim as a lie. The civilian death toll was confirmed by the Afghan government, the United Nations and human rights groups.

In the wake of the mass killing in Azizabad, Afghan President Hamid Karzai attempted to assuage popular anger in Afghanistan and deflect it from his own puppet regime by denouncing the killings and demanding that the American military stop targeting civilians.

For its part, the Pentagon vowed to exercise greater care. General David McKiernan, senior US commander in Afghanistan, issued a directive to US forces last September calling for American forces to be more discriminatory in the use of firepower.

At the same time, however, the US commander blamed the insurgents for the killings carried out by the US military, claiming that they purposely “mixed in with the population.” This is the same charge leveled by every army engaged in a colonial occupation and counterinsurgency warfare to justify mass killings. The reality is that the insurgents are drawn from the population, living among and drawing support from it.

The directive did nothing to halt the bloodletting. According to a report issued by the United Nations in February, the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan rose 40 percent to a record 2,118 last year. Many of the dead were victims of US air strikes, which are regularly called in by American ground units that find themselves outmaneuvered by Afghan fighters, who enjoy the advantage of battling in their own land.

Karzai, speaking before the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington on Tuesday, made a general reference to civilian casualties, but said nothing about the latest bombing. He counseled that the success of the US intervention in Afghanistan depended upon “making sure absolutely that Afghans don’t suffer–that Afghan civilians are protected.”

“This war against terrorism will succeed only if we fight it from a higher platform of morality,” he said in his speech. “We must be conducting this war as better human beings.”

Such appeals for “morality” serve merely as a cover for what is universally acknowledged among Western military circles to be preparations for a major escalation of the killing in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is in the midst deploying another 21,000 troops to the occupied country as part of a “surge” ordered by the Obama administration that will more than double the number of US troops to 68,000.

As British Brigadier David Hook, the deputy commander of the NATO-led force in the south of Afghanistan, told the Reuters news agency last week, “It’s going to be a bloody summer,” as the US forces begin combat operations in the region.

Hook also predicted a spike in casualties for the US-led occupation forces. A total of 1,140 US and other NATO troops have been killed in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war in October 2001. Nearly 400 fatalities have been recorded since the beginning of last year, as resistance to the occupation and armed attacks on foreign troops have risen sharply.

While escalating the US intervention in Afghanistan, the Obama administration is also exerting growing pressure on the government of Pakistan to suppress Islamist insurgents in its North West Frontier Province and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

This is apparently going to be the main thrust of the meetings between Obama, Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, which begin tomorrow.

On the eve of these meetings, Richard Holbrooke, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, indicated that Washington would demand an escalation of the military operations being conducted by the Pakistani army in the border region.

“We need to put the most heavy possible pressure on our friends in Pakistan to join us in the fight against the Taliban and its allies,” Holbrooke told the House Foreign Affairs Committee Tuesday. “We cannot succeed in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s support and involvement.”

The Pakistani military has launched a new offensive in the northwestern Swat Valley, calling on the residents to flee the area before the fighting erupts. In February, Islamabad essentially ceded the valley to the Taliban and agreed to the imposition of Islamic sharia law as part of a peace deal that Washington condemned as capitulation to the Islamists.

The move by the Taliban to take over Buner, a district just 60 miles from Islamabad, triggered a response from the army, acting under pressure from Washington. The Pakistani military used helicopter gunships, jet fighters and commando units in an attempt to drive the armed Islamists out of the area.

Government officials estimate the renewed confrontation in the Swat Valley could drive another half a million Pakistanis from their homes into already crowded and under-equipped refugee camps.

The Taliban, however, is reportedly continuing resistance in Buner and has established firm control over the Swat region. Previous attempts by the Pakistani military to wrest control of the area from the insurgents ended in failure, giving rise to the peace agreement.

A bill submitted to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Monday calls for tripling US aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for the next five years. The legislation, titled the “Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009,” conditions the aid on the Pakistani military taking concerted action to prevent “terrorist groups” from operating inside the country and specifically to prevent the Taliban from finding safe haven on Pakistani soil for operations inside Afghanistan.

The escalation launched by the Obama administration is aimed at salvaging the imperialist project initiated under Bush: the assertion of American hegemony in the strategic region of Central Asia. Its effect is the further destabilization of the entire region, creating the conditions for even greater military catastrophes.

EFF sues Obama administration for promised access to secret copyright treaty documents

0

Rebecca from the Electronic Frontier Foundation sez, “The U.S. government is still blocking the release of information about a secret intellectual property trade agreement with broad implications for privacy and innovation around the world, despite the Obama administration’s promises to run a more open government. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures, but no one knows for sure the state of this pact, as the government is hiding the details. EFF is calling on the feds to change their minds, and will keep fighting this in court.”
EFF and Public Knowledge filed suit in September of 2008, demanding that background documents on ACTA be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Initially, USTR released 159 pages of information about ACTA and withheld more than 1300 additional pages, claiming they implicate national security or reveal the USTR’s “deliberative process.” After reconsidering the release under the Obama administration’s new transparency policies, the USTR disclosed the additional pages last week, most of which contain no substantive information.

However, one of the documents implies that treaty negotiators are zeroing in on Internet regulation. A discussion of the challenges for the pact includes “the speed and ease of digital reproductions” and “the growing importance of the Internet as a means of distribution.”

Other publicly available information shows that the treaty could establish far-reaching customs regulations over Internet traffic in the guise of anti-counterfeiting measures. Additionally, multi-national IP industry companies have publicly requested that ISPs be required to engage in filtering of their customers’ Internet communications for potentially copyright-infringing material, force mandatory disclosure of personal information about alleged copyright infringers, and adopt “Three Strikes” policies requiring ISPs to automatically terminate customers’ Internet access upon a repeat allegation of copyright infringement.

DNA OF THE INNOCENT TO BE KEPT FOR 12 YEARS

0

DNA profiles of innocent people will be held on databases for over a decade under ­plans that take us closer to being a Big Brother state, it was claimed last night.

The plans were announced by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith yesterday. They fly in the face of Europe’s Court of Human Rights, which ruled last year Britain was acting illegally by keeping innocent people’s profiles indefinitely.

Labour wants to store samples for people accused of sexual or serious violent offences for 12 years.

Any innocent person falsely ­accused of lesser crimes will stay on the database for six years. Last night Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne slammed the proposals as “Orwellian”.

And civil liberties groups have threatened legal action.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, reportedly said: “With regret we shall be forced to see Ms Smith in court once more.”

Mr Huhne accused the Government of fighting an “undignified rearguard action” to give as little as possible to the European court.

He added: “The estimated 925,000 innocents on the database should not have to fight another case in Europe to establish their freedom from an Orwellian state.”

Ms Smith defended the database as a vital crime-fighting tool.

She said: “We know it has provided matches for a significant number of serious crimes as well as providing matches for less serious crimes that cause great concern to victims, such as burglary.”

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “The Government just doesn’t get this.

“People in Britain should be i­nnocent until proven guilty.”

In Scotland profiles of people not charged are deleted after three years unless police object.

YOU’LL PAY FOR ID CARDS…TWICE

0

THE Government today vowed to press ahead with the hated £5 billion ID cards – and roll the scheme out within months.

Ignoring furious opposition over the staggering cost of the project at a time of economic crisis, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith revealed plans to charge taxpayers twice for the controversial cards.

The scheme, which is to be introduced in Greater Manchester in autumn, will see everyone in Britain paying £60 for their own card on top of the billions already spent.

EXPRESS HYS: ARE ID CARDS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS’ CASH?

And in the same week Labour deemed the cost of our brave Gurkhas living in Britain too expensive – at just £1.4 billion – the Government prepared to spend a whopping £5.4 billion on the nanny state scheme.

It means the cost of Britain’s surveillance society – which currently stands at a crippling £800 per household – could be sent spiralling even higher.

Today Mrs Smith was met with fierce opposition from some MPs and Conservatives – who said they would scrap the scheme if they win power next year.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling blasted Smith and called for the plans to be scrapped.

He said: “The Government is split down the middle on ID cards but it looks as if Jacqui Smith is carrying on regardless.

“Piloting the scheme in one city is nonsensical and will only serve as a tax on the people of Manchester.

“They should abandon this farce and scrap the whole scheme.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties group Liberty, added: “One begins to wonder what planet the Home Secretary is living on when in the middle of a recession, she wants to charge us £30 for an ID card and another £30 for handing over our own personal information.

“The idea of private companies profiting from this dangerous and expensive nonsense will be little compensation to hard-pressed families.”

Anyone wanting to take part in the – initially voluntary – scheme will have to go to their local post office or pharmacy, where they will have their fingerprints read and stored along with a face scan.

All the information will then be saved on a Government database.

In a speech to businesses today, the Home Secretary ignored calls from some Labour MPs and the Conservatives to scrap the scheme and instead pledged to have the cards nationwide by 2012.

She said: “With an identity card, people will be able to prove their identity quickly and conveniently while helping to protect themselves against identity fraud.

“ID cards will deliver real benefits to everyone, including increased protection against criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists.”

She added: “Our next steps will be for other cities to follow Manchester’s lead before full national coverage from 2012.

“This phased approach will ensure that card coverage occurs hand in hand with the development of supporting technology such as chip and pin readers.”

Manchester will be the ID card guinea pig

3

By Ian Dunt |

The Home Office will pilot test the ID cards scheme in Manchester, Jacqui Smith announced today.

Residents will be able to apply for an ID card this autumn, before the rest of the country in 2012.

The decision marks a sense of increased momentum among government officials, after various ministerial statements indicated the project could become a victim of cutbacks.

The Home Office is already in talks with high street retailers to provide the biometric cards — or information to biometric passports.

“The companies interested in working with us to deliver the service will play a key role in ensuring the public can apply for an ID card or passport simply and easily,” the home secretary said today.

“While private companies will clearly benefit from the increased footfall from offering this service, their customers will benefit from being able to quickly provide their biometrics while they are out doing the shopping.”

But opposition parties — both of which oppose the plans — said it was time for Ms Smith to let the scheme go.

“The government is split down the middle on ID cards but it looks as if Jacqui Smith is carrying on regardless,” said shadow home secretary Chris Grayling.

“Piloting the scheme in one city is nonsensical and will only serve as a tax on the people of Manchester.

“They should abandon this farce and scrap the whole scheme.”

Late April saw a surge of non-committal responses from government officials over the scheme. Asked at the Institute of Directors conference is he supported the cards, chancellor Alistair Darling appeared to row back on government support.

“ID cards are an interesting point because the lion’s share of the expenditure is going on biometric passport,” he told Sky News.

.

“Your old conventional bog-standard passport was okay but it was not too difficult to improvise, shall I say. The biometrics means that it’s very much more difficult. That is the bigger cost.”

The former home secretary David Blunkett appeared to contradict years of positive statements on the issue by suggesting the overall goals should be transferred to biometric passports.

Asked whether ID cards could be dropped, he told the BBC: “I think it is possible to mandate biometric passports.

“Most people already have a passport but they might want something more convenient to carry around than the current passport and may be able to have it as a piece of plastic for an extra cost.”

Plans to combine passport biometrics and ID cards — confirmed by recent contracts with IBM and US computer company CSC — will make it far more difficult for the Tories to scrap the scheme if they attain power.

On Monday, the British Airline Pilots’ Association (Balpa) announced a legal challenge to Home Office plans to trial the scheme on ‘critical’ airside workers.

The government said the £18 million scheme was voluntary, but pilots are incensed they will be unable to qualify for a vital ‘airside pass’ without a card.

Web Spy Agency Denies Spying

0

The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has denied that it plans to monitor all web and telephone usage in the UK.

The denial comes after an article in the Sunday Times suggested that GCHQ was pushing ahead with plans to monitor communications and create a centralised database of the details gathered.

“GCHQ is not developing technology to enable the monitoring of all internet use and phone calls in Britain, or to target everyone in the UK,” the agency said in a statement.

“GCHQ has no ambitions, expectations or plans for a database or databases to store centrally all communications data in Britain,” the statement continued.

Recently, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that communications providers should be responsible for logging the senders and recipients of emails and internet telephone calls as well as other details, though not the content of messages.

Last month, a law requiring ISPs to store communications data for 12 months was introduced.

Privacy campaigners were outraged by the new laws saying they created a “snooper’s charter”.

GCHQ reiterated the circumstances under which it would monitor communications in the UK.

“The purposes for which interception may be permitted are set out explicitly in the legislation: national security, safeguarding our economic well being and the prevention and detection of serious crime,” GCHQ said.

“Interception for other purposes is not lawful and we do not do it,” it continued.

Hypocritical Yahoo hosts human rights summit

0

By Aharon Etengoff |

Chicago (IL) – Yahoo is currently hosting a summit on business and human rights at its Sunnyvale campus. Journalists and social entrepreneurs from Africa, Asia and the Middle East are expected to discuss how they have used the Internet and social media to “support free expression and drive social change.”

“Yahoo was founded on the belief that access to information can enrich people’s lives, and we hope this summit and our other initiatives will both stimulate greater awareness about free expression issues and bring others to this important cause,” explained Yahoo VP Michael Samway.

Really?

According to Reporters Without Borders, Yahoo has allowed the Chinese version of its search engine to be censored “for years.” In 2002, Yahoo voluntarily signed the “Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the China Internet Industry,” agreeing to abide by PRC censorship regulations. Searches considered “sensitive” by the Chinese authorities reportedly retrieve only a limited and approved set of results.

In addition, Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. provided China’s state security authorities with details that helped to identify and convict journalist Shi Tao – who was subsequently sentenced to 10 years in prison.

“We already knew that Yahoo collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well,” Reporters Without Borders claimed in 2005 statement. “Yahoo obviously complied with requests from the Chinese authorities to furnish information regarding an IP address that linked Shi Tao to materials posted online, and the company will yet again simply state that they just conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate. But does the fact that this corporation operates under Chinese law free it from all ethical considerations? How far will it go to please Beijing?”

Tom Lantos, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed similar sentiments in 2007.

“These were demands by a police state to make an American company a co- conspirator in having a freedom-loving Chinese journalist put in prison. Will you continue to use the phrase `lawful orders,’ or will you just be satisfied saying `orders’? While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies,” added Lantos.

We asked Yahoo: “We were wondering if the conference will address the company’s role of cooperating with the Chinese government to censor certain aspects of the Internet.”

A Yahoo rep told TG Daily: “”Yes, we will discuss how technology companies are handling these challenges.”

Pilots to boycott ID card trial

0

AIRLINE pilots will resist the ID card scheme ‘with all legal means possible’, according to their union Balpa.

The scheme is to be trialled at Manchester and London City Airports but Balpa said its members were overwhelmingly against it.

Balpa general secretary Jim McAuslan said the scheme was not voluntary as pilots had learned that they would not get a pass to go to the through-security airside part of an airport without having an ID card.

“This is coercion and a case of Big Brother knows best,” he added.

On The Guardian website, Mr McAuslan went on: “Our members are overwhelmingly against the Government’s national ID card scheme trials for pilots and other airside workers, and we will resist the card with all legal means possible.

“Our members believed the Government promise that the ID card would be voluntary, but they now know it is anything but. Our members must have an airside pass to operate aircraft and now discover that to get that pass they must have a national ID card.

“They are told ‘You don’t actually have to have one’ but no card equals no pass, which equals no job. This is coercion and, by trialling the scheme in Manchester and London City Airports, the Government is clearly attempting to isolate pockets of resistance.”

Mr McAuslan continued: “Our members see the regular stories of Government data going missing or falling into the wrong hands. Like every other citizen, they ask themselves what will happen to the data they are coerced into providing; whether it will it be safe, whose hands might it fall into, and what might they do with the data?

“Yes, there have been lots of reassuring noises, but frankly we don’t believe them. Our members, who aim to be the ultimate professionals, increasingly have a sense that a line is being crossed in the relationship between state and citizen; a sense that Big Brother knows best.”

An Identity and Passport Service spokesman said: “The Government remains committed to working in close partnership with the aviation industry and trade unions to introduce identity cards for airside workers.

“Balpa have come to us with their concerns and we have spoken to them a number of times about how we can work with industry to resolve these.”

The spokesman continued: “Identity cards will directly benefit airside workers – not just by improving personnel security, but also by speeding up pre-employment checks and increasing the efficiency of pass issuing arrangements, making it easier for these workers to take up their posts and move from one airside job to another.

“Identity cards will be mandatory for all airside workers, just as other pre-employment checks are today, so that the benefits from the scheme can be realised across the aviation sector. We will work with each airport to agree exactly which employees would initially be subject to this requirement and how it would best be integrated into the pre-employment checking and pass issuing arrangements at that airport.”

Police facing growing pressure over tactics

0

By Siân Ruddick |

The Metropolitan Police Authority is under growing pressure over its operation around the G20 protests and the death of Ian Tomlinson shortly after he was pushed and assaulted by police in central London on 1 April.

There are now a number of inquiries underway, scrutinising both individual incidents and the overall tactics of the police.

Campaigners are determined to defend the right to protest and to hold the police to account.

They have set up the United Campaign Against Police Violence (UCAPV) following the G20 protests, which was due to be formally launched on Tuesday, after Socialist Worker went to press.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now carrying out four investigations relating to the G20 protests.

The most high profile is the inquiry into Ian’s death.

Ian’s family and supporters are pressing for the investigation to be carried out speedily so that they can find out exactly how Ian died and they can get justice.

The second investigation is over an alleged assault by a police officer on a 22 year old woman. The IPCC will also look into the case of an unnamed man in his 20s who was allegedly assaulted by police officers.

A fourth investigation is into the assault of Nicky Fisher, the woman seen on a YouTube video being slapped across the face by a sergeant.

The IPCC has received 256 complaints relating to the policing of G20 protests.

This includes 75 complaints about police tactics. Many relate to the forced containment of protesters, known as “kettling”.

Comments made on the social networking website Facebook have also called into question the attitudes of some police.

PC John Hayter, from the police’s royal protection unit, recently resigned after allegedly writing on his Facebook page, “I see my lot have murdered someone again. Oh well, shit happens.”

This follows the case of PC Rob Ward, a police officer who is being investigated after allegedly writing on Facebook that he was “looking forward to bashing some longhaired hippys [sic] @ the G20”.

There have also been more revelations in the past week about the state’s systematic monitoring of protesters.

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal how the “comms directorate” at the Department for Transport monitored environmental campaign groups in the run up to the announcement of Heathrow airport’s expansion.

Activists from UCAPV protested outside an MPA meeting at City Hall on Thursday of last week.

Protesters said that there was a lot of anger in the room, although at times it felt as though the meeting was simply a forum for the police to continue to defend their actions.

London mayor Boris Johnson was heckled from the gallery as he claimed that “the Met is a first class force”.

Some MPA members, including Jenny Jones from the Green Party and Kirsten Hearn, an independent, asked questions about police tactics.

Kirsten Hearn raised concerns that the policing on the demonstrations discriminated against people with disabilities, the elderly and pregnant women.

Senators Accuse Pentagon of Delay in Recovering Millions

0

The Pentagon has done little to collect at least $100 million in overcharges paid in deals arranged by corrupt former officials of Kellogg Brown & Root, the defense contractor, even though the officials admitted much of the wrongdoing years ago, two senators have complained in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

The letter also said that the Army had almost completely failed to move away from the monopolistic nature of the logistics contract that has paid the contractor, now called KBR, $31.3 billion for logistics operations in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan.

The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter, dated Friday, by the senators, Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, and Susan M. Collins, Republican of Maine. Senator McCaskill is chairman of a contracting oversight subcommittee of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senator Collins is the subcommittee’s ranking Republican.

Their letter is likely to revive allegations that the Pentagon has become so close to KBR, and relies so heavily on it, that there is little inclination or incentive to discipline the company, in response to either Congress or critics outside the government.

In 2007 the Army split the logistics contract, known as Logcap, in a way that allowed several companies to compete for each new need. The Army did this partly to avoid relying solely on KBR, whose pricing practices, even when technically legal, have sometimes received criticism as exorbitant. But the Army has seldom used the newly competitive arrangement.

The senators wrote that as of February, the latest date for which the subcommittee had received information, the Army had “not awarded a single task order for work in Iraq,” the biggest source of logistics work.

In pressing for use of the new competitive arrangement, the senators cited 2008 legislation that calls for competition by multiple companies on military contracts unless there is “a compelling reason not to do so.” The senators also brought up Congressional testimony by the Army’s chief of logistics that they said indicated the Army had no such compelling reason.

Reached for comment, Dan Carson, a spokesman at the Army Sustainment Command in Rock Island, Ill., which administers the work, pointed out that under the new competitive arrangement, in which KBR, Fluor and Dyncorp submit bids, Fluor and Dyncorp have received some work in Afghanistan and Kuwait. Mr. Carson said that the Army was working toward awarding work in Iraq under the new competitive arrangement.

A spokeswoman for KBR, Heather L. Browne, said all of KBR’s logistics contracts have been won competitively. She added that “when KBR has discovered wrongdoing of any sort by an employee, we have swiftly reported it to the government,” and said the company “in no way condones or tolerates illegal or unethical behavior.” KBR itself has not been accused of wrongdoing in any of the cases of fraud by former employees.

Ms. Browne made clear that the company intended to continue its logistics work, saying KBR remained committed to high quality and to “engaging in a transparent and fact-based dialogue with the government.”

The letter and the Pentagon auditing documents that back up its conclusions are likely to be a point of discussion in Washington on Monday, when the Wartime Contracting Commission, a bipartisan legislative commission, is scheduled to meet on the logistics program, according to its Web site.

To the irritation of KBR’s critics, the Army has generally upheld the bills the company has submitted to the military, even when the Pentagon’s own auditors have questioned the amounts. But the argument that the Army was overcharged appears to be more clear-cut in the cases of several former KBR officials convicted of accepting bribes and kickbacks.

In those cases, the Army asked KBR to perform a certain task under the Logcap contract, like buying living trailers or building a dining facility, and the KBR officials found subcontractors in the region to carry out the actual work. The officials took bribes to steer the work toward subcontractors who were not the low bidders, or simply inflated the worth of the contracts once they had been awarded.

In the contracts handled by just one of those officials, Stephen Lowell Seamans, who pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy in March 2006, Pentagon auditors quickly found potential excess profits by a Kuwaiti subcontractor of $49.8 million, or 76 percent, “as a result of Mr. Seamans’s fraudulent activities,” the senators wrote.

Of $306 million in tainted contracts, at least $100 million of the charges appeared to be unjustified, wrote the senators.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Obama administration spearheads wage cuts for American workers

1

By Patrick Martin |

The wage cuts imposed on auto workers at Chrysler and General Motors at the insistence of the Obama administration demonstrate the class strategy that American big business as a whole is carrying out: to impose a reduction in the living standards of American workers on a scale unprecedented since the Great Depression.

The White House has given the green light for nationwide wage-cutting with its demands on Chrysler and GM workers, who have seen wages for new-hires slashed by 50 percent, along with the abolition of cost-of-living raises and cuts in vacation pay.

Several new reports show that big business is following the example set in Washington with enthusiasm.

According to an account published Sunday by the Washington Post, recent wage cuts have included a 10 percent reduction for contractors working for Microsoft, cuts for hotel workers in New York City, and reductions for state and local government workers in many areas and in much of the newspaper industry.

The Society for Human Resource Management said that its index of wages for new-hires showed a decline and wage rates for temporary workers are also falling. A survey of young workers by the online advocacy group Qvisory found that 19 percent of adults 29 or younger were out of work, 41 percent had been affected by wage cuts or cuts in work hours, and 40 percent had skipped meals recently to save money. Overall, 62 percent said their economic circumstances were “poor” or only “fair.”

Among the well-known companies that have announced major wage cuts are Advanced Micro Devices, Honda, Hewlett-Packard, Best Buy and FedEx. A Watson Wyatt survey of 245 major corporations in February found that 7 percent had already cut salaries and another 4 percent expected to as the economic slump worsens.

The Federal Reserve Board, in the March edition of its “beige book,” which collates reports from regional Federal Reserve banks, noted “outright reductions in hourly compensation costs” for the first time in the current slump.

The spread of wage-cutting has already begun to impact consumer spending, which fell in March, the first monthly decline of the year. Incomes fell for the third consecutive month, by 0.3 percent in March, “reflecting wage cuts and layoffs as employers cut costs,” according to the Associated Press.

The employment cost index, a broad measure of combined wages and benefits published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showed a rise of only 0.3 percent in the first quarter of 2009. It was the smallest quarterly increase since the US Department of Labor began tracking such statistics in 1982. Given the more rapid rise in prices, this means that most working class families have suffered a decline in real wages.

The fall in workers’ real incomes and the growth of mass unemployment are driving a continuing increase in poverty, hunger and homelessness. US food stamp enrollment rose again in February, according to figures reported Monday by the US Department of Agriculture, to a staggering 32.55 million Americans. The number of people receiving food stamps has risen by one million since the financial crisis exploded last September, with more than ten percent of all working people compelled to seek food assistance from the federal government.

According to the Food Research and Action Center, a non-profit group, another 16 million people are eligible for food stamps but are not receiving them, either because they are unaware of their right to benefits, have not applied or have been wrongfully denied.

The sharp fall in wages comes after an economic “upturn,” from 2002 through 2007, that was the worst for the incomes of working people since the Census Bureau began tracking the real purchasing power of wages in the 1940s. For the first time, the real earnings of middle-income families were lower at the end of the “recovery” than they were at the beginning.

More than one-quarter of all American workers, 26.4 percent, earned poverty-level wages in 2007, before the beginning of the current recession. That figure has skyrocketed since.

Economist Paul Krugman called attention to what he termed the “Falling Wage Syndrome” in his Monday column in the New York Times. He warned, “Falling wages are a symptom of a sick economy. And they’re a symptom that can make the economy even sicker.” He pointed to the danger that wage cuts would accentuate the problem of defaults on mortgages and consumer debt payments, as well as depressing consumer spending, the principal engine of the US economy.

A supporter of the Obama administration who occasionally criticizes it from a liberal standpoint, Krugman glossed over the fundamental class issues involved in the ongoing assault on wages.

He wrote: “Some of the wage cuts, like the givebacks by Chrysler workers, are the price of federal aid. Others, like the tentative agreement on a salary cut here at the Times, are the result of discussions between employers and their union employees. Still others reflect the brute fact of a weak labor market: workers don’t dare protest when their wages are cut, because they don’t think they can find other jobs.”

Krugman makes arbitrary distinctions in what is in fact a single process. Cutting wages is the class strategy of the American corporate elite, imposed through all the agencies of the ruling class, starting with the Obama administration.

Just as the Reagan administration’s smashing of the PATCO strike in 1981 gave the signal for the orgy of union-busting and strikebreaking that followed, so the Obama administration’s wage-cutting at Chrysler and General Motors is giving the White House seal of approval to a similar policy by corporate America.

Significantly, one of Obama’s key economic advisers today is Paul Volcker, who served as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1979 to 1987, playing a leading role in the corporate onslaught on the working class and hailing Reagan’s mass firing of the PATCO air traffic controllers.

It was President Obama himself who declared that in the new economy he seeks to create, Americans would “consume less and save more.” If one asks exactly which Americans will be consuming less, the figures cited above supply the answer: working class Americans, many of whom are already living on the edge of poverty and bankruptcy.

As for Krugman’s reference to “discussions between employers and their union employees,” this too is an evasion. Giant corporations like the New York Times Co. are demanding savage wage cuts–using, as at the Times-owned Boston Globe–the threat of outright closure and mass layoffs–while relying on the union apparatus to impose their dictates on the work force.

There is no end to the demands by big business that workers pay for the crisis of American and world capitalism. What is required is a movement from below that rejects the entire framework of the profit system and advances the independent social and class interests of working people, based on a socialist program.

Officials: Gitmo court system likely to stay open

0

By LARA JAKES |

The Obama administration may revamp and restart the Bush-era military trial system for suspected terrorists as it struggles to determine the fate of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and fulfill a pledge to close the prison by January.

The move would further delay terrorism trials and, coupled with recent comments by U.S. military and legal officials, amounts to a public admission by President Barack Obama’s team that delivering on that promise is easier said than done.

Almost immediately after taking office, Obama suspended the tribunal system and ordered a 120-day review of the cases against the 241 men being held at the Navy prison in Cuba. That review was supposed to end May 20. But two U.S. officials said Saturday the administration wants a three-month extension.

The delay means that legal action on the detainees’ cases would continue to be frozen. Neither of the U.S. officials were authorized to discuss the delay publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

One official said the Obama administration planned to use the extra time to ask Congress to tweak the existing military tribunals system that was created for the detainees. Critics of former President George W. Bush, who pushed Congress to create it, have said the system violated U.S. law because it limits the detainees’ legal rights.

Now, faced with looming deadlines and few answers for where to transfer the detainees, the Obama administration may keep the tribunal system – with a few changes.

Asked at a Senate hearing last week if the administration would abandon the Guantanamo system, Defense Secretary Robert Gates answered: “Not at all.”

“The commissions are very much still on the table,” Gates said, adding that nine Guantanamo detainees are already being tried in military tribunals.

Gates also alluded to the administration’s likely request for Congress to tweak to law that created the Guantanamo legal system.

“Should there be any changes to the military commission law, if the decision is made to retain the military commissions?” he asked rhetorically.

Attorney General Eric Holder went further at a recent House hearing, saying the military commissions still could be used but “would be different from those that were previously in place.”

Although as many as one-third of the detainees will be released or sent to other nations for trial, Holder said the administration is considering how to prosecute the rest of them.

“We’ll be making, again, individualized determinations about where – for that group of people who should be tried, where they should be tried,” Holder testified. Among the options he described were “military tribunals that have significant changes made to the manner in which they would be conducted.”

The administration has never dismissed the possibility of using the tribunal system to try the suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and other foreign fighters swept up and ultimately held at Guantanamo after the Sept. 11 attacks.

But administration officials have said they hoped to try many in U.S. federal courts, relying on civilian prosecutors instead of on the military law.

Among the planned changes to the law, both officials said Saturday, would be limits on the evidence used against the detainees. Much of the evidence compiled against at least some of the detainees is classified and cannot be used in civilian courts without exposing the secret material.

The potential 90-day delay was first reported in Saturday’s editions of The New York Times. Human rights and civil liberties groups immediately criticized the idea.

“To revive a fatally flawed system that was specifically designed to evade due process and the rule of law would be a grave error and a huge step backward,” Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Since Obama ordered the prison closed, Republicans have seized on the issue of where the detainees will go – and the new Democratic administration lack of a plan to deal with them.

“Closing Guantanamo is not a good option if no safe alternatives exist,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a statement Saturday.

Paul F. Rothstein, a Georgetown University legal ethics professor, said the dilemma highlights differences between campaign rhetoric and the realities of the courtroom.

“Once you become president and see the whole panoply of issued that you face, some of the things that seemed easy to promise or talk about during the campaign sometimes appear more difficult,” Rothstein said Saturday. “Elections are fought on big slogans without much nuance or detail. I think we want a president who responds to what he sees when he actually gets in there and sees the whole picture, rather than one who adheres rigidly to what he said before.”

Source: AP News

The compulsive liars in blue

1

IT’S NOT the violence of the police that gives away their nature–it’s the systematic compulsive Bart Simpson-style lying.

They could be caught on film battering someone with a cricket bat, and in seconds, they’d issue a statement that went, “I didn’t do it. He was already dead when we got here this morning. He was a commander with the Taliban. He pointed a nuclear missile at me. He shouted, ‘I’m going to blow up the universe.’ He’s the Devil. That’s it, we’ve checked his DNA file, and he’s the Devil.”

A similar attitude was evident before the recent G20 protests in Britain, when the police–not individual policeman, but spokesmen for the police as a body–issued endless statements that suggested they were getting pumped up like American wrestlers before a television battle.

If they’d had a couple more days, they’d have got a chief inspector in a vest to flex his biceps, lean into a camera and growl, “Now listen up, April 1st is gonna be Judgment Day. I gotta message for you protest punks, when I’m through, it ain’t gonna be climate change botherin’ you, it’ll be the change in the shape of yo ugly ass. Grrrrrr.”

Every time someone dies as a result of police behavior, from Hillsborough to Stockwell to the G20, these creative lies pour forth, before crucial footage goes magically missing from their records. So maybe it would be fair if criminals were allowed a similar privilege.

After a bank robbery they could hold a press conference, and announce they had confidential information that the bank was laundering money to the IRA, and Mrs. McGinty, the bank clerk, had vaulted over the safe carrying what appeared to be a flame-thrower, so faced with a split-second decision, the gang had no alternative but to tie her to a chair and blow up the safe.

Despite the lies, little action is taken against them, and senior politicians make speeches such as, “We must not forget the police do a magnificent job in horrendously evil circumstances, and to stop them from lying would be to remove one of their most valuable tools in the fight against those people who want to burn down your house.”

And then they’re investigated by another branch of the police, which has as much chance of producing an impartial outcome as if the FA allowed all Manchester United’s matches to be refereed by Alex Ferguson.

This is why the issue is about more than individual “hot-headed” policemen. No other profession would be protected like this. If a pharmacist went berserk, you wouldn’t get the head of Britain’s pharmacist making a statement like “The pharmacist observed Mr. Winthrop lurking suspiciously by the Lemsips, and felt he had no choice but to administer six shots to the head from his .22-caliber pistol in order to protect the public. Obviously, he regrets the loss of life incurred now that it has been established that the deceased was seeking a remedy for his cold, but it would be quite wrong to criticize this brave pharmacist for carrying out his duty.”

It seems the police are trained to behave like this, which is why they’ve been like it for decades, with the difference now that with modern gadgets, their actions get caught on film.

Which is why the civil liberties groups are wrong, and the police are right about the need for more and more closed-circuit television surveillance cameras. We do need more of them. The only thing is most of them should be pointed at the police.

First published in the Independent.

Obama administration indicates military commission trials to resume

2

Recent statements by top Obama administration officials and reports in the New York Times and Washington Post indicate that President Barack Obama plans to resume the system of military commission trials for some Guantánamo prisoners.

The articles, which are based on anonymous White House sources, and statements by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder appear designed to prepare public opinion for a revival of the trials, which were temporarily suspended in an order issued by Obama on the day of his inauguration. The suspension is due to end May 20.

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday, Gates was asked whether the Guantánamo military commission system would be shut down, to which he responded, “not at all,” and added that “the commissions are very much still on the table.”

At a news conference last week, Holder said that “it may be difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a normal federal court.”

The Times and Post articles, published Saturday and Sunday, respectively, broadly indicate that military commission trials would be used for some of the 241 prisoners still held at Guantánamo.

New trials would likely be preceded by a congressional revision of the Military Tribunal Act of 2006, which sanctioned, with substantial Democratic support, the Guantánamo system of drumhead military courts. The purpose of such a change would be to lend the trials a veneer of legal legitimacy, while overcoming obstacles that prevented the Bush administration from obtaining convictions.

In congressional testimony last week, Holder said any new military commission trials “would be different from those that were previously in place” and would have “significant changes made to the manner in which they would be conducted.” The determination of whether to try detainees in US courts or in military tribunals would be decided on a case-by-case basis, Holder said.

In his testimony, Gates raised such changes rhetorically, asking, “Should there be any changes to the military commission law, if the decision is made to retain the military commissions?”

According an anonymous official cited by the Post, Obama will likely ask for a three-month delay in the scheduled resumption of military commission proceedings. The Post said the administration “planned to use the extra time” to ask Congress to “tweak” the Military Commission Act.

Obama finds himself in a quandary. Administration officials fear that prosecutions in the US court system could, according to the Times, founder because judges “could make it difficult to prosecute detainees who were subjected to brutal treatment or for prosecutors to use hearsay evidence gathered by intelligence agencies.”

In other words, the evidence which the government wishes to use against detainees is fatally tainted by the use of torture or by its hearsay character. Such “evidence” is disallowed in any civilian court that adheres to minimal principles of due process laid down by the US Constitution and by statute.

As the Times notes, such evidence “is central to many Guantánamo cases because they are based on intelligence reports and detainees may never be permitted to cross-examine the sources of those reports.”

Another problem for the administration in allowing cases to be heard in civilian courts is the possibility of more public revelations of the torture methods employed by the US government as well as the exposure of connections between alleged terrorists and US intelligence agencies.

The administration continues to explore other avenues. Ongoing efforts to find third-party nations willing to accept the Guantánamo inmates have largely failed.

In his Congressional testimony, Gates said the Obama administration might seek to place up to 100 of the Guantánamo inmates in US prisons without trial or judicial review. The administration has asked Congress to appropriate $50 million to construct new domestic prisons for terror suspects it claims cannot be tried in federal courts.

Human rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First were quick to raise objections to any resuscitation of the military tribunals. Jonathan Hafetz, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney, interviewed by the internet site Public Record, called military commissions a “failed experiment in lawlessness,” adding, “the only reason to perpetuate to military commissions in any form would be to circumvent the protections of the criminal justice system and insulate torture and other abuses from review.”

Francis A. Boyle, a professor at the University of Illinois law school and a specialist in international laws of war, called military tribunals “kangaroo courts” that “violate the Geneva Conventions and are thus a war crime.” He added, “There is no way they can be reformed.”

According to Boyle, the Geneva Conventions “require the use of regular, organized courts, which in this case would mean prosecution in United States Federal District Courts or else prosecution by means of formal US military court-martial proceedings with all the protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. To do otherwise is a war crime.”

Obama’s moves toward continuing the Guantánamo military commission trials is the latest exposure of his rhetoric about “change” and his pretense of breaking with the anti-democratic practices of the Bush administration.

When Obama ran for president, he repeatedly pledged to shut down the Guantánamo prison camp, which he called a “legal black hole.” Obama said he would “reject the Military Commissions Act,” and try terror detainees in the US court system. Then, in his January 20 executive order, issued to great media fanfare, Obama temporarily suspended ongoing cases in the military tribunal system.

His evident moves to revive the tribunals follow the decision to release four Bush administration Office of the Legal Counsel memos justifying torture, in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. In the face of denunciations from the Republican Party and the national security apparatus, Obama has promised that there will be no investigations of Bush administration officials who ordered torture, or the CIA operatives who carried it out.

The fundamental reason that Obama now seeks to make use of the military tribunal system is that his administration, no less than that of Bush, is an instrument of American imperialism.

The military tribunal system, along with torture, grew out of a more fundamental criminal act: the launching of illegal and aggressive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These illegal wars enjoyed the support of the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the media. As the World Socialist Web Site noted in a recent Perspective, “far from being an accidental or excessive byproduct, torture was an essential component in creating the web of lies and disinformation that allowed these wars to proceed.”

The centrality of the launching of aggressive war to other war crimes was established in the Nuremburg trials of Germany’s Nazi leadership in the wake of World War II. The victorious Allies who oversaw the trials defined this as the crime of crimes, from which all others flowed.

Obama is committed to carrying on the illegal war in Iraq and has escalated the war in Afghanistan and expanded it to neighboring Pakistan–like Bush, all in the name of fighting terrorism. It follows from this policy that Obama will not relinquish the anti-democratic and criminal methods of “the war on terror.”

Tom Eley

US accused of violating its amnesty in Iraq

1

US-allied anti-Qaeda militia leader says his arrest violates amnesty deal with Americans.

BALAD, Iraq – A senior anti-Qaeda militia leader allied with American forces said on Monday that his arrest was a violation of an amnesty deal signed with the United States last year.

Iraqi police and the US military detained Mullah Nadim al-Juburi and his two brothers on Saturday at their home near Balad in central Iraq on charges of “terrorism”.

Speaking from an interior ministry prison in Balad, Juburi, a former Qaeda leader, said he had severed his relationship with the group in May last year after signing an immunity deal with the US military.

“We signed a ceasefire agreement with American forces, just as we signed an agreement to grant us immunity from the courts, even if we killed half the American army or shot down a plane,” he said in an interview.

“The case has been raised because I was in armed groups before… The complaints have been raised against us because we were in armed groups falsely accused of killing and kidnapping.”

After Juburi formed a Sahwa or Awakening militia to help US forces fight insurgents, he became a target of Al-Qaeda, surviving several assasination attempts, according to Iraqi police.

The Sahwa movement began in late 2006 when local tribes and former insurgents or Al-Qaeda members started turning on Al-Qaeda in Iraq and allying with the US military, and today it includes more than 90,000 fighters across the country.

In recent months dozens of Sahwa members have been arrested amid warnings from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that they have no immunity from the law.

American and Iraqi forces arrested Juburi and two of his brothers on Saturday night at their home in Dhuluiyah.

“We received an order to arrest Mullah Nadim al-Juburi and his two brothers from the court of appeal for Salaheddin province in Tikrit,” Balad police colonel Jabbar Abed Oun said.

“He has been accused of the crimes of kidnapping and murder and is wanted by the anti-terrorism police in Tikrit,” he said.

US accused of violating its amnesty in Iraq

0

US-allied anti-Qaeda militia leader says his arrest violates amnesty deal with Americans.

BALAD, Iraq – A senior anti-Qaeda militia leader allied with American forces said on Monday that his arrest was a violation of an amnesty deal signed with the United States last year.

Iraqi police and the US military detained Mullah Nadim al-Juburi and his two brothers on Saturday at their home near Balad in central Iraq on charges of “terrorism”.

Speaking from an interior ministry prison in Balad, Juburi, a former Qaeda leader, said he had severed his relationship with the group in May last year after signing an immunity deal with the US military.

“We signed a ceasefire agreement with American forces, just as we signed an agreement to grant us immunity from the courts, even if we killed half the American army or shot down a plane,” he said in an interview.

“The case has been raised because I was in armed groups before… The complaints have been raised against us because we were in armed groups falsely accused of killing and kidnapping.”

After Juburi formed a Sahwa or Awakening militia to help US forces fight insurgents, he became a target of Al-Qaeda, surviving several assasination attempts, according to Iraqi police.

The Sahwa movement began in late 2006 when local tribes and former insurgents or Al-Qaeda members started turning on Al-Qaeda in Iraq and allying with the US military, and today it includes more than 90,000 fighters across the country.

In recent months dozens of Sahwa members have been arrested amid warnings from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki that they have no immunity from the law.

American and Iraqi forces arrested Juburi and two of his brothers on Saturday night at their home in Dhuluiyah.

“We received an order to arrest Mullah Nadim al-Juburi and his two brothers from the court of appeal for Salaheddin province in Tikrit,” Balad police colonel Jabbar Abed Oun said.

“He has been accused of the crimes of kidnapping and murder and is wanted by the anti-terrorism police in Tikrit,” he said.

Four join hunger strike in London Tamil protest

0

By Jake Smith |

Four British Tamils began a new hunger strike on Friday as part of the ongoing demonstration against the Sri Lankan governments’s assault on Tamil areas. The continuous protest in Parliament Square, central London is still going strong after 26 days.

A previous hunger striker, Sivatharsan Sivakumaravel, 20, suspended his fast after five days when it was agreed that he would go to the United Nations in New York to report on the Tamil’s grim situation. However he said he would continue if this hadn’t happened within ten days.

Sivatharsan told Socialist Worker, “We want to know what the British government are going to do to save our people and when. We need food and medical aid to be dropped to civilians in the safety zones, following the Geneva Convention rules”

The protest continues to defy the ban on any unauthorised protest around Parliament while it is in session. Chants continue day and night. Protesters have arranged for food to be provided and every three hours there is a two minute to remember Tamils who have died in Sri Lanka.

Sinthu Siva is a final year student at London Metropolitan University, who is involved in the setting up a Boycott Sri Lanka campaign. He told Socialist Worker, “So far we have targeted Marks and Spencer, because about half their textiles are produced in Sri Lanka”.

Anyone who can should visit the protest in Parliament Square to show solidarity. The protest is continuing around the clock.

Remember Gaza: National Demonstration: London Saturday 16 May

2

JOIN US TO MAKE THIS THE BIGGEST DEMONSTRATION FOR PALESTINE IN THE UK

Called by:
Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, British Muslim Initiative and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Palestinian Forum in Britain

Supported by:
Action Palestine, Amos Trust, Arab Media Watch, Association of Palestinian Communities UK, Britain-Palestine Twinning Network, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Friends of Lebanon, Friends of Sabeel UK, The Green Party, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions UK, Jewish Socialists’ Group, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Midlands Palestinian Community Association, Muslim Association of Britain, NUS Black Students Campaign, UNISON, Pax Christi, Public and Commercial Services Union, Rail Maritime and Transport Union, Viva Palestina, War on Want, Zaytoun.

Leaflets are available from the PSC office – please save the date and start organising transport now!

Please contact the PSC office for more information:
Tel: 020 7700 6192
Email: info@palestinecampaign.org
Web: www.palestinecampaign.org

Designed by Mulberry DesignRemember Gaza – End the siege now!
Free Palestine!

National Demonstration
Saturday 16 May 2009
Assembling 12 noon in Malet Street, London WC1
Rally in Trafalgar Square
Free Palestine – End Israeli Occupation –
End the Arms trade

JOIN US TO MAKE THIS THE BIGGEST DEMONSTRATION FOR PALESTINE IN THE UK

Called by:
Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, British Muslim Initiative and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Palestinian Forum in Britain

Supported by:
Action Palestine, Amos Trust, Arab Media Watch, Association of Palestinian Communities UK, Britain-Palestine Twinning Network, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Friends of Al-Aqsa, Friends of Lebanon, Friends of Sabeel UK, The Green Party, Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions UK, Jewish Socialists’ Group, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Midlands Palestinian Community Association, Muslim Association of Britain, NUS Black Students Campaign, UNISON, Pax Christi, Public and Commercial Services Union, Rail Maritime and Transport Union, Viva Palestina, War on Want, Zaytoun.

Leaflets are available from the PSC office – please save the date and start organising transport now!

Please contact the PSC office for more information:
Tel: 020 7700 6192
Email: info@palestinecampaign.org
Web: www.palestinecampaign.org

Torture Was Used to Try to Link Saddam with 9/11

8

By Marjorie Cohn |

When I testified last year before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties about Bush interrogation policies, Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz) stated that former CIA Director Michael Hayden had confirmed that the Bush administration only waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashirit for one minute each. I told Franks that I didn’t believe that. Sure enough, one of the newly released torture memos reveals that Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. One of Stephen Bradbury’s 2005 memos asserted that “enhanced techniques” on Zubaydah yielded the identification of Mohammed and an alleged radioactive bomb plot by Jose Padilla. But FBI supervisory special agent Ali Soufan, who interrogated Zubaydah from March to June 2002, wrote in the New York Times that Zubaydah produced that information under traditional interrogation methods, before the harsh techniques were ever used.

Why, then, the relentless waterboarding of these two men? It turns out that high Bush officials put heavy pressure on Pentagon interrogators to get Mohammed and Zubaydah to reveal a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, in order to justify Bush’s illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003 according to the newly released report of the Senate Armed Services Committee. That link was never established.

President Obama released the four memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU. They describe unimaginably brutal techniques and provide “legal” justification for clearly illegal acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In the face of monumental pressure from the CIA to keep them secret, Obama demonstrated great courage in deciding to make the grotesque memos public. At the same time, however, in an attempt to pacify the intelligence establishment, Obama said, “it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.

“In startlingly clinical and dispassionate terms, the authors of the newly-released torture memos describe and then rationalize why the devastating techniques the CIA sought to employ on human beings do not violate the Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. sec. 2340).

The memos justify 10 techniques, including banging heads into walls 30 times in a row, prolonged nudity, repeated slapping, dietary manipulation, and dousing with cold water as low as 41 degrees. They allow shackling in a standing position for 180 hours, sleep deprivation for 11 days, confinement of people in small dark boxes with insects for hours, and waterboarding to create the perception they are drowning. Moreover, the memos permit many of these techniques to be used in combination for a 30-day period. They find that none of these techniques constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Waterboarding, admittedly the most serious of the methods, is designed, according to Jay Bybee, to induce the perception of “suffocation and incipient panic, i.e. the perception of drowning.” But although Bybee finds that “the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death,” he accepts the CIA’s claim that it does “not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard.” One of Bradbury’s memos requires that a physician be on duty during waterboarding to perform a tracheotomy in case the victim doesn’t recover after being returned to an upright position.

As psychologist Jeffrey Kaye points out, the CIA and the Justice Department “ignored a wealth of other published information” that indicates dissociative symptoms, changes greater than those in patients undergoing heart surgery, and drops in testosterone to castration levels after acute stress associated with techniques that the memos sanction.

The Torture Statute punishes conduct, or conspiracy to engage in conduct, specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. “Severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from either the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, or from the threat of imminent death.

Bybee asserts that “if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent.” He makes the novel claim that the presence of personnel with medical training who can stop the interrogation if medically necessary “indicates that it is not your intent to cause severe physical pain.

“Now a federal judge with lifetime appointment, Bybee concludes that waterboarding does not constitute torture under the Torture Statute. However, he writes, “we cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion.

“Bybee’s memo explains why the 10 techniques could be used on Abu Zubaydah, who was considered to be a top Al Qaeda operative. “Zubaydah does not have any pre-existing mental conditions or problems that would make him likely to suffer prolonged mental harm from [the CIA’s] proposed interrogation methods,” the CIA told Bybee. But Zubaydah was a low-ranking Al Qaeda operative, according to leading FBI counter-terrorism expert Dan Coleman, who advised a top FBI official, “This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.” This was reported by Ron Suskind in his book, The One Percent Doctrine.

The CIA’s request to confine Zubaydah in a cramped box with an insect was granted by Bybee, who told the CIA it could place a harmless insect in the box and tell Zubaydah that it will sting him but it won’t kill him. Even though the CIA knew that Zubaydah had an irrational fear of insects, Bybee found there would be no threat of severe physical pain or suffering if it followed this procedure.

Obama’s intent to immunize those who violated our laws banning torture and cruel treatment violates the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”U.S. law prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and requires that those who subject people to such treatment be prosecuted.

The Convention against Torture compels us to refer all torture cases for prosecution or extradite the suspect to a country that will undertake a criminal investigation.Obama has made a political calculation to seek amnesty for the CIA torturers. However, good faith reliance on superior orders was rejected as a defense at Nuremberg and in Lt. Calley’s Vietnam-era trial for the My Lai Massacre. The Torture Convention provides unequivocally, “An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture.”There is evidence that the CIA was using the illegal techniques as early as April 2002, three to four months before the August memo was written. That would eliminate “good faith” reliance on Justice Department advice as a “defense” to prosecution.

The Senate Intelligence Committee revealed that Condoleezza Rice approved waterboarding in July 17, 2002 “subject to a determination of legality by the OLC.” She got it two weeks later from Bybee and John Yoo. Rice, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and George Tenet reassured the CIA in spring 2003 that the abusive methods were legal.

Obama told AP’s Jennifer Loven in the Oval Office: “With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that.” If Holder continues to carry out Obama’s political agenda by resisting investigations and prosecution, Congress can, and should, authorize the appointment of a special independent prosecutor to do what the law requires.

The President must fulfill his constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Obama said that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” He is wrong. There is more to gain from upholding the rule of law. It will make future leaders think twice before they authorize the cruel, illegal treatment of other human beings.

War Criminals Seek Safe Haven With Lib Dems

0

By Craig Murray |

Apparently some of the Blairite right of New Labour are in talks with Paddy Pantsdown over the possibility of defecting to the Lib Dems. As the Blairite right is well to the right of Thatcher, drove the most determined attack on civil liberties since 1818, launched a devastating illegal war on the basis of lies, and reintroduced torture as public policy, one would hope the Lib Dems would tell them where to get off.

The point of immediate dispute – the introduction of a 50p income tax rate on marginal income above £150,000 – is probably the only sensible thing Brown has done.

We have been here before. Remember Dr Death. Dr David Owen is now comfortably ensconsed in the huge Mayfair office of Uzbek billionaire gangster and convicted blackmailer Alisher Usmanov, whose extremely highly paid PR catamite Owen now is.

What has the UK has come to, when its former Foreign Secretary is the paid lapdog of the most criminal of all the Russian oligarchs!

If you were very shortsighted and in a bad light, it was possible not to realise what kind of creature Owen was before he abandoned Labour for the Liberal/Social Democrat alliance. (Although it is often forgotten now that support for Trident missiles was the shameful cause of that realignment). There can be no excuse now for the Lib Dems to ally with the Blairites.

If there are any real Liberals left in the Left Dems, as opposed to nastly little careerists, they should be in revolt over even the mention of the admission of just one Blairite. John Stuart Mill must be spinning in his grave.

Jordan’s human-rights watchdog reports torture

0

Amman- The 2008 report released Saturday by Jordan’s state- funded National Centre for Human Rights (NCHR) found continued ‘torture’ at Jordanian jails and a retreat in public freedoms.

Anti-torture efforts in Jordan are still ‘modest and hesitant,’ the report said. The document was issued at a press conference by NCHR Trustees Council Chairman Adnan Badran and Commissioner General Mohieddin Touk.

‘There are drawbacks in the national campaign for ensuring the physical safety and preventing torture due to inadequate legislations, which most of the time enable those who commit the crime of torture to escape unpunished,’ the report said.

The NCHR also criticized the law that enables ‘administrative authorities to detain people without allowing them to have contacts with their families and lawyers,’ as well as the state security law that ‘permits the detention of suspects for seven days before referring them to the concerned judicial authorities.’

The centre reported ‘violations’ of human rights of detainees and an increase in riots at prisons.

The report praised the Public Security Directorate for its establishment of new detention centres, ‘which complies with international standards.’

The report was based on information from complaints by citizens and expatriates, regular and sudden field visits to places where violations of human rights are suspected of taking place, and reports by the media, Badran said.

MP angered by Street View ‘invasion’

0

By Ed O’Mara |

CITY MP Stewart Jackson has accused “creepy” global internet giant Google of an unacceptable invasion of privacy after its Street View cameras arrived in the city.
The US company is in the process of photographing every corner of major cities and towns across Britain for its latest online street mapping application, and this week it was back in Peterborough.

Google Street View, which is similar to Google Maps, but features real street-level images, has attracted controversy since its UK launch in March, with many complaining it breaches people’s rights to privacy if they happen to be captured in the photograph.

Conservative MP Mr Jackson said he was “troubled” at the thought of people’s homes, gardens and property being recorded without permission.

He said: “There is already too much of a Big Brother culture in this country, and I think it is an unacceptable intrusion into people’s privacy when you can go online and potentially be looking into someone’s living room or back garden.

“There must be some private places left in the world and I just find the whole Google mapping thing a bit creepy and slightly 1984.”

The Google camera car — an ordinary hatchback with a huge camera strapped to the top — has been in Peterborough on and off for the past three weeks, and was spotted in the Millfield area on Thursday before The ET caught up with it in Woodston and Orton Longueville yesterday.

Driver John Barrell said he could not understand the controversy being whipped up by Street View, but admitted he had received some “funny looks” while driving through the streets.

The company will not reveal when the Peterborough pictures will go online, but says issues of privacy are taken “enormously seriously”.

Spokeswoman Laura Scott said: “Where faces are identifiable, we use facial recognition software which automatically blurs them out, and the same happens with car registration plates.

“If anyone is uncomfortable about appearing on Street View or having their home or property on there, they can ask to have an image removed, and we will take it off.”

Veteran city councillor Charles Swift said he had not heard of the latest development in mapping technology, but said it gave him cause for concern.

He said: “We seem to be going from one extreme to the other. Soon we shan’t be able to go to the toilet without someone following us there.”

Secret Black Box Probe Will Monitor Web Activity

1

SPY chiefs are pressing ahead with secret plans to monitor all internet use and telephone calls in Britain despite an announcement by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, of a ministerial climbdown over public surveillance.

GCHQ, the government’s eavesdropping centre, is developing classified technology to intercept and monitor all e-mails, website visits and social networking sessions in Britain. The agency will also be able to track telephone calls made over the internet, as well as all phone calls to land lines and mobiles.

The £1 billion snooping project – called Mastering the Internet (MTI) – will rely on thousands of “black box” probes being covertly inserted across online infrastructure.

The top-secret programme began to be implemented last year, but its existence has been inadvertently disclosed through a GCHQ job advertisement carried in the computer trade press.

Last week, in what appeared to be a concession to privacy campaigners, Smith announced that she was ditching controversial plans for a single “big brother” database to store centrally all communications data in Britain.

“The government recognised the privacy implications of the move [and] therefore does not propose to pursue this move,” she said.

Grabbing favourable headlines, Smith announced that up to £2 billion of public money would instead be spent helping private internet and telephone companies to retain information for up to 12 months in separate databases.

However, she failed to mention that substantial additional sums – amounting to more than £1 billion over three years – had already been allocated to GCHQ for its MTI programme.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said Smith’s announcement appeared to be a “smokescreen”.

“We opposed the big brother database because it gave the state direct access to everybody’s communications. But this network of black boxes achieves the same thing via the back door,” Chakrabarti said.

Informed sources have revealed that a £200m contract has been awarded to Lockheed Martin, the American defence giant.

A second contract has been given to Detica, the British IT firm which has close ties to the intelligence agencies.

The sources said Iain Lobban, the GCHQ director, is overseeing the construction of a massive new complex inside the agency’s “doughnut” headquarters on the outskirts of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.

A huge room of super-computers will help the agency to monitor – and record – data passing through black-box probes placed at critical traffic junctions with internet service providers and telephone companies, allowing GCHQ to spy at will.

An industry insider, who has been briefed on GCHQ’s plans, said he could not discuss the programme because he had signed the Official Secrets Act. However, he admitted that the project would mark a step change in the agency’s powers of surveillance.

At the moment the agency is able to use probes to monitor the content of calls and e-mails sent by specific individuals who are the subject of police or security service investigations.

Every interception must be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or a minister of equivalent rank.

The new GCHQ internet-monitoring network will shift the focus of the surveillance state away from a few hundred targeted people to everyone in the UK.

“Although the paper [work] does not say it, its clear implication is that those kinds of probes should be extended to cover the entire population for the purposes of monitoring communications data,” said the industry source.

GCHQ placed an advertisement in the specialist IT press for a head of major contracts to be given “operational responsibility for the ‘Mastering the Internet’ (MTI) contract”. The senior official, to be paid an annual salary of up to £100,000, would lead the procurement of the hardware and the analysis tools needed to build and run the system.

Ministers have said they do not intend to snoop on the actual content of e-mails or telephone calls. The monitoring will instead focus on who an individual is communicating with or which websites and chat rooms they are visiting.

Advocates of the black-box system say it is essential if the authorities are to keep pace with the communications revolution. They say terrorists are stateless, highly mobile and their communications are difficult to detect among the billions of pieces of data passing through the internet.

Last year about 14% of telephone calls were made using voice over internet protocol (Voip) systems such as Skype. A report by a group of privy counsellors predicts that most calls will be made via the internet within five years. GCHQ said it did not want to discuss how the data it gathered would be used.

David Leppard and Chris Williams

A question of competence

0

When John Reid became Home Secretary he infamously described his new department as being “not fit for purpose”. Despite shunting off various responsibilities to the newly created Ministry of Justice, his bruising style, like that of his predecessors, failed to get a grip on New Labour’s most dysfunctional ministry. On becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown decided to try a new approach and appointed the first female Home Secretary in British political history. After a quietly effective spell as Chief Whip, Jacqui Smith was expected to usher in a softer, less controversial era at the Home Office. In hindsight, that looks optimistic. Since the widespread praise she received for her handling of the terrorist attacks in her first day in office, Ms Smith has failed to live up to that brief.

Once behind the desk the Home Secretary has, like her predecessors, found it easier to peddle the easy answers of authoritarianism. It was she who forced 42 days detention without charge through the Commons in the face of almost universal opposition from all sides and from outside Parliament. Not for the first time, it needed the Lords to stop a Labour Home Secretary from riding roughshod over our hard-won liberties. Jacqui Smith has continued to push ID cards, forcing them on foreign nationals and airport staff, and telling the rest of us that we will have to pay at least £30 for this dubious pleasure. She expressed her disappointment at the unanimous decision by the European Court of Human Rights to remove innocent people from the DNA database, and has her heart set on being able to dip into databases of our emails and phone calls. She has even made it illegal to photograph the police, a provision thankfully ignored at the recent G20 protests. Cannabis was reclassified as a Class B drug despite the contrary evidence provided by her own body of experts.

The growing debate, however, around Jacqui Smith’s position is not just down to her authoritarianism. After twelve years of New Labour, most of us are used to that. It is equally about her competence. She reached the right conclusions about police reform: we needed to jettison centralised targets, and put in place real local accountability. But she has now ditched elected police authorities, having failed to win support from Labour councillors. So we are back to the old model of police governance that New Labour found unsatisfactory when it introduced national targets, and there is no reason to suppose it will work better this time.

Jacqui Smith’s handling of the Damien Green saga was embarrassing: even if we take her at her word that this was an official-level expedition, in which her permanent secretary and the Cabinet Office authorised a police complaint in a highly political area without consulting her, it was surely extraordinary not to put a stop to it as soon as it was out. It is unacceptable for a Home Secretary to invoke national security concerns when none exist to arrest a Member of Parliament. We know no national security concerns exist because no less than the director of public prosecutions said so when reviewing the evidence. In Britain, we simply do not duff up opposition MPs in this way.

The recent terror raids and subsequent lack of charges should also embarrass the Home Office. Ministers have admitted that student visas are the weak link in our border security, but they now seem intent on deporting men who they admit they do not have the evidence to charge. To make matters worse, Ms Smith’s personal affairs are now the subject of negative headlines. The public have every right to be angered about the misuse of MPs’ expenses, and the vision of MPs arranging their domestic affairs so as to maximise their take from the public purse. None of this has done anything to bolster Jacqui Smith’s moral authority. It is not good enough for any MP, let alone the person charged with maintaining law and order.

As we suffer the deepest recession since the Second World War, it is highly likely that acquisitive crime will rise sharply. A leaked Home Office paper says so, and this is one forecast the department has got right. The country requires a Home Secretary with a safe pair of hands. Someone they can trust to take action to prevent crime and terrorism and secure our borders and not just spout tough rhetoric for the tabloids. Even a recent poll of Labour members revealed that Ms Smith was viewed as the worst performing member of the cabinet. Newspaper editorials are full of calls for her to go. Sadly for her, there is a reason why so few people feel she is not doing a good enough job. Objectively, she is not. The country deserves better.

Chris Huhne is the Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary

The CIA’s $1,000 a Day Specialists on Waterboarding, Interrogations

0

As the secrets about the CIA’s interrogation techniques continue to come out, there’s new information about the frequency and severity of their use, contradicting an 2007 ABC News report, and a new focus on two private contractors who were apparently directing the brutal sessions that President Obama calls torture.

According to current and former government officials, the CIA’s secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Washington.

Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, former military officers, together founded Mitchell Jessen and Associates.

Both men declined to speak to ABC News citing non-disclosure agreements with the CIA. But sources say Jessen and Mitchell together designed and implemented the CIA’s interrogation program.

“It’s clear that these psychologists had an important role in developing what became the CIA’s torture program,” said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Former U.S. officials say the two men were essentially the architects of the CIA’s 10-step interrogation plan that culminated in waterboarding.

Associates say the two made good money doing it, boasting of being paid a $1,000 a day by the CIA to oversee the use of the techniques on top al Qaeda suspects at CIA secret sites.

“The whole intense interrogation concept that we hear about, is essentially their concepts,” according to Col. Steven Kleinman, an Air Force interrogator.

Both Mitchell and Jessen were previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics if captured.

But it turns out neither Mitchell nor Jessen had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them.

“They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience,” said Col. Kleinman. “They are not interrogators.”

The new documents show the CIA later came to learn that the two psychologists’ waterboarding “expertise” was probably “misrepresented” and thus, there was no reason to believe it was “medically safe” or effective. The waterboarding used on al Qaeda detainees was far more intense than the brief sessions used on U.S. military personnel in the training classes.

“The use of these tactics tends to increase resistance on the part of the detainee to cooperating with us. So they have the exact opposite effect of what you want,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich).

The new memos also show waterboarding was used “with far greater frequency than initially indicated” to even those in the CIA.

Abu Zubaydah was water boarded at least 83 times and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at least 183 times.

That contradicts what former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who led the Zubaydah capture team, told ABC News in 2007 when he first revealed publicly that waterboarding had been used.

He said then, based on top secret reports he had access to, that Zubaydah had only been water boarded once and then freely talked.

Kiriakou now says he too was stunned to learn how often Zubaydah was waterboarded, in what Kiriakou says was clearly torture.

“When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded on one occasion,” said Kiriakou. “It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques.”

A federal judge in New York is currently considering whether or not to make public the written logs of the interrogation sessions.

The tapes were destroyed by the CIA, but the written logs still exist, although the CIA is fighting their release.

A CIA spokesperson declined to comment for this report, except to note that the agency’s terrorist interrogation program was guided by legal opinions from the Department of Justice.

Matthew Cole is a freelance national security reporter. His book, about the CIA rendition program, will be published later this year by Simon & Schuster.

62 arrested at Guantanamo protest

1

Included in the 62 arrestees were 55 people bearing nametags with names of those “cleared for release” but still held at Gitmo-and five more nametags for those who have died at Guantanamo Bay.

Witness against Torture began the day with a rally at the Capitol Reflecting Pool, then marched in orange jump suits and black hoods(just like the ones in Gitmo) up to the White House, where “detainees” became detainees for real by advancing onto the White House sidewalk and refusing to move until arrested.

Bitwatching – Monitoring the internet

0

HOME SECRETARIES–who are responsible for law, order and the police, among other things–tend not to have reputations as hand-wringing liberals. So it was odd to hear Jacqui Smith, the incumbent, talk piously of the need to balance security concerns with worries about privacy as she announced, on April 27th, the latest iteration of government plans to monitor people’s use of the internet.

On the face of it, Ms Smith was executing a climb-down. Internet and phone companies are already required to store some “traffic data” (that is, details of who was talking to whom and when, but not what was said). But spooks and the police had been lobbying for records to be kept of text messages and postings on social-networking sites too, as well as visits to foreign websites, and for the information to be stored on a government database. Ministers had seemed minded to agree, but in the end the home secretary pronounced the proposal too much. So phone and internet firms will keep storing data themselves, but they will be required to save more information than before.

To critics, there seems little difference between a database run by the government and one run by the private sector to which the state has access. Isabella Sankey of Liberty, a civil-liberties pressure group, points out that the government will have to approve each application to see the privately held data, which might not have been necessary had a government database been built. That should make it harder to conduct the sort of “fishing expeditions”–trawling the data in the hopes of stumbling across wrongdoing–on which the security services were previously keen.

But Ms Sankey worries that access will be granted too readily (last year 520,000 sets of details were handed over, mainly to the police and spooks). Phil Booth of No2ID, which campaigns against surveillance databases, points out that although data on individuals will usually be held by different firms, the new plan requires them to join forces, in some as yet unspecified way, to build a complete picture of every Briton’s electronic existence.

Two things may explain Ms Smith’s change of direction. One is money. Paying the private sector to run its own databases (at an estimated cost of £2 billion over ten years) will almost certainly cost the government less than building its own. With the public finances in a mess, high-tech security schemes are in the crosshairs. The Tories have reiterated promises to ditch the £5 billion plan for a national identity card. David Blunkett, the former home secretary who launched the identity-card scheme, now thinks it should be scrapped. Several cabinet ministers are rumoured to agree.

The public mood may be shifting too, with growing worries about civil liberties and the misuse of surveillance powers. The government suffered a humiliating reverse last year over proposals to detain terrorism suspects without charge for up to 42 days. And it has been embarrassed by local authorities using snooping powers intended to curb serious crime to spy on malefactors suspected of gaming the schools-admissions system or leaving their rubbish bins out overnight. Having the private sector, rather than the state, monitor the internet may make little practical difference. But Ms Smith must be glad to have vaguely favourable headlines, for once.

The Economist

Bomb-proof CCTV

2

Depressing news for extremist privacy lovers today: a cheap CCTV camera which can reliably survive a large bomb explosion with video recordings intact has been developed. It’s no longer possible to cover one’s tracks by simply blowing everything up.

News of the new cheapo bombproof surveillance cams comes to us courtesy of – you guessed it – the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS didn’t develop the kit, but did help test it by blowing up a bus with sixteen of the prototype ruggedised spyeyes aboard (vid below). Each camera’s memory chip had been preloaded with video files in order to see how much was retained.

According to the DHS, engineers trawling through the wreckage after the bus blast were able to recover fourteen of the chips in working order. On these chips, “every video minute on there was without degradation,” says Stephen Dennis of the DHS Sci/Tech division.

While the recovery of video after a bombing is obviously useful in tracing back perpetrators in the subsequent investigation, Dennis says it also helps with prevention.

“The collection of forensic data from tragic events like bombings helps us develop strategies to prevent the crime in the first place,” he argues.

The new cheapo-cams aren’t designed for real-time surveillance, having no communications fitted. Their records would only be accessed for forensic purposes after an incident to which the authorities had been alerted by other means. Thus they are much more affordable than normal CCTV, despite being more able to resist blast: around $150-200 a camera, according to Dennis.

Having passed bench tests and survived the exploding-bus trial, the little cameras still have one further DHS gauntlet to run. In order to find out how well they’d survive in a burning vehicle, Dennis and his colleagues intend to bake them in an oven. This last test may be one of the most relevant: “forensically aware” criminals and terrorists often use incendiary bombs specifically to cover their tracks rather than to inflict damage on a target. That said, they usually do this in private vehicles, rather than ones you would expect to contain CCTV*.

The clued-up villain of the future, operating in public spaces, may soon start to find that smoke bombs or other obscurants are a necessary part of his armoury. ®

Bootnote
*For example a van used to launch mortar bombs against a military base (perhaps on a timer) may subsequently be burnt out by an incendiary to eliminate any forensic traces accidentally left behind. Getaway vehicles are commonly burnt out by more ordinary criminals for the same reasons.

By Lewis Page

UN human rights investigators leaving for Gaza next week

1

Geneva – UN investigators will travel to the Gaza Strip and Israel next week to investigate possible human rights abuses in Israel’s recent offensive, a spokesman for the council said Friday. The former chief prosecutor of the international courts for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Richard Goldstone, will head the mission.

Late last year, Israeli authorities refused the entry of Richard Falk, the UN`s expert on human rights in the Palestinian territories.

UN officials hope the new mission, which has a mandate to look into abuses against Israelis as well, will be better received.

The Goldstone team has received positive signals from Israeli and Palestinian authorities, UN spokesman Rolando Gomez said.

The wide-reaching mandate of the mission was determined by Martin Ihoeghian Uhomoibhi, a Nigerian diplomat and president of the Human Rights Council.

This would help the mission “gain the credibility of all sides and be truly, truly independent and produce a report that is fair, balanced and impartial,” said Uhomoibhi early last month when he announced the make-up of the team.

The mission will include Hina Jilani, a Pakistani jurist and former envoy of the UN`s secretary general for human rights defenders.

Desmond Travers, a former colonel with the Irish armed forces, has been appointed to the team as a military specialist. He commanded UN peacekeeping forces in the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia.

Christine Chinkin, a professor of international law at the University of London, will also join the mission. She was a member of a UN investigation in Beit Hanoun in Gaza, led by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Israel rejected that mission.

DPA

Human Rights Groups Still Waiting for Obama to Deliver

0

While human rights and open-government groups are generally pleased with President Barack Obama’s rhetoric during his first 100 days, some are skeptical that he will deliver on his promises.

Caroline Fredrickson, head of the Washington Legislative Office for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told IPS that Obama’s first 100 days “are something of a mixed bag.”

She said the president’s first-day-in-office executive orders closing the Guantánamo Bay detention center, ordering a review of all cases there, and suspending the military commission trials were “an excellent start.”

Frederickson was far less pleased with the president’s use of the “state secrets” privilege, which has prevented a number of lawsuits from ever being heard in court. And she questioned the wisdom of the administration’s position that detainees at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan have no right to challenge their detention.

She also cautioned that there are a number of “unknowns,” including the issue of what to do with Guantánamo Bay detainees who are cleared for release, but who have no place to go, as well as where to keep those who are to be tried in U.S. courts and others who cannot be tried because the evidence against them was obtained through torture.

The ACLU is opposed to indefinite detention as well as to the establishment of special security courts. Obama has not yet clarified the administration’s position on these issues.

The London-based rights group Amnesty International expressed similarly mixed sentiments, praising Obama for declaring that he will close Guantánamo, but noting that after an “auspicious start” in making a swift announcement, more than 240 detainees are no closer to freedom.

“The bottom line is that… unlawful detentions at Guantánamo Bay continue, and for the vast majority of the detainees, the change in administration has so far meant no change in their situation,” Amnesty said.

The group also expressed concerns about suspects held at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, which it said remained “shrouded in secrecy.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) — which has mobilized a small army of pro-bono lawyers to defend Guantánamo detainees — praised Obama’s rhetoric but cautioned that “in many areas of critical importance — like human rights, torture, rendition, secrecy and surveillance — his words have been loftier than his actions.”

Vince Warren, CCR executive director, noted that “secrecy was the hallmark of the [George W.] Bush administration. It classified more documents than any administration in history, restricted Freedom of Information Act requests and tried to protect government officials and military contractors from being held liable for illegal actions, such as torture and wrongful death.”

“It invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid scrutiny in court and responsibility for government action more times than any other administration,” he said.

“Obama has come down on both sides of this issue, ordering far more transparency through cooperation with Freedom of Information Act requests, while at the same time invoking state secrets in a case charging an aviation corporation with complicity in rendering a detainee to torture,” Warren said.

He was also critical of Obama on the issue of electronic surveillance, pointing out that the new president “still has not repudiated the executive orders supporting warrantless wiretapping and the legal opinions used to support them.”

Warren said that release of the “torture memos” prepared by lawyers in the Bush Justice Department was “welcome,” but he noted that “Obama has indicated he will not prosecute former officials who broke the law and committed crimes, saying he would rather look forward than back. For there to be no consequences for creating a torture program not only calls our system of justice into question, but it also could allow the nightmare to happen all over again.”

A generally positive assessment was offered by a leading open-government advocacy organization, OMB Watch, which said, “The president and his team have made significant progress in both the right-to-know and regulatory areas.”

But it added that “there is still much work to be done as we move deeper into Obama’s term in office.”

“Overall, the Obama administration has set a strong tone on transparency, but a true assessment cannot occur until the development of agency-wide policies are put in place and fully implemented,” the group said.

“During his first full day in office, Obama successfully communicated the importance of transparency to agencies and the public by issuing memorandums on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and on transparency and open government.”

But it was critical of the new president on the issues of “signing statements” and use of the “state secrets privilege” to keep cases out of court on national security grounds.

It said, “Many groups considered Obama’s signing statement on the 2009 omnibus appropriations bill to be an affront to whistleblower protections. These groups have interpreted Obama’s signing statement as impeding the ability of government employees to communicate with Congress.”

“Further, in repeated court cases, Obama administration officials have insisted on maintaining the Bush administration’s broad interpretation of executive branch power on the issue of state secrets. There has been no public discussion of reviewing these policies for possible revision.”

(Inter Press Service)

Police Track & Record Journeys For 2 Years

0

The details of thousands of journeys made by motorists every day are being stored for up to two years by police.
Motorists are being watched and tracked by dozens of cameras, which record the vehicles’ number plates as they travel through Portsmouth.

Hampshire Constabulary is building up a vast database of round-the-clock information on the comings and goings of visitors and residents from the data recorded by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

The information is passed on to police by Portsmouth City Council — one of a few local authorities across the country with the ability to manage and read ANPR data on its large network of 15,000 cameras.

The number of CCTV cameras works out at one for every 12 people who live in the city — although a city council source said only 170 cameras are actually placed in public areas like Guildhall Square.

Police argue the ANPR cameras — designed to read car number plates to see whether vehicles are insured, have an MOT certificate or road tax — are essential for catching criminals and terrorists.

However civil liberty campaigners are concerned that all trips, no matter how mundane, are being recorded and stored for two years.

Isabella Sankey, director of policy for civil liberties group Liberty, said: ‘The road to massive scale real-time surveillance is paved with good intentions.

‘We have no problem with ANPR being used to locate vehicles whose owners the police firmly suspect of having committed an offence but it shouldn’t be used as a tool of mass surveillance.’

Hampshire Constabulary, like all police forces, see the cameras as an essential part of their surveillance of more serious criminals.

Spokesman Tim Feltham said: ‘Automatic Number Plate Recognition is an extremely useful police tool which can be used to reduce crime, detect offences and combat terrorist activity.

‘Hampshire Constabulary uses the system in a lawful and proportionate way and in line with national policies on the storage and retention of data.’

Ray Stead, the CCTV manager for Portsmouth City Council, said: ‘ANPR is linked to our cameras but it is a transparent system, which means we do not do anything with the information.

‘It is all sent back to the police. We do not do anything with it and we do not see it.’

HOME SECRETARY’S CLIMBDOWN

Just this week, Home secretary Jacqui Smith climbed down on government plans for giant database tracking all e-mails, phone calls and internet activity, saying a central store of electronic data was an ‘extreme’ solution and would have undermined privacy.

Instead, records of every electronic connection made by Britons will be held by private companies at a cost of around £2bn.

Internet and telephone firms will be asked to collect and store vast amounts of information on who we are speaking to, what websites we are visiting and who we are exchanging e-mails with.

Communications data — which excludes the content of messages and calls — will be held for at least a year so it can be accessed by government agencies such as the police, security services and other bodies.

Michael Powell

Civil Disobedience at White House

0

The following news advisory comes from Witness Against Torture.

On April 30th, hundreds of human rights activists will gather near the White House to call on the Obama administration to support a criminal

inquiry into torture under the Bush administration and to fully break with past detention policies.

At a rally at Lafayette Park at 11:15 am, members of Witness Against Torture, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Torture Abolition Survivors Support Coalition will speak out about the need for accountability and an end to Bush-era policies. At noon, sixty activists from Witness Against Torture — each representing one of the Guantanamo inmates cleared for release but still imprisoned — will risk arrest.

“Despite early, encouraging signs,” says Matthew Daloisio of Witness Against Torture, “the Obama administration has been a disappointment with respect to detainee issues and torture. President Obama has been reluctant to investigate possible, past crimes, and many of the immoral and illegal policies of the Bush administration — from the denial of habeas rights at Bagram Air Base, to the continued detention of innocent men in Guantanamo — remain in place. We need accountability, not immunity, and an end to the abuse of detainees. This president and many members of Congress are in office partly

because of their promise to repudiate Bush’s detention regime. It’s time they live up to that promise.”

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS, THURSDAY, APRIL 30

10:15am: Rally at the Capitol Reflecting Pool, followed by detainee procession to Lafayette Park

11:15 am: Rally at Lafayette Park and detainee procession to the White House

Noon: White House Protest

Witness Against Torture formed in 2005 when 25 activists went to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to protest outside the detention camp. The April 30 demonstration concludes Witness Against Torture’s 100 Days Campaign to Close Guantanamo and End Torture. During the campaign, WAT activists have held a daily vigil at the White House, brought protest signs to confirmation and other congressional hearings, lobbied lawmakers to change detention policies, and hosted numerous public events in the Washington area.

Background on the campaign and WAT demands, http://www.100dayscampaign.org/node/475

Details for April 30th, http://www.100dayscampaign.org/a30

Pastor testifies that he was tortured in the Philippines

0

Claims made by the Philippines government to a good human rights track record “are utterly false”, the Rev Berlin Guerrero told the United Nations Committee against Torture this week. A victim of torture himself, Guerrero said the government of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is “remiss in its responsibility to prevent torture”.

A pastor of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Guerrero stated that “church people have not been spared from torture”.

“Most of the victims of torture among church people are from member churches of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, and I am one of those who have been victimized,” he said.

According to the human rights group Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights), between 2001 and 2008 there were 1,010 documented victims of torture in the Philippines. Extra judicial killings over the same period amounted to 991.

Guerrero spoke before the 42nd session of the UN Committee against Torture meeting in Geneva, Switzerland this week to review the human rights record of Philippines and other countries. He was sponsored by the World Council of Churches (WCC) Commission of the Churches in International Affairs.

Guerrero was abducted on 27 May 2007 in front of his family, soon after Sunday worship at the local UCCP church in Malaban, Biñan. “No warrant of arrest was shown despite our pleas and protests,” he recalled in his statement to the UN committee.

After “one year, three months and 15 days”, he was released because of the “insufficiency of evidence” against him. “To experience this kind of persecution strengthened and confirmed my faith,” he says. “While in detention I was happy to be able to serve the prison community by starting a Christian ministry to my fellow detainees.”

When he visited the WCC offices in Geneva on 28 April, Guerrero was welcomed by the WCC general secretary, the Rev Dr Samuel Kobia. During a visit to the Philippines in November 2007 at the helm of an international delegation, Kobia had joined the campaign for Guerrero’s liberation, publicly calling for his release.

According to Guerrero, thanks to an international campaign in which churches have played a crucial role, the extra judicial executions in the Philippines have decreased. But “with general elections scheduled for 2010 they are peaking again, with a rate of one person killed every week,” he says.

“The WCC will continue supporting the efforts of human rights defenders in the Philippines,” Kobia told Guerrero, who was accompanied by Karapatan general secretary Marie Hilao-Enriquez, and by Raymond Manalo, another torture victim.

A farmer’s ordeal

Manalo, a 27-year old farmer in San Ildefonso, in the northern province of Bulacan, was abducted together with his brother Reynaldo on 14 February 2006. He was held for 18 months in three different secret detention facilities within military camps.

“The soldiers beat us with pieces of wood on our backs and different parts of our bodies, beat us with chains, burn different parts of our bodies with cigarettes and heated metal tin, kicked us with their combat boots on, hit us with the butts of their rifles, poured gasoline on my waist and legs while threatening to burn me,” Manalo told the UN committee.

He witnessed “soldiers summarily killing civilians whom they accused of being rebels or aiding them” as well as other captives being tortured. After admitting to his captors’ accusations, the torture was eased and he entered a slave work regime.

Manalo escaped with his brother in August 2007. With help from human rights organizations he was able to obtain a writ of amparo – a legal remedy for victims of extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances – and in September 2008 filed criminal complaints against members of the military he was able to identify amongst his torturers.

“I do not want this ordeal to happen to anybody else. I wish that the extrajudicial killings, disappearances and torture in my country will stop […] I hope that President Gloria Arroyo will end the impunity,” Manalo told the UN committee.

The Home Office Helped Phorm To Spy On You

2

RINF News

Emails secured through an Freedom of Information Act request show exchanges between the British Home Office and Phorm, a highly controversial advertising company that secretly worked with British Telecom to illegally spy on users connecting to its Internet service.

Subsequently the EU has initiated legal action against Phorm for violating European privacy and consumer-protection laws.

The emails, which date back to August 2007, show that Phorm influenced the way authorities decided policy guidelines and that the company repeatedly asked the Home Office if it “has no objection to the marketing and operation of the Phorm product in the UK”.

A UK Home Office official also offered advice on how to skirt British law.

“My personal view accords with yours, that even if it is ‘interception,’ which I am doubtful of, it is lawfully authorized under section 3 by virtue of the user’s consent obtained in signing up to the ISPs terms and conditions,” an unnamed Home Office official said in an e-mail dated August 2007, talking to Phorm’s legal representative.

The Home Office wrote to Phorm again, asking: “I should be grateful if you would review the attached document, and let me know what you think.”

Another email from the Home Office stated: “If we agree this, and this becomes our position do you think your clients and their prospective partners will be comforted.”

Liberal Democrat spokeswoman on Home Affairs, Baroness Sue Miller, said: “My jaw dropped when I saw the Freedom of Information exchanges. The fact the Home Office asks the very company they are worried is actually falling outside the laws whether the draft interpretation of the law is correct is completely bizarre.”

More Than 5 Million Stored On DNA Database

0

RINF News

The UK national DNA database is expanding at an alarming rate and is already five times larger than DNA databases in other European countries.

Many of the profiles contained on the database are of innocents who were later cleared of any crime but their details remained on the database.

The figures were revealed in parliament in response to a question asked by Lord Hanningfield in his role as a Conservative peer at Westminster.

Lord Hanningfield said: “I was a bit surprised at the numbers. As someone who believes in personal freedom, I am a bit worried about this creeping state control.”

In Suffolk alone 52,275 profiles have been added to the database and 140,103 in Essex have also been added.

A spokeswoman for human rights group Liberty said: “Our DNA database is at least five times larger than those of European countries, yet our crime rates are remarkably the same.

“A smaller, more targeted database of serious sexual and violent offenders would cost less to our purses and our privacy.”

Could The Government Drop ID Cards?

1

RINF News

A senior Cabinet minister has sparked a flurry of speculation that the national ID card scheme will be axed to ease public spending and reduce Britain’s debts.

The controversial ID card scheme will cost the taxpayer more than £5bn, however cancelling the ID card national rollout, due in 2011, will cost £40m.

The minister, according to The Independent newspaper, is reported to have said: “My sense is that ID cards will not go ahead. We have to find savings somewhere, and it would be better to shelve schemes like this that aren’t popular.”

The Government has just signed contracts of £750m to set up a biometric database and upgrade passport applications, ID cards would be used in conjunction with the database.

Former cabinet minister, Stephen Byers, is the first senior Labour figure to admit that ID cards may have to be axed

He also suggested the £25bn replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system also be axed.

Speaking about Trident, the unnamed senior Cabinet minister source said: “There is a case for shelving Trident Two, but the number of jobs that go with it is just too great. I just can’t see us cancelling a Trident replacement now.”

Sri Lankan military ‘still killing civilians’

3

The Tamil Tigers have accused the Sri Lankan military of continuing to bomb civilians after Colombo ordered an end to air strikes in the country’s northern war zone.

Under intense international pressure to prevent further civilian deaths, the Sri Lankan government declared that it would immediately stop air strikes and artillery attacks in its war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

The Presidential Secretariat said: “Our security forces have been instructed to end the use of heavy-calibre guns, combat aircraft and aerial weapons which could cause civilian casualties.”

But the LTTE-aligned Tamilnet website on Monday immediately accused the government of violating its own order and “deceiving the international community.

“Two Sri Lanka air force fighter bombers continued to bomb civilian targets in Mu’l’li-vaaykkaal after the announcement by the Sri Lankan forces that it would not deploy heavy weapons or carry out air attacks,” Tamilnet alleged, citing Tamil Peace Secretariat director Seevaratnam Puleedevan.

Meanwhile, top UN humanitarian official John Holmes met Sri Lanka’s foreign minister to express concern for the estimated 50,000 trapped civilians amid reports of growing cases of starvation and casualties among the population.

Mr Holmes later visited a village south of the war zone to inspect displacement camps overwhelmed by the massive influx of war refugees in recent days.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband heads off to Sri Lanka with his French and Swedish counterparts tomorrow to attempt to mediate the conflict and address the dangers faced by civilians.

They are unlikely to get a warm welcome in Colombo, which has rejected previous British mediation offers, saying that it will only talk peace once the LTTE rebels have been crushed.

A recent government offensive forced the LTTE out of their strongholds in the north and cornered them in a narrow coastal strip less than four miles long.

Expressing concern for the civilians, the rebels declared a unilateral ceasefire on Sunday.

They asked the international community to press the government to halt its offensive as well, saying that the unfolding “humanitarian crisis can only be overcome by the declaration of an immediate ceasefire.”

The government, which accuses the LTTE of holding the civilians as human shields, derided the appeal as a “joke” and accused the rebels of playing for time.

Copyright Morning Star

SEO Internet Marketing Skyrockets

A quick snapshot of a search for ‘SEO’ in Google Trends demonstrates how more and more people are searching for a new way to market their Internet business.

Search Engine Optimization provides a simple solution for website owners to gain traffic, which eventually leads to sales.

Google Trends has shown that demand for SEO has tripled in recent years, including the topic being a frequent search in Google News, again with a steady climb in searches.

With Internet Search Engine Optimization companies reporting a massive 10 fold increase in demand for their SEO services, has this little known technique reached the mainstream? No.

Comparison searches in Google Trends for celebrity names, TV shows and pop artists still produce much larger search volumes, as expected.

However SEO is catching up and looks set to remain that way for a long time to come.

This alone is evidence that Search Engine Optimization techniques work.

If you would like to SEO your own website, RINF News is offering the SEO video masterclass containing over 30 videos from novice to expert, explaining how we became a Google authority and receiving top rankings for a multitude of search terms.

The Zeitgeist Disinformation Project

5

After receiving telephone threats from Zeitgeist creator, Peter Joseph, over a year ago RINF warned readers that not all was as it seems with the disinformation filled production.

It should also be noted that “Peter Joseph” refuses to use his real name so his background cannot be verified.

Now the flamesong.com website exposes some of the cult-like propaganda the films’ creator is pushing to discredit peaceful activist movements:

The Venus Project and The Raelian Movement

When I first saw Jacques Fresco in the film Zeitgeist: Addendum, I was uncomfortably minded of the leader of the UFO cult Heaven’s Gate, Marshall Applwhite (aka Bo and Do) who died in the cult’s mass suicide in 1997.

Jacques Fresco does, however, have UFO cult connections – he was ‘bestowed the title of Honorary Guide of the Raelian Movement‘ in October 2008, the Raelian movement being by far the biggest UFO cult on this planet.

I make this point because I started to get the Kool-Aid feeling about the Venus Project when I watched Zeitgeist: Addendum and more so the Zeitgeist Activists Orientation Video (see Zeitgeist and the Venus Project) in which a utopia reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World is proposed as a solution to the problems of global capitalism and religion. A feeling which grows the more familiar I become with all things Zeitgeist/Venus Project.

The Raelians claim to be ‘reclaiming the swastika’, according to Wikipedia but its incorporation into the Israeli (IsRAELi) Star of David in the same fashion that some have done to promote the concept of ZioNazism is peculiar, if not sinister.

As mentioned previously, the Zeitgeist movement has partially (but successfully) co-opted the the 9/11 Truth and Anti-NWO Movements into supporting a project which ought to be contrary to their instincts. Those hungry for an alternative to the inevitable future of a tyrannical one world government may well be desperately biting into a poisonous fruit.

The former racing driver Claude Vorilhon, known to his followers as Raël said in December 2008:

‘All the ‘Illuminati’ myths are distilled through the internet to try to reverse the wonderful trend of globalization, which will lead us to the only way to save humanity: a world government ending nationalism, making all national armies obsolete and ending the huge waste of money which is military spending’.

Zeitgeist and the Venus Project

I stumbled upon the Zeitgeist Movement’s Z-Day website a couple of weeks ago and discovered that there was to be an event which coincided with a visit to Perth in Scotland.
I had watched Zeitgeist and found it very interesting as would all but the die-hard fundamentalists of all religions. Earlier this year, I watched Zeitgeist: Addendum and was going along with it until it reached the part about the Venus Project. Something felt very technocratic and sterile about it.
Anyway, I watched the Activists’ Orientation Video (the title gave me the creeps) and had deep reservations about it but felt that I ought to go to the event anyway – to get a measure of what other people felt. As it happened the event was merely a showing of the AOV again. On second hearing I can only say that my reaction was one of horror. Most people simply disappeared at the end but I stayed to share my concerns with the organiser who seemed to share at least a few of my reservations.
Since then I have been expecting to see the usual suspects denouncing the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus Project as a New World Order psy-op – after all, it presents Huxley’s Brave New World as a utopia rather than the dystopia which Huxley attempted to portray. Incidentally, anybody who believes that Aldous Huxley was a pro-NWO eugenicist has not read his 1958 book, Brave New World Revisited.
It wasn’t until a couple of days later that I found a video of the ‘sold out’ event in New York. I skipped to the end of the presentation of the AOV at which point there was rapturous applause (I assume that the flock were on their feet too).
Surely this can’t be real? Surely these people who are apparently ‘open’ to the notion that humankind has been manipulated for centuries cannot seriously fall for this thinly veiled New World Order propaganda.
And then, as if any further proof were needed that something wasn’t right with this picture, I found this in the New York Times:
The tenth paragraph says:
‘The former [Zeitgeist: The Movie] may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an ‘inside job’ perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population, a point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently ‘moved away from.’ Indeed, the second film, the focus of the event, was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions, directing its rhetoric and high production values toward posing a replacement for the evils of the banking system and a perilous economy of scarcity and debt.
Do the libertarians who oppose the New World Order really want to surrender their decision making to computers? In the AOV, this is compared to using a pocket calculator to make decisions – except that pocket calculators don’t make decisions – they -er calculate.
After stating that the Earth’s soil is eroding at a rate of 1% per annum earlier in the film, it later says that food will be grown by hydroponics – no irony there?
Everything will be plugged into a central computer which will monitor all resources – is there any reason to believe that people will not be regarded as resources in this context?
In summary, there was nothing in the Activists’ Orientation Video which made me feel comfortable and I am deeply concerned that anybody who has had their eyes opened will think that this is the solution.

MoD Illegally Leaks Radioactive Material

1

In a report released under the Freedom of Information Act, the MoD has admitted that is guilty of regularly leaking Radioactive Material.

Politics.co.uk reports:

British nuclear submarines leaking radioactive material has become “a recurring theme” according to a confidential report.

The submarines have leaked into the Firth of Clyde three times since the turn of the century; in 2004, 2007 and 2008, prompting the the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (Sepa) to warn it has the power to close the base at Faslane.

SNP Westminster leader and defence spokesperson Angus Robertson said: “This utterly damning disclosure reveals repeated and serious nuclear safety breaches, and the MoD (MInistry of Defence) cannot be above the law.

 

“We are not talking about a one off incident but a whole catalogue of serious and frankly shocking failures.”

Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Nick Harvey said: “A certain amount of operational independence is inevitable given the role played by nuclear submarines, but that cannot come at such a price to human safety and the environment.

“This is no longer the Cold War. The MoD must operate its nuclear facilities at at least the same level of safety as civilian nuclear operators.”

Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), said: “These shocking revelations show a disregard for safety that is simply inexcusable.

“The combination of high-explosive weaponry and floating nuclear reactors should make it obvious that every safety precaution possible must be taken, but once again the MoD has been found lacking.”

The revelation features in a document handed over the Channel 4 News under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The MoD is a responsible nuclear operator and informed the appropriate regulatory authorities,” a spokesman said, adding there had not been any environmental consequences..

“We commissioned an independent study into the facilities and practices at HM Naval Base Clyde and an improvement plan is currently under way to ensure modern standards and best practice at the base.”

Houses of Parliament Protestors Get Stuck

2

Three woman and one man have glued themselves to a statue at the Houses of Parliament.

A message posted on the Internet from the four states: “4 members of Climate Rush have just glued themselves to a statue in Parliament, 100 years to the day after a Suffragette!”

The Climate Rush website says: “We are a diverse group of women and men who are determined to raise awareness of the biggest threat facing humanity today – that of climate change.

“Our government acknowledges the huge problems we face from climate change, but carries on with business as usual.

“We demand deeds not words because individual choice alone cannot curb CO2 emissions if we are to stop runaway global warming.”

Police were forced to seal off the area outside as the protestors glued themselves to a statue of Viscount Falkland. The statue they chose was one famously used in peaceful civil disobedience by Suffragettes, who chained themselves to it to campaign for the vote for women.

“They entered as visitors before taking this action,” a police spokesman said.

“At 1715 officers arrested the three women and one man for public order offences and criminal damage.

“They are in custody at a central London police station. The business of the House was not affected.”

Spokeswoman Jenny Lovell said the protest was linked to a recent Government announcement giving the go-ahead for new generation coal-fired power stations.

Human Rights Watch on Torture of Mohammed Shah Poor

5

Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch has sent and open letter to  the President United Arab Emirates highlighting acts of torture commited by UAE police and members of the royal family.

———————

His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan

President

United Arab Emirates

I am writing to express Human Rights Watch’s deep concern about the torture of Mohammed Shah Poor, which there is overwhelming evidence that it was committed by royal family member Shaikh Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan and UAE police.

The evidence, which includes a 45-minute videotape featured in a recent news segment on ABC News on April 22, 2009, suggests that Shaikh al Nahyan tortured Mr. Poor, with the assistance of police and others, as punishment as Shaikh al Nahyan believed that the Afghan grain dealer had short changed him in a sale of grain, in the following manner:

  • Fired bullets from an automatic rifle around Mr. Poor in very close proximity as the victim was screaming;
  • Used an electric cattle prod against the Mr. Poor’s testicles and inserted it into his anus;
  • Poured lighter fluid on Mr. Poor’s testicles and set them on fire;
  • Pulled down the pants of Mr. Poor and repeatedly struck him with a protruding nail attached to a wooden board. At one point, Shaikh al Nahyan placed the nail next to Mr. Poor’s buttocks and banged it through the flesh;
  • Whipped Mr. Poor over all his body including his face;
  • Poured a large container of salt on to Mr. Poor’s wounds which were still bleeding ;
  • Positioned Mr. Poor on the desert sand and then drove over him repeatedly in a 4 x 4 vehicle. The sound of what appears to be breaking bones can be heard on the tape.

While Shaikh al Nahyan does not hold an official government position, as a member of the royal family that runs the UAE government and as the brother of the Minister of Interior, he commands wide authority especially among the country’s security personnel. The actions by the police, which included tying Mr. Poor’s arms and legs to facilitate torture and restraining him as Shaikh al Nahyan poured salt on the wounds, are tantamount to state complicity in the torture; as the officer appeared in full police uniform, his actions appear to be under color of law.

These acts constitute clear violations of the UAE’s Constitution as well as international human rights law. The Constitution of the UAE guarantees in absolute and unconditional terms that “no person shall be subjected to torture or degrading treatment.” The prohibition of torture is one of the most fundamental under customary international law, which binds the UAE. States have an obligation not only to prevent torture, but also to conduct thorough and impartial investigations, and to prosecute those found responsible for committing them.

The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials calls upon those who exercise police powers to protect “all persons against illegal acts” and, in performance of their duty, to “respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons.” According to Article 3 of the Code of Conduct, “law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.” The Code of Conduct further states that “no law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or any other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

These acts of torture by Shaikh al Nahyan and the police are extremely serious and require the immediate action of UAE authorities. Based on the information we have received to date about the Ministry of Interior’s response to the brutal events depicted in the video, we regret that the Ministry has failed to properly investigate and prosecute or discipline any of the perpetrators in this incident. 

We are in receipt of a copy of the Ministry’s letter sent on April 8, 2009, in which the Ministry did not characterize the abuse in question as torture, but simply as an assault that the parties (presumably Shaikh al Nahyan and Mr. Poor) subsequently settled “privately.” The letter states:

The events depicted in the video tapes referenced in the complaint were fully investigated by the Police Department at the time of the incident. As permitted under Abu Dhabi law, the parties involved in the incident settled the matter privately by agreeing not to bring formal charges against each other, i.e., theft on the one hand and assault on the other hand. The Government’s review concluded that all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department. The review also concluded that the incidents depicted in the video tapes were not part of a pattern of behaviour.

Furthermore, neither the police department nor the Ministry of Interior has made public the findings of the police review and investigation, and the basis for the conclusion that the police “followed all rules, policies and procedures correctly.” It would be particularly important to understand the “rules, policies and procedures” of the UAE police that “correctly” allow for such torture to take place.

This response is entirely inadequate under any notion of due process and the enforcement of both UAE and international law. The Ministry has a duty not only to investigate and prosecute the UAE police involved in this incident, but also to investigate and prosecute Shaikh al Nahyan for torture. The UAE government must not grant legal immunity to Shaikh al Nahyan or any torturer because he has settled the case privately – to do so would be a perversion of justice, especially in a case when there is such a disparity of power between the two parties; a royal family member and a foreign grain dealer. Particularly in light of Shaikh al Nahyan’s close relationship to the government, it is imperative that the government demonstrate that those with such close ties are not immune to prosecution.

Since the Ministry is satisfied with the police department’s flawed investigation, believes the matter is closed, and appears uninterested in seeking justice against the perpetrators of this heinous crime, I respectfully urge you, as President of the United Arab Emirates, to move without delay to ensure the establishment of an independent counsel or commission. This independent entity should investigate both the torture of Mr. Poor by Shaikh al Nahyan and police and/or other security forces during the events shown on the videotape as well as the “review” conducted by the Ministry of Interior and police department and the basis for MoI’s findings that the police abuse did not violate the rules, policies or procedures of the UAE. This independent body should:

  • Be under the direction of a person independent of the interior ministry or other security-related government agencies, and well-known for integrity and impartiality;
  • Be provided with the financial and other resources to accomplish its mandate in a timely manner, including the power to compel the testimony of police officials and provision of official documents from their offices.
  • Ensure Mr. Poor is able to participate fully, with legal representation;
  • Hold open hearings, and make its findings and recommendations public;
  • Make recommendations concerning the discipline or criminal prosecution of any persons believed to be responsible for violations of UAE law or international human rights law in connection with the torture of Mr. Poor, as well as the compensation of Mr. Poor.
  • Inquire more broadly into the prevalence of abuse and torture by UAE police, inviting the public to submit anonymous testimony of such incidents;
  • Establish policies and procedures with respect to the manner in which investigations of police misconduct shall be conducted in the future;
  • Implement a wide-scale training program on abuse and torture prevention for UAE police officers.

It is crucially important that the government demonstrate to its citizens and the international community, many of whom are now undoubtedly aware of the abuse of Mr. Poor at the hands of Shaikh Al Nahyan and UAE police, that the government has zero tolerance for torture. The UAE government must act now if it is to restore public confidence in the country’s criminal justice system and to show that the rule of law, and not impunity for its violators, is the policy of the country.

The government should also ratify the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and must publicly and unequivocally renounce the use of torture and physical abuse by the police, others in positions of authority, or private citizens in the UAE. It should reaffirm its commitment to abide by international law provisions banning the use of torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and requiring police to abide by international rules on the use of force by law enforcement officers, and that any incident of torture will lead to investigations and prosecutions of the perpetrators. The circumstances of this case demand nothing less.

I thank you for your urgent attention to this important matter, and welcome your response.

Sincerely,

Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director
Middle East and North Africa division

cc: Ambassador Yousef Al Otaiba, Embassy of United Arab Emirates in Washington, DC

UK Government Drops Big Brother ‘Database’ But Remains Big Brother

0

The UK government wants communications companies to keep records of our phone, text messages, e-mail and Internet traffic, but has dropped plans to keep this information stored in a centralized database.

Currently UK Internet service providers are required to keep records of Web and e-mail traffic for one year, the Government wants to change this to include all communications that come from other countries that cross British networks.

The dates, duration and location/IP address will be kept by communications companies.

Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith said “Advances in communications mean that there are ever more sophisticated ways to communicate and we need to ensure that we keep up with the technology being used by those who would seek to do us harm.”

“My key priority is to protect the citizens of the UK, and communications data is an essential tool for law enforcement agencies to track murderers and pedophiles, save lives and tackle crime,” she added.

 

“It is essential that the police and other crime-fighting agencies have the tools they need to do their job. However, to be clear, there are absolutely no plans for a single central store.”

The Government claims there will be “strict safeguards on who could access the information” but this has not stopped local authorities from abusing their new found powers in the past.  

A spokesman for the Conservative party, Chris Grayling, said the government had “built a culture of surveillance”.

“Too many parts of government have too many powers to snoop on innocent people and that’s really got to change,” he said.

Tory Leader wants to give our medical records to Google

2

During the weekend, Tory Leader, David Cameron placed further scrutiny under the Labour Governments “Electronic Patient Records system” and has called for NHS records to be stored online with companies such as Google and Microsoft. 

He stated “People can store their health records securely online, they can show them to whichever doctor they want… But best of all in this age of austerity, a web-based version of the government’s bureaucratic scheme services like Google Health or Microsoft Health Vault cost virtually nothing to run.”

The fact that Google wants our health records is no secret. In 2008 Marissa Mayer, Vice President of Search Product and User Experience at Google, said:

“Google Health is our product that takes our users medical records and brings them online, where users can see them and control them and put them to good use in getting better health care, and I’m happy to say today that it’s no longer just talk. We actually have a product.”

Organic SEO – Search Engine Optimization – Organic

When it comes to Search Engine Optimization (SEO) there’s really only two options available. Pay Per Click (PPC) or Organic SEO.

The first option means spending, quiet often, big bucks on advertising campaigns that can be hit and miss. The second option however creates a stream of free traffic to your site for years to come.

Learning to organic SEO isn’t difficult, in fact it can be done with just a few clicks of the mouse, if you’re using the right kind of website publishing system.

Traditionally this level of search engine optimization would take several months to impliment on just one web site and involve learning line of code after line of code. Today it can be done in less than 30 minutes, including the creation of the website itself.

Once you have initially ‘engineered’ your website, there are many additional techniques  that you will need to be aware of to ensure your website is indexed properly for years to come.

Our new Search Engine Domination video series walks you through, step by step, everything you need to know about SEO, from complete novice right through to the most advance expert level.

The video series is designed to start you off on the right track and then make sure you have all the knowledge you need to keep your website at the top of the search engines through the various algorthm changes that will undoubtably happen over time. We do this by paying very close attention to Google, in particular the longstanding cornerstones that the search engine is founded upon — the very ones that have made it the global leader in Internet search.

You don’t need to watch every video in this course to achieve maximum impact in the search engines, but if you’re planning on ‘engineering’ several sites or hoping to launch a new career as an SEO, then you will be hard pushed to find a more detailed book or video series.

If you just need to ‘engineer’ your homepage or blog, or maybe your company website, then the first section of the series will give you everything you need.

As an introductory offer we are currently listing this video masterclass for just £15, which is the lowest price that any SEO series has ever been launched for.

The reason behind this is simple. We want as many people to use the course and rave about the amazing results you will receive from it. As the demand for the video masterclass increases so will the price, until it reaches the standard price for a series of this caliber, which is usually $500-600.

Order your course here for this limited price of just £15

Once you’ve given the Search Engine Domination masterclass series a blast we would love to hear your feedback, your reviews and your thoughts. Please do let us know how this has helped your website, because we know it will.

WAR CRIMES CONFERENCE SHORT REPORT

0

Tim Symonds |

The Conference took place on 19-21 February 2009 at the Institute Of Advanced Legal Studies, London University, in association with SOLON and The Institute of Historical Research. Plenary Talk by Lesley Abdela. Full list of Speakers in Annexe Two below.

For further information on this War Crimes conference and the next one to be held in February 2011, please contact SOLON’s Director Dr Judith Rowbotham on jrowbotham@gmail.com, tel. +44 7798 693183, or Liverpool John Moores University’s Dr Lorie Charlesworth (L.R.Charlesworth@ljmu.ac.uk).

Dr Judith Rowbotham and Dr Lorie Charlesworth wrote in their Conference Report: the conference opened with a plenary from Lesley Abdela (see print-out in Annexe One below), a well-known journalist and women’s Human Rights campaigner with war correspondent experience, talking for only half an hour but engaging in a debate with the audience for the remainder of the session which helped to identify many of the themes of the conference – practical agendas and ways of understanding war crimes and war tribunals. Her particular emphasis was on gender as a key factor in reconstructing citizenship, and she talked of the issue of rape, and its wider implications for the legal process.

A particular Conference focus was given to Bosnia, and to a range of African experiences, particularly in Congo and Rwanda, Sudan/Darfur and Sierra Leone, and to the lesser known events in Cambodia (Silke Studzinsky brought the latest news on the trials just beginning there) and South America.

As well as Peru, the closing plenary delivered by David Sugarman testified to the importance of a global, as well as an historical comprehension in order to understand the impact of war crimes, especially when war crimes tribunals are not an automatic resource.

Full Conference report at www.research.plymouth.ac.uk/solon/journal/issue%203.1/maya%20edited%20final.pdf

Bosnia: it was very impressive to hear the range of papers on Bosnia, in particular the panel based around the experiences of the Prosecutor’s Office and the UNDP in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Aided by their Chair, Shireen Fisher (who, until 2008, was an International Judge there), Toby Cadman, Iva Vukusic and Alma Dedic provided absorbing insight into developments.

Further themes:

Identification and Definition of War Crimes: drawing on her experience in the immediate aftermath of conflict in Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Iraq, Afghanistan, Aceh and most recently, Nepal, Lesley Abdela talked of the importance of making the identification and definition of war crimes and their subsequent prosecution more than an admirable concept; and into something which can help in post-conflict reconstruction.

Her particular emphasis was on gender as a key factor in reconstructing citizenship, and she talked of the issue of rape, and its wider implications for the legal process.

That was a theme which regularly re-emerged during the conference, as part of the debate over whether it was possible to identify some international code, and even more importantly, language, of rights which could unite all the participants in war crimes trials. Defining the nature of a war crime, in the cultural spaces of the local/national and the international was a key problematic: Lesley pointed out it was only recently that rape had been identified formally as a war crime, and this identification was hedged around with problems.

The Role of the ICC: There is also the issue of what should be the role of the International Criminal Court: should it involve itself in post-conflict resolution, or was that aspect of war crimes tribunals for other agencies and agendas? Was it possible, or desirable, to draw a line between the work of war crimes tribunals, especially where the ICC was involved, and other agencies (local, national and international)? And what kind of justice was being sought? How could, and indeed should, international jurisprudence trickle down into domestic courts? Should the ICC have a role in this?

How far were such courts located in, and focusing mainly on, the weaker states – economically poorer and less powerful entities or individuals? Erasmus Migyikra, contributing to the first round table with his experiences in Sudan/Darfur, had also raised this issue.

Media reportage underlines that there is a substantial Sudanese perception that the arrest warrant issued by the ICC on 4 March 2009 against the President of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, by the ICC is part of a neo-colonial conspiracy against the country.

Timing Of War Crimes Tribunals: the theme of the ICC’s role was particularly apparent in the Thursday evening Round Table, when Lesley Abdela again challenged the conference to consider the concept that we were talking about lessons identified, and not yet discussing lessons learned. Talking of war crimes tribunals, she suggested that one thing emerging already from the conference was the issue of their timing, because it bore so importantly on the question ‘What kind of post-conflict justice is acceptable overall?’ Is it important to have elections first, to advance or establish ‘democracy’? Or should there be moves first to deal with war crimes, through international or national (or both) tribunals in that the outcome of tribunals (or Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, alternatively) had the power to affect, profoundly, people’s relationship with a post-conflict constitution and its democratic legitimacy?

An Overall Pattern to War Crimes: the talks delivered by, amongst others, Cissa Wa Numbe and Erasmus Ndemole Migyikra stressed sexual violence – elevated at times to being a tool in a deliberate genocide – is best understood as part of an overall pattern of war crimes. This means that the case studies of events and tribunals in particular regions have a very significant role to play in furthering strategies for dealing with war crimes, whether judicially or socially, as Timothy Waters, Valerie Arnould and Iryna Marchuk demonstrated.

A Second Category of War Crimes And Criminals?: another question raised was whether it is necessary, if a genuine format for international justice is to be achieved, to identify a second category of war crimes and criminals: those who aided or were in some way complicit in the committal of war crimes; those whose aid or compliance was essential to the performance of war crimes without them being actually the perpetrators. In her paper, Lorie Charlesworth pointed out the ways in which British prosecutors in the late 1940s emphasised the need for law, but also the need to create appropriate law.

Historical Origins of Attitudes: papers such as that given by Peter Rushton and Gwenda Morgan revealed the historical origins of attitudes which colour a state’s practice when dealing with war crimes. They explored the perceived importance of an observance of legal protocols during the American Revolution/War of Independence, which found real echoes with the strategies adopted by defence lawyers as depicted in the powerfully delivered panel featuring Joe McMillan, Michel Paradis and Melissa Epstein Mills, on prosecutions in Guantanamo Bay, and the prosecution of US servicemen for misconduct during the Iraq war.

The Post-War Italian State: Effie Pedaliu’s paper on the war crimes perpetrated by Italy during World War II argued that the advent of the Cold War and a desire for reconciliation within the post-war Italian state led to very few offenders being prosecuted. Effie Pedaliu further argued that this has led to the fundamental political instability of the modern Italian state, providing an interesting illustrative response to Lesley Abdela’s query whether it was sensible to move to elections without dealing first with the issue of war crimes through some means.

Does The World Give A Damn?: there was also an issue brought up directly by Arzoo Syeddah and Kate Wright, and was implicit in many other talks: ‘How Do We Get Audiences to Give a Damn About the Congo (and for Congo, read any location from Aceh to Peru)?’ ‘What Sort of a Damn Do We Want Them to Give?’

Is there such a thing as compassion fatigue? The Victorians, as Dr Judith Rowbotham pointed out, would not have thought so: why is it identified as a feature of the modern landscape?

Conference Reflections

Despite the horrors that characterise war crimes, from the plenary talk onward, one very positive aspect emerged: the extent to which so many individuals professionally involved in the aftermath of war crime, including investigators, judges, lawyers, researchers, were passionately engaged in, and committed to their work beyond ‘normal’ professional duties, in ways that command respect and admiration.

The range and scope of the commitment demonstrated, in a humbling manner, that original discipline and formal qualifications need be no bar to involvement, witness the role played by Konrad Kweit and his team of historians in bringing Lithuanian Nazis to trial in Australia; and a feature emphasised by Lesley Abdela’s opening talk and David Fraser’s powerful and challenging plenary.

It was not just the speakers: many of the delegates present had tales to tell which demonstrated the same energetic dedication. For instance, Martha Baker and her contribution to defining rape as a war crime.

Pro Bono Work: the paper on representing victims before the ICC given by H Candace Gorman, contextualised by her contribution to discussions through the conference, raised the possibility of interdisciplinary pro bono work being developed to aid war crimes trials – something that SOLON will be very interested to help forward.

A Conclusion

Key Points: Time To Review Existing War Crimes Tribunals. In the concluding Round Table, several key points were held by speakers such as Silke Studzinsky and Jose Pablo Baraybar to have been identified during the conference.

First, it is now time to have a review of the existing war crimes tribunals, including the ICC, and to question the extent to which there is a rule of law which is standard to them. It seems to be agreed by most there that distant courts are not the answer in the majority of cases of trials for war crimes: there is a need for these to be as local as possible, which also raises issues of the compositions of juries in national and international tribunals.

Second, there needs to be a focus on other institutions and what their role in the creation of post-war justice should be – including states and bodies such as the EU, the USA, NATO and the UN.

It was suggested that while there was much discussion from them, there needed to be talks about them in this context.

Urgent Need For A Manual: the creation of a synthesis – a manual – of what makes a successful tribunal is a genuine and urgent need. Whenever a new court is created, it has to create a legal culture for itself – a reference guide of what has worked elsewhere could help to avoid the repetition of old mistakes.

Annexe One

Opening Plenary Session: keynote talk by Lesley Abdela

After the War Is Over…..what of the women?

First let me thank the organisers of this important event. Dr Judith Rowbotham from Nottingham Trent University and her Solon and IALS colleagues have assembled a really impressive group of people, participants and speakers alike, and I look forward very much to these 3 days together.

Dr Rowbotham tells me she invited me to give this opening talk because over the past 10 years I’ve found myself boots on the ground in a set of deeply disturbed countries towards the end of conflict or just after the fighting has ceased.

This is not going to be a list of graphic horror stories, it will be more a practical exposition and will raise some questions, some of which I hope may be explored further during these 3 days.

My first experience of a conflict zone was in the besieged Bihac enclave in Bosnia as a war correspondent for Cosmopolitan Magazine.

A few years after that I arrived in Kosovo 10 weeks after the NATO bombing as Deputy Director for Democratisation for the OSCE.

Then very soon after the rebels were pushed out of Freetown I visited Sierra Leone for the British Council to carry out an assessment on the needs of conflict-affected women.

A couple of months before Saddam was captured I arrived in Iraq.

I then spent a month in Aceh as Gender Advisor to an IOM DDR programme for the reintegration of former combatants.

And last year I spent 6 months in Nepal shortly before the first post-conflict elections where I was Senior Gender Advisor to the UN Agencies.

That’s easily enough about me, but from those experiences come the thoughts I am offering today titled

‘After the war is over …what of women?’

A topic I frequently ask participants at workshops to discuss is… ‘Why do we consider a man wounded in war a hero, while a woman who has been raped in war an embarrassment?’

Rape has been used as a tactic of terror in many wars.

Rape was a weapon of terror as the Germans marched through Belgium in World War I.

Gang rape was part of the orchestrated riots of Kristallnacht which marked the beginning of Nazi campaigns against the Jews.

It was a humiliation strategy used when the Japanese raped Chinese women in the city of Nanking.

It was a weapon of revenge as the Russian Army marched into Berlin in World War II, and when the Pakistani Army battled Bangladesh. (Bergman 1974: 69)

In those wars, sexual violence did not receive the widespread publicity it has more recently been given in the wars in former Yugoslavia and more recently in the DRC, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Darfur.

In the Tokyo Trials after the defeat of Japan, acts of sexual violence and rape were not placed at a level that would allow them to stand alone.

At the Nuremburg trials after World War 2 rape in war was defined as a crime against the dignity and honour of a woman – not a crime of violence, not a war-crime and certainly not genocide.

For a long time gender aspects of war crimes were disregarded.

As a result of such omissions, for a long time afterwards no-one knew whether rape in time of conflict could be prosecuted as a separate substantive crime standing on its own merits under international law.

It wasn’t until 1993 when we celebrated 75 years of women getting the vote that I myself realised this situation still continued, after I organised a week of briefing meetings at the House of Commons.

Two of the speakers had just returned from the Balkans. Francoise Hampson, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Law and Centre for Human Rights at Essex University, confirmed that rape camps existed in former Yugoslavia and the women she spoke to said they had been raped on average by 7 different men.

Another of the speakers pointed out that despite the fact Amnesty International had called for the recognition of Rape and Sexual Abuse as torture, it was not yet officially recognised as a war crime so the perpetrators in Bosnia Herzegovina believed they would never be brought to trial for rape at a War Crimes Tribunal.

The Break-Through

In 1993 and 1994 rape and sexual violence were specifically codified for the first time as a recognizable and independent crime within the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR).

These two historic international instruments are now the foundation upon which crimes of rape and sexual violence are punished.

This move forward started quietly within the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in the case of the Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu.

The Akayesu decision held that rape or sexual violence could be prosecuted as genocide if the evidence showed it is carried out with the intent to physically or psychologically destroy a group. This landmark case is now the cornerstone for all future genocide and crimes against humanity prosecutions.

There is now solid case law holding that rape and sexual violence are a form of genocide. The ICTY and ICTR cases have also reinforced the legal basis for arguing that rape and sexual violence are individual crimes against humanity, and also constitute violations of the laws and customs of war. This forever altered the landscape of criminal prosecution and affected the scope of consequences that any potential perpetrators must consider.

10 years ago, in late 1998, the ICTY produced equally historic precedents in (excuse my pronunciation) the Celebici, Furudzija, and Delalic cases. These judgments recognized rape as a violation of the Laws and Customs of War and as a basis of torture under the Geneva Conventions.

Furudzija was a watershed because it was the first case to consist exclusively of rape charges.

The next advance in international humanitarian law in this area was to broaden the scope of individual criminal responsibility to leaders and commanders who lend their influence and tacitly encourage crimes against women.

There is now Case law (the Akayesu and Furudgiya cases) that hold that officials and leaders can be directly responsible when they witness acts of sexual violence and rape committed by attackers – even when those attackers are not strictly under their chain of command.

This is particularly important. Today’s paramilitary and militia command structures are often covertly organized and not easily defined.

David J. Scheffer, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues said in a talk at Fordham University, New York (October 29 1999) how much he welcomed this advance. He said, “We must combat these intentionally loosely-knit paramilitary and militia by creating laws that are flexible, thus piercing the shields designed to hide the true culprits.”

Summing Up to date:

In summing up where we are to date I’ll revert to my former Political Editor of Cosmopolitan Magazine style and say –

“OK. That’s all great stuff but, how to make it work?”

I’ve learned from my worm’s eye view at ground zero that a major consideration in making War Crimes justice more than an admirable concept into something which can help in post-conflict reconstruction means dealing with a number of practical but easily-overlooked considerations.

Report after report by Amnesty International and other human rights organizations and women’s rights advocates show how female rape victims are routinely denied the opportunity to report the rape, ill-treated by forensic medical examiners, interrogated about their sexual history, subjected to abusive questioning by police, prosecutors, defence attorneys and judges and generally blamed for what has happened to them, the women.

I have heard examples of lack of coordination and insensitivity from international agencies and NGOs when they are gathering evidence of sexual violence in war: these include a convoy of white four-wheeler vehicles driving up and parking outside the hut of a rape survivor and/or a series of different humanitarian agencies and human rights groups asking the same person the same ultra-personal questions as part of the information gathering.

A friend of mine, Human Rights Lawyer Margaret Owen, watched proceedings in the War Crimes Tribunal in Arusha. She described how women were mocked and belittled by defence lawyers and most astonishingly by the judiciary.

I recently heard a Judge on the Special Court for Sierra Leone at The Hague tell how her male colleagues were far too readily inclined to disbelieve women who said they had been raped. The male judges demanded firm evidence. By contrast she and other female Judges were inclined to believe women who came to the war crimes court to say they had been raped.

She said she is convinced that “Evidentiary and procedural barriers to successful prosecution of gender based crimes should be removed. Rape happens in cases where the victim is overpowered and there are often no witnesses. Medical evidence often cannot support the rape claim.”

She said, “Judicial hearings on rape should begin by considering the fact that women have more to lose by speaking about the crime, through humiliation and by revisiting the trauma they experienced. The statement of the raped woman should be evidence enough.”

Access to Justice – War Crimes Courts

Witnesses are crucial to the success of any trial but they are frequently the least considered element in practical terms. Yet the protection of witnesses, especially females, in the lead-up to the trial; at the time of the trial and also, crucially, after the trial when they have to return home, is essential. Other basic issues include the matter of the economic costs of being a witness, especially travel, accommodation and living costs. Both men and women but perhaps especially women cite the personal economic costs of being a witness, including travel, accommodation and living costs.

Many women who survive attacks do not want to report the rapes for a variety of reasons. Some women victims of rape express fear they will never be able to marry. Others feel terrified they will be shunned by society. But other very brave women express anger at their attackers and want to testify. That willingness to testify is often tempered by fear that their attackers may still be at large back home, in the conflict region. For those women willing to testify, issues of witness protection and support loom large.

There are still unresolved issues that need to be examined. What about war widows, an agonising feature of so-called modern warfare which heavily targets civilians? International Lawyer Margaret Owen writing to the UN Commission on the Status of Women 2003 noted:

“Women widowed through war and ethnic cleansing, across regions, face rape, sexual mutilation and torture, the deliberate infection of the AIDS virus, sexual slavery and forced pregnancy. The violence meted out to widows during armed conflict, as refugees and IDPs, often continues long into the post-conflict period due to their poverty and vulnerability to economic and sexual exploitation, trafficking and prostitution, and the stigma of having been victims of sexual crimes.”

On the positive side, there is a growing understanding of gender dimensions in identifying and dealing with war crimes, but given the pressures and compromises necessary to make peace quickly, the danger is ever-present that Peace will be sought at almost any cost, including at the cost of Gender Justice. As part of this, there is a real issue with impunity versus accountability. Questions need to be asked about women’s views and needs to ensure these are not bypassed or ignored in the search for quick fixes for short-term stability which may not lead to long-term peace.

A large question

One large question that needs to be asked: where are the instances of political leaders being sentenced for rapes and other acts of sexual violence committed by their followers or Militias under their control? Or a military commander sentenced for rapes/sexual violence committed by his troops?

And should Truth and Reconciliation Commissions as a direct alternative to International Courts be set up, and if they are how they should be composed? Do women’s voices get heard properly at such TRCs?

I shall end on the very optimistic note that the development of law on gender-specific war crimes is speeding ahead, further extending the gender dimension of war crimes to genocide. Only last year the entire 15-member UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1820, which states that ‘rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide’.

It also affirmed the Council’s intention, when establishing and renewing State-specific sanction regimes, to consider imposing ‘targeted and graduated’ measures against warring factions who committed rape and other forms of violence against women and girls. The text made several key requests of the Secretary-General, including that he submit a report on implementation of the resolution by this coming June (2009).

So looking back to my own first glimpse of this important subject, back in 1993, a good amount of progress has been made in those 15 years. Rape is on the books as a war crime. Military commanders can be held responsible for rape by their soldiers.

Now we must enter an era where we work out how to make all the practical implications workable. The Deity rather than the Devil lies in the detail, the nitty-gritty. I shall look forward to any thoughts you may have on any of the above.

Thank you.

Addendum

UNSCR 1820 and UNSCR 1325 are mutually-reinforcing and complementary. 1820 strengthens an area where implementation of 1325 remains particularly weak, namely sexual violence prevention and response. With its strong focus on the condemnation of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict situations, it provides a Security Council parallel to UN General Assembly Resolution 62/134 (adopted in December 2007) on Eliminating Rape and other forms of sexual violence in all their manifestations, including in conflict and related situations.

UNSCR 1820 includes:

As rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity or a form of genocide (depending on the elements of the offence), these crimes should be excluded from any amnesty provisions in the context of conflict resolution processes. States need to prosecute the perpetrators and ensure that all victims of sexual violence have equal protection under the law and equal access to justice, thereby ending impunity;
Annexe Two

Speakers included –

Lesley Abdela (lesley.abdela@shevolution.com)

Jose Pablo Baraybar, EPAF, Peru

David Fraser, University of Nottingham

Michael Kandiah, Centre for Contemporary British History, London

Konrad Kweit, University of Sydney

Frank McDonough, Liverpool John Moores University

Dr. Cissa Wa Numbe, Director, UN Association of the Dem. Rep. of Congo

David Seymour, University of Lancaster

David Sugarman, University of Lancaster

Juan Santos Vara, University of Salamanca.

and speakers/delegates from

African Development for Peace Initiative (ADPI); Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC); Copenhagen University; John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY, USA; Department of Defence, Washington, USA; George Mason University, USA; Gibson Dunn LLP, USA; Goethe University, Frankfurt; Herzen State University, St Petersburg; Indiana University, USA; Irish Human Rights, Galway; Perkins Coie Law Firm, USA; Special War Crimes Department, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; UN Development Programme (UNDP)

Spain’s Socialist Party government suppresses torture probe of Bush officials

1

The Obama administration and Spain’s Socialist Party (PSOE) government are working in tandem to prevent the prosecution of top Bush officials.

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero were both popularly elected because of their professed opposition to the war in Iraq and abhorrence of unlawful detention and torture in the so-called “war on terror.” Instead, they have colluded in a global effort to protect the authors of these crimes.

Spain’s attorney general, Candido Conde-Pumpido, earlier this month denied an appeal to prosecute six officials from the Bush administration. The decision was taken by the man appointed by the PSOE government as its foremost legal figure.

The accused were former White House counsel and later Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, former Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes, former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and David Addington, the former chief of staff and legal advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney.

The case against them was brought by the Association for the Dignity of Prisoners, which alleged that the officials were the legal draughtsmen of a policy that led to the torture of six Spanish citizens at Guantánamo Bay. Their charges have been buttressed by the recent release of secret post-9/11 memos by the US Justice Department detailing and approving the use of illegal and abusive interrogation tactics, including waterboarding, against alleged Al Qaeda operatives held by the United States.

Investigative Judge Baltasar Garzón accepted the case and forwarded it to prosecutors at Spain’s National Court for an opinion as to whether it could proceed. Conde-Pumpido intervened to shut down the case. “If there is a reason to file a complaint against these people, it should be done before local courts with jurisdiction, in other words, in the United States,” he declared.

He turned on its head the justification used to prosecute the leaders of Serbia, such as former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, for “command responsibility” for crimes committed during the Balkans war, stating, “If one is dealing with a crime of mistreatment of prisoners of war, the complaint should go against those who physically carried it out.”

There are reports that the PSOE government is stepping up pressure to restrict the use of universal jurisdiction pleas to pursue high-ranking officials accused of human rights abuses, and thereby block the ability to initiate such actions in future.

Zapatero’s government has domestic concerns in this regard. Last year, Garzón abandoned an investigation into the executions and repression carried out by the fascist regime of General Francisco Franco after a similar intervention by Conde-Pumpido, motivated by fear that undermining the “pact of silence” agreed during the transition to parliamentary democracy following the dictator’s death would be politically explosive.

But the main driving force for the decision to halt the prosecution of the Bush officials was pressure exerted by the US government. A series of meetings took place between Zapatero and President Barack Obama over Easter, during which Washington undoubtedly made clear its determination to prevent the prosecution of Bush officials and CIA interrogators.

With Obama doing everything possible to limit the political fallout from press reports that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell and others had approved the CIA’s torture tactics, any action by Spanish prosecutors that might cut across these efforts had to be stamped out.

In answer to questions from CNN Español interviewer Juan Carlos López about the attempts in Spain to bring the Bush officials to justice, Obama replied, “I’m a strong believer that it’s important to look forward and not backward.”

Although he claimed he had not been in “direct conversations” with the Spanish government about these issues, Obama admitted that his team had been. Reports have confirmed that the US State Department has been in regular contact with the Spanish government about the case.

Shortly after the Association for the Dignity of Prisoners launched their case on March 17, the US embassy in Madrid “invited” the National Court chief prosecutor, Javier Zaragoza, to explain the nature of the allegations and how and why they were allowed to proceed.

A major concern behind Obama’s effort to cover up state crimes committed by his predecessor, including illegal domestic spying as well as torture, renditions and indefinite detention, is a desire to uphold the vast expansion of unilateral executive power of the Bush years, which was at the heart of the dictatorial conceptions laid out in the secret memos. Obama, his advisers and the military-intelligence apparatus before which they are bowing wish to retain the repressive structures and laws enacted under Bush in the face of explosive tensions building up within American society. All the more under conditions of economic crisis, democratic forms become untenable in a society dominated by staggering levels of social inequality, and where a monopoly of political power is exercised by a financial aristocracy through two corrupt and servile parties.

The same basic considerations lie behind the actions of the Zapatero government. The PSOE was swept to power in 2004 on a massive wave of antiwar sentiment, fuelled by anger over the attempt of the People’s Party government to blame the Basque separatists of ETA for the terrorist bombings in Madrid, so as to conceal the connection between the bombings and Spain’s participation in the Iraq war.

The vote revealed a broad, deep and intense popular hostility to the war-mongering of Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Zapatero’s predecessor, José María Aznar. At the time, Zapatero felt it necessary to make the most ostensibly left-wing and anti-war statements of any European leader. He immediately announced the withdrawal of 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq.

But though it viewed the Iraq war as a disaster, the PSOE never had any intention of opposing US militarism. It maintained its troop presence in Afghanistan. This force was increased to 1,000 just last month.

The decision to block the prosecution of Bush officials demonstrates that rhetorical commitments to democratic norms count for very little when it comes to the realities of imperialist politics, whatever the particular political colouration of a given bourgeois government.

At stake in the Zapatero government’s moves is not just the need to restore political relations with Washington. With Spanish capitalism in desperate straits and social tensions becoming more acute, anything that might hinder the ability of the ruling elite to further its own global ambitions, including by military means, is intolerable. Above all, the political establishment and security services must be kept free from legal impediments or democratic accountability when it comes to their own repressive actions.

The only basis for a struggle against militarism and in defence of democratic rights is the independent political mobilization and international unification of the working class against all of the representatives of capital, those of the official “left” no less than those on the right.

Paul Mitchell

G8 environment summit ends in no deal

0

THE G8 environment ministers’ meeting in Sicily ended without agreement on carbon dioxide emissions targets on Friday.

UN environment programme executive director Achim Steiner said that significant gaps remain on targets for emission cuts and funding.

But he added that discussions at the meeting in the eastern Sicilian city of Siracusa were among the “most frank” he had seen and largely focused on sticking points “where fundamental differences remain to be overcome.”

Environment ministers from the G8, along with others from emerging economies and representatives from the EU and the UN met for three days in a medieval castle to talk about biodiversity and climate change.

The meeting was intended to lay some groundwork before a crucial UN conference in December in Copenhagen.

That gathering aims to replace the 1998 Kyoto Protocol and draft a new agreement to regulate carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

Despite some progress, Mr Steiner said, “I do leave Siracusa very much concerned that there is as yet no clear pathway to resolving the gaps that remain.”

He said that one positive sign is that realism, the recognition that time is running out, has set in and that there has been “less finger pointing and perhaps more reflection.

“The conversation is beginning to focus on how partnerships could help each side to deliver the very ambitious demands that the other side has.

“The time has passed for nations to wait for the other side to move first.”

He called for “intense conversations about how a partnership formula can allow an agreement in Copenhagen to emerge.”

On Thursday, Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency attending the talks, said that the US “now fully acknowledges the urgency and complexity of climate change challenges” and that a “meaningful US response to this challenge is absolutely essential.”

The group did reach an agreement on ways to slow down biodiversity loss.

The G8 comprises Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States. China, India and Brazil were also represented.

Copyright Morning Star, all rights reserved

How To Get Your Site To The Top On Google

THE RINF SEO MASTERCLASS VIDEO SERIES
RINF founder, Mick Meaney explains how easy it is to get top search engine rankings, by just clicking your mouse.

Even if you don’t have a website yet, this video series will show you how to create a professional website in under 10 minutes, without having to touch any code. Then you will learn how to ‘engineer’ your site for top Google ranks, again without touching any code.

Take it from me fellow webmaster, you don’t need to learn ANY code or ANY of the boring stuff to get massive amounts of website hits.

All you need is someone to SHOW you where to click and talk you through the moves.

Repeat this on as many sites as you want with no theory or code whatsoever.

See the kind of results you can achieve with this video masterclass:

! GET IT NOW FOR JUST £15 !

I will show you personally how to get the front page rankings you’ve always wanted, just like I have with RINF and many other sites.

You’ll soon be finding yourself at the top of Google without having to learn any of the tricky stuff.

You won’t need to learn any boring code or other difficult obstacles that are holding you back right now. . . because I’ve made these video lessons of easy-to-follow tutorials.

Just imagine what it will feel like when you search Google for a product like yours… and see YOURS.

Picture a time when YOU are receiving mountains of FREE traffic to your site while others are still messing around with Pay-Per-Click and getting nowhere fast.

Picture a time when someone says ‘well how do I find you?’ and you’re able to reply ’search Google for X and I’m there’.

I’m going to teach you some nice easy tricks to start with you’ll be instantly inspired.

As you read through this I’m sure you’ll start to understand that THIS is different and THIS TIME YOU REALLY ARE GOING TO SEE SOME MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT.

On Screen Point & Click
How one really weird idea
changed the way you learn.

A couple of years ago I was teaching a friend a few of these methods and I had this wacky idea

I thought to my self “wouldn’t it be great if I could make videos showing the exact on-screen steps for people to simply mimic what I do”.

I reckoned that shooting the videos this way would make it a lot easier and quicker for you to learn them.

As you follow the on-screen actions you simply move your mouse and click exactly like you see me doing on the screen.

The entire video series contains over 30 videos, MP3’s & Worksheets, guiding you from complete novice right through to the most advanced expert level

Grab your video masterclass and start making a real impact in all search engines and your sales

You Get All This For The Very Special RINF Price Of Just £15
LIMITED TIME ONLY
(other sites are selling my videos for around £60)

! GET IT NOW FOR JUST £15 !

No Questions Asked 60 Day Money Back Guarantee

You Will Get The Entire Video Course; Novice, Intermediate & Advanced

Abuse Isn’t Torture If a Doctor Is There

0

The Sick Logic of the CIA Memos.

By Sheri Fink |

Perhaps the most chilling aspect is that medical professionals apparently conducted a form of research on the detainees, without their consent.

Former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden was fond of saying that when it came to handling high-value terror suspects, he would play in fair territory, but with “chalk dust on my cleats.” Four legal memos released by the Obama administration make it clear that the referee role in CIA interrogations was played by its medical and psychological personnel.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, which authored the memos, legal approval to use waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other abusive techniques pivoted on the existence of a “system of medical and psychological monitoring” of interrogations. Medical and psychological personnel were assigned to monitor interrogations and intervene to ensure that interrogators didn’t cause “serious or permanent harm” and thus violate the U.S. federal statute against torture.

The reasoning sounds almost circular. As one memo, from May 2005, put it: “The close monitoring of each detainee for any signs that he is at risk of experiencing severe physical pain reinforces the conclusion that the combined use of interrogation techniques is not intended to inflict such pain.”

In other words, as long as medically trained personnel were present and approved of the techniques being used, it was not torture.

The memos provide official confirmation of both much-reported and previously unknown roles of doctors, psychologists, physician assistants and other medical personnel with the CIA’s Office of Medical Services (OMS). The government’s lawyers characterized these medical roles as “safeguards” for detainees.

Medical oversight was present from the beginning of the special interrogation program following the 9/11 attacks and appears to have grown more formalized over the program’s existence. The earliest of the four memos, from August 2002, states that a medical expert with experience in the military’s Survival Evasion Resistance, Escape (SERE) training would be present during waterboarding of detainee Abu Zubaydah and would put a stop to procedures “if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe medical or physical harm to Zubaydah.” (All interrogation techniques, the memos said, were “imported” from SERE.)

Later, OMS personnel were involved in “designing safeguards for, and in monitoring implementation of, the procedures” used on other high-value detainees. In December 2004, the OMS produced a set of “Guidelines on Medical and Psychological Support to Detainee Rendition, Interrogation and Detention,” a still-secret document that is heavily quoted from in three legal memos that were written the following year.

The CIA declined our request to comment further on the OMS’ role in detainee treatment. The OMS employs physicians, psychologists and other medical professionals to care for CIA employees and their families.

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the memos is their intimation that medical professionals conducted a form of research on the detainees, clearly without their consent. “In order to best inform future medical judgments and recommendations, it is important that every application of the waterboard be thoroughly documented,” one memo reads. The documentation included not only how long the procedure lasted, how much water was used and how it was poured, but also “if the naso- or oropharynx was filled, what sort of volume was expelled … and how the subject looked between each treatment.” Special instructions were also issued with regard to documenting experience with sleep deprivation, and “regular reporting on medical and psychological experiences with the use of these techniques on detainees” was required.

The Nuremberg Code, adopted after the horrors of “medical research” during the Nazi Holocaust, requires, among other things, the consent of subjects and their ability to call a halt to their participation.

The memos also draw heavily on the advice of psychologists that interrogation techniques would not be expected to cause lasting harm. At times this advice sounds contradictory. While calling waterboarding “medically acceptable,” the OMS also deemed it “the most traumatic of the enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The fact that traumatic events have the potential to cause long-lasting post-traumatic stress syndrome has been well documented. Physicians for Human Rights, in interviews with eleven former detainees held in Iraq and Afghanistan, found “severe, long-term physical and psychological consequences.” “All the individuals we evaluated were ultimately released without ever being charged,” said Dr. Allen Keller, medical director of the Bellevue/New York University School of Medicine Program for Survivors of Torture.

The memos describe the techniques in highly precise and clinical detail, befitting a medical textbook. During waterboarding, in which a physician and psychologist were to be present at all times, “the detainee is monitored to ensure that he does not develop respiratory distress. If the detainee is not breathing freely after the cloth is removed from his face, he is immediately moved to a vertical position in order to clear the water from his mouth, nose and nasopharynx.” Side effects including vomiting, aspiration and throat spasm that could cut off breathing were each addressed: “In the event of such spasms … if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy.”

While physician assistants could be present when most “enhanced” techniques were applied, “use of the waterboard requires the presence of a physician,” one memo said, quoting the OMS guidelines.

Doctors were also described as having vetted the practices for safety. Certain limits on waterboarding were created “with extensive input from OMS.” One memo states that OMS “doctors and psychologists” confirmed that combining the various techniques “would not operate in a different manner from the way they do individually, so as to cause severe pain.”

Medical and psychological personnel were required to observe whenever interrogators came into physical contact with detainees, including slapping them and pushing them into flexible walls (“walling”). Whenever a detainee was doused with cold water, a medical officer had to be on hand to monitor for signs of hypothermia. Confining prisoners to cramped boxes required “continuing consultation between the interrogators and OMS officers.” Prisoners made to stand for long periods to prevent sleep were to carefully monitor detainees for swelling of the legs and other dangerous conditions, and at least three times early in the program were switched, on medical advice, to “horizontal sleep deprivation.”

This was one example of how medical personnel could, according to the CIA, help prevent “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” on the part of the detainees. However, the memos show that the OMS’ role was not merely to limit the medical impact of interrogations, but also to consult on the effectiveness of interrogations. A May 30, 2005, memo quotes the OMS suggesting that cramped confinement was “not … particularly effective” because it provides “a safe haven offering respite from interrogation.”

Some medical professionals are calling for their colleagues to be investigated and sanctioned for participating in practices that professional medical and psychological organizations and officials in the Justice Department now call torture. “We stand ready to adjudicate these issues,” said American Psychological Association spokesperson Rhea Farberman.

But finding out which professionals were involved in designing, monitoring and implementing the interrogation techniques may be difficult. The four memos were released almost in their entirety. The few redactions concerned mainly the names of the personnel involved.

Torture Worked to Sell the Iraq War

1

Three cheers for Dick Cheney. The former vice president has urged, however rhetorically, that the Obama administration release more of the torture memos. “One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort,” the former vice president told FoxNews.

    “I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was.”

    News reports differ as to whether Mr. Cheney has formally made the request, but he is absolutely right that the American people need to see the complete record. He is wrong about what the record will show. From the material already released or ferreted out by journalists, it is clear that he and Mr. Bush succeeded in using torture, not primarily to secure needed intelligence, but to create the propaganda they used to sell their invasion of Iraq.

    The evidence comes from a variety of sources, including the report on the military’s treatment of detainees, which Sen. Carl Levin’s Armed Services Committee has just released. The report revealed that Pentagon officials began preparing to use torture – or “abusive interrogation techniques” – as early as December 2001. This was less than two months after the start of the war in Afghanistan and eight months before the Department of Justice gave legal authorization in two memos dated August 1, 2002, and signed by Jay Bybee, then-assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel. The first memo redefined physical and mental torture and suggested that the president, acting pursuant to his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, could override the federal anti-torture statute. The second analyzed and approved specific interrogation tactics, including isolation, prolonged sleep deprivation, stress positions and waterboarding, which makes the victim feel that he is drowning.

    If not the Justice Department lawyers, who gave the earlier go-ahead? The Senate report puts the onus directly on the decider-in-chief, President George W. Bush. He issued a written determination on February 7, 2002, “that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees.”

    Former White House terrorist adviser Richard Clarke has confirmed that Mr. Bush gave an informal go-ahead even earlier. According to Clarke’s account in his book, “Against All Enemies,” Bush addressed his national security advisers late on September 11, 2001. “We are at war and we will stay at war until this is done,” Bush told them. “Any barriers in your way, they’re gone.” Later he added in a heated exchange with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.”

    The Senate report also pointed the finger at Mr. Cheney and other top officials of the Bush administration. “Members of the President’s Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed,” the committee concluded. “National Security Council principals reviewed the CIA’s interrogation program during that period.”

    Why so much attention from the top? McClatchy news has provided the obvious answer. According to a former senior US intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist, the Bush administration wanted “to find evidence of cooperation between al-Qaeda and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

    “There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used,” said the former official. “The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there.”

    In part to get that smoking gun, the CIA waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times and Abu Zubaydah 83 times. But neither man told the interrogators what Bush and Cheney wanted to hear about Iraq and al-Qaeda. That came from Ibn al Sheikh al Libi, whom the Bush administration sent to Egypt for what CIA Director George Tenet called “further debriefing.” As PBS Frontline reported back in November 2007, al Libi “confessed” – after being beaten repeatedly and locked in a small box for some 17 hours – that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda in chemical weapons. Al Libi later retracted his statement and the CIA later rejected it as reliable intelligence. But the torture of al Libi worked to sell the war in Iraq, providing the “evidence” that Secretary of State Colin Powell used when he spoke before the United Nations Security Council in February 2003.

    “I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al-Qaeda,” Powell asserted. “Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.”

    Torture might not work as well as conventional interrogation to provide sound intelligence, but it certainly worked for Bush and Cheney in exactly the way they most wanted.

Steve Weissman

Police spy on activist groups

0

POLICE are using a network of hundreds of paid informants to feed them information about protest groups, according to secret recordings made by a potential recruit.

A member of the climate-change protest group, Plane Stupid, has released a series of recorded discussions with officers apparently offering her money to spy on fellow activists.

Matilda Gifford, 24, says she was approached by Strathclyde Police last month after being released on bail following a demonstration at Aberdeen airport.

In a series of discussions with police, recorded by Miss Gifford, an officer attempting to recruit her is quoted as saying “UK plc can afford more than 20 quid”.

The tax-free cash would be in exchange for information on individuals within the climate-change protest group and would not be paid into her bank account for fear of leaving an audit trail.

She was also told that her continued involvement with Plane Stupid could lead to her having difficulties finding employment in the future if she ended up with a criminal record.

In one section of the recording a police officer states hundreds of informants are on police books giving them information on a spectrum of organisations ranging from terror cells to environmental activists.

The officer is quoted as saying: “We work with hundreds of people, believe me, ranging from terrorist organisations right through to whatever. To the others as we like to call them. Environmentalists.

“We have people who give us information on environmentalism, leftwing extremism, rightwing – you name it, we have the whole spectrum of reporting.”

Strathclyde Police stated the force “had a responsibility to gather intelligence” after admitting officers had had meetings with Plane Stupid activists.

The Assistant Chief Constable of Strathcylde Police, George Hamilton, said: “Officers from Strathclyde Police have been in contact with a number of protesters who were involved with the Plane Stupid protests including Aberdeen airport.”

He added that the purpose of the meetings was to make sure future protests were carried out within the law and respected the rights of all concerned.

Plane Stupid, a direct action group fighting against airport expansion since 2005, maintains the attempted police infiltration of the group was an attempt to curtail people’s right to protest.

Lawyers for Plane Stupid have been able to identify the officers invovled.

A statement from Plane Stupid reads: “Our civil liberties were invaded and our right to peaceful protest called into question simply to defend the interests of big business.”

The group’s first protest was to release a barrage of rape alarms attached to helium balloons disrupting an international aviation conference being held in London.

In a statement in its website Plane Stupid states it welcomed any actions in its name “provided they are non-violent and accountable and help further the struggle against airport expansion and greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.”

ICO can no longer be seen to be independent of Whitehall

0

7 civil servants / Whitehall moles on secondment to the Information Commissioners Office

The UK FOIA blog The work of the Information Commissioner: Govt response to the Justice Cttee contains this alarming quote from the Government:

In the current financial year, additional funding has been complemented by a secondment scheme. Seven civil servants paid by their parent departments are currently working for the Information Commissioner’s Office on the backlog of freedom of information cases”

How can the Information Commissioner’s Office now claim to be seen to remain “independent” from the Whitehall bureaucracy ?

  • How can civil servants be trusted to be independent and impartial, when they may have to criticise their own Departments, colleagues and bosses, and could easily come under peer pressure or feel that they might jeapordise their career or promotion prospects if they do so ? 
  • Will confidential personal data e.g. the real names,postal and email and addresses and telephone numbers of FOIA complainants, submitted to the ICO, find its way back to these Whitehall Departments, via these FOIA complaints backlog “moles” ? 

     

  • Will the ICO’s legal advice and preparations for Information Tribunal and High Court FOIA appeal cases, also find its way back to the “other side” i.e. to the Whitehall Departmental or Treasury Solicitor legal teams , via such “moles” ?

 

The extra money should have been used to employ more ICO staff directly.

We have asked, via the WhatDoTheyKnow.com FOIA request portal, which Whitehall departments now have “moles” on secondment within the ICO , and just what their duties and potential ability to delay FOIA complaints is.

“parent departments” of the 7 civil servants seconded to the ICO

 

 

 

Watching Them, Watching Us

25 April 2009

Saturday 25th April 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose:

———–

1) The list of the “parent departments” of the “seven civil
servants” on secondment to the Information Commissioner’s Office,
as mentioned in the Government’s Response to the House of Commons
Parliamentary Select Committee:

Justice Committee – Fourth Special Report The work of the
Information Commissioner: appointment of a new Commissioner:
Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session
2008-09

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa…

“In the current financial year, additional funding has been
complemented by a secondment scheme. Seven civil servants paid by
their parent departments are currently working for the Information
Commissioner’s Office on the backlog of freedom of information
cases ”

2) What exactly are the specific duties of these seven civil
servants within the Information Commissioner’s Office ?

3) How can the Information Commissioner’s Office now be seen to
remain independent of Whitehall ?

———-

Please provide the information, ideally by publishing it on your
public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a “copy and paste”
locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already
available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the
reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information
requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an
explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you
should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by
reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the
Public Interest, for a Qualified Exemption, then you should clearly
explain which public interest(s) you have considered, and why you
have decided that the public interest in maintaining the
Exemption(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the
information.

If you decide to conduct a Balance of Public Interest evaluation,
you need to estimate any additional time which might be required,
and to inform me of this in your Substantive Reply, within the
mandatory statutory limit of 20 working days for you to respond to
this Freedom of Information Act request.

Under Section 16 the Freedom of Information Act, you have a duty to
provide help and advice, as to how this current request may need to
be modified, if necessary.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as
possible, and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days
from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Tuesday 26th May
2009.

Yours faithfully,

Watching Them, Watching Us

Monday 25th May 2009 is a public holiday i.e. not counted as one of the a “20 working days”. according to the FOIA legislation.

Spy Blog

CIA ‘Ghost Prisoners’ Missing

0

By William Fisher |

At least three dozen detainees who were held in the CIA’s secret prisons overseas appear to be missing — and efforts by human rights organizations to track their whereabouts have been unsuccessful.

The story of these “ghost prisoners” was comprehensively documented last week by Pro Publica, an online investigative journalism group.

In September 2007, Michael V. Hayden, then director of the CIA, said, “fewer than 100 people had been detained at CIA’s facilities.” One memo released last week confirmed that the CIA had custody of at least 94 people as of May 2005 and “employed enhanced techniques to varying degrees in the interrogations of 28 of these.”

Former President George W. Bush publicly acknowledged the CIA program in September 2006, and transferred 14 prisoners from the secret jails to Guantánamo. Many other prisoners, who had “little or no additional intelligence value,” Bush said, “have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments.”

But Bush did not reveal their identities or whereabouts – information that would have allowed the International Committee for the Red Cross to find them – or the terms under which the prisoners were handed over to foreign jailers.

The U.S. government has never released information describing the threat any of them posed. Some of the prisoners have since been released by third countries holding them, but it is still unclear what has happened to dozens of others, and no foreign governments have acknowledged holding them.

Gitanjali Gutierrez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which represents Majid Khan, a former ghost detainee at Guantánamo, told IPS, “The Obama administration must change course from its ‘forward-looking’ path because it leaves too many critical questions unanswered, including those about the fate of ghost prisoners held by the United States.”

“The United States is strong enough to examine the CIA and other agencies’ activities, to punish individuals who violated our laws, and to ensure that our nation does not slip to the dark side again,” she said.

Pro Publica reported that former officials in the Bush administration said that the CIA spent weeks during the summer of 2006 – shortly before Bush acknowledged the CIA prisons and suspended the program – transferring prisoners to Pakistani, Egyptian and Jordanian custody.

The organization said the population inside the program had been shrinking since the existence of the prisons was detailed in a Washington Post article in November 2005. Renewed diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Libya in May 2006 made it possible for the CIA to turn over Libyan prisoners to Moammar Gadhafi’s control.

Joanne Mariner, director of the Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program at Human Rights Watch, said, “If these men are now rotting in some Egyptian dungeon, the administration can’t pretend that it’s closed the door on the CIA program”

“Making the Justice Department memos on the CIA’s secret prison program public was an important first step, but the Obama administration needs to reveal the fate and whereabouts of every person who was held in CIA custody,” she said.

The Red Cross has had access to and documented the experiences of only the 14 so-called “high value detainees” who were publicly moved out of the CIA program and into the prison at Guantánamo Bay.

In June 2007, human rights groups released the names of three dozen people whose fates remained unknown.

“Until the U.S. government clarifies the fate and whereabouts of these individuals, these people are still disappeared, and disappearance is one of the most grave international human rights violations,” said Margaret Satterthwaite, a law professor at New York University. “We clearly don’t know the story of everyone who has been through the program We need to find out where they are and what happened.”

In a related development, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has asked the Obama administration to make public records pertaining to the detention and treatment of prisoners held at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records pertaining to the number of people currently detained at Bagram and their names, citizenship, place of capture and length of detention. The ACLU is also seeking records pertaining to the process afforded those prisoners to challenge their detention and designation as “enemy combatants.”

“The U.S. government’s detention of hundreds of prisoners at Bagram has been shrouded in complete secrecy. Bagram houses far more prisoners than Guantánamo, in reportedly worse conditions and with an even less meaningful process for challenging their detention, yet very little information about the Bagram facility or the prisoners held there has been made public,” said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project.

She told IPS, “Without transparency, we can’t be sure that we’re doing the right thing — or even holding the right people — at Bagram.”

Recent news reports suggest that the U.S. government is detaining more than 600 individuals at Bagram, including not only Afghan citizens captured in Afghanistan but also an unknown number of foreign nationals captured thousands of miles from Afghanistan and brought to Bagram.

Some of these prisoners have been detained for as long as six years without access to counsel, and only recently have been permitted any contact with their families. At least two Bagram prisoners have died while in U.S. custody, and Army investigators concluded that the deaths were homicides.

“When prisoners are in American custody and under American control, no matter the location, our values and commitment to the rule of law are at stake,” said Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “Now that President Obama has taken the positive step of ordering Guantánamo shut down, it is critical that we don’t permit ‘other Gitmos’ to continue elsewhere.”

The ACLU’s request is addressed to the Departments of Defense, Justice and State, as well as the CIA.

A federal judge recently ruled that three prisoners being held by the U.S. at Bagram can challenge their detention in U.S. courts, in habeas corpus suits brought by a group of human rights legal advocates.

The prisoners, who were captured outside of Afghanistan and are not Afghan citizens, have been held there for more than six years without charge or access to counsel. The Obama administration is appealing the ruling.

(Inter Press Service)

Sri Lankan Humanitarian Crisis Deserves Attention

0

By Amitabh Pal |

The United States is finally paying attention to the massive humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka.

The civil war that has raged for a quarter-century and has claimed more than 70,000 lives in this South Asian island country may be entering its death throes. But the final stage of this bloody, vicious conflict is claiming a massive toll.

Both the sides in the war have again and again displayed a callous disregard for human lives and suffering.

The Tamil Tiger rebels–which claim to represent the interests of the Sri Lankan Tamil minority–are among the most dreaded terrorist organizations in the world. They have perfected the art of suicide bombings (successfully killing a Sri Lankan president, Ranasinghe Premadasa, in 1993), and Al Qaeda is said to have studied their methods.

But successive Sri Lankan governments are also to blame for the war and the current catastrophe. Sri Lankan leaders practiced from the onset of independence in 1948 the most cynical brand of politics, favoring the Sinhalese Buddhist majority at the expense of the Tamil minority. The current regime of President Mahinda Rajapaksa is even more hardline, and has decided to fight the war to the ultimate end to drive the rebels out of their base in Northern Sri Lanka, regardless of the consequences.

“Tens of thousands of civilians were trapped in a situation the International Committee of the Red Cross called ‘nothing short of catastrophic,’ ” the New York Times recently reported. “The Red Cross said in a statement that hundreds of people had been killed or wounded in the fighting. At least 4,500 have been killed since mid-January, a senior United Nations official said.”

The Obama administration has condemned the Sri Lankan government for its callous attitude toward the civilians.

“I think that the Sri Lankan government knows that the entire world is very disappointed that in its efforts to end what it sees as twenty-five years of conflict, it is causing such untold suffering,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an astonishingly frank statement.

In the past, the United States has enjoyed good relations with the Sri Lankan government. The Tamil Tigers are on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations, and Washington has provided some military training and aid to Sri Lanka, downplaying in the process human rights abuses by Sri Lankan security forces. But in recent months, as the contours of the human disaster caused by the government’s final offensive have become clearer, U.S. criticism has grown louder, along with human rights groups and many others in the international community.

Certainly, the Tamil Tigers bear a good share of the responsibility, too. They have been holding many civilians hostage to use them as human shields. U.N. appeals to the government to allow aid to the trapped civilians have been coupled with pleas to the rebels to lay down their arms (who are aiming for a cease-fire instead). So far, neither side has listened.

The real tragedy here is that even with the cessation of conventional hostilities, the violence will probably not end. The Tigers will reconfigure themselves and retreat to jungles to compensate for their loss of territory.

In a superb recent cover package in Himal magazine, the one publication that covers South Asia as a region, various analysts conclude that the defeat of the Tamil Tigers will be meaningless unless the government takes concrete steps to tackle the alienation and suffering of the Tamil minority.

“Today, most reasonable people in Sri Lanka would agree that the Tigers and the war with them arose as a consequence of a long-unresolved ethnic conflict,” writes activist and intellectual Jehan Perera. “As such, the Tigers are clearly but a symptom of a deeper problem. … Eliminating the Tigers will not terminate the ethnic conflict.”

But the rule of President Rajapaksa and his coterie (which includes two of his brothers!) has been thuggish and intolerant, and it is too much to expect him to be charitable in victory. January alone saw the ransacking of an MTV station and the assassination of a top editor, Lasantha Wickrematunga, whom the president had earlier called a “terrorist journalist.” Indeed, the situation for independent-minded media in the country is so precarious that a contributor to Himal, writing about human rights in Sri Lanka, preferred to remain anonymous.

The agony isn’t over for the people of this beautiful island nation.

Obama, Top Officials Unite Against Torture Probe

0

By by Jason Ditz |

Top officials from both parties have spoken out against the notion of an independent probe into the Bush-era policies which led to the repeated torture of detainees, making the chances of such a body being established extremely unlikely.

Shortly after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticized calls for an independent probe until at least the end of the year, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the growing furore over the past few days “might well be evidence of why something like this would likely just become a political back and forth.” President Obama has taken the evidence of widespread CIA torture under his predecessor extremely likely, calling it merely a potential “mistake” and saying “that’s how we learn.”

Top Republicans were at least as adamant against the potential probe as their Democratic counterparts. House minority leader John Boehner said he couldn’t imagine “what we’re going to learn that congressional leaders didn’t already know,” while top Senator Kit Bond criticized the administration for pointing out the previous administration’s torture without producing evidence he claimed proved the value of policy.

The policy, which began in 2002, sought to produce evidence of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq which would be used as a pretext for war. Though no such evidence was ever found, the policy continued long after the US decided to invade Iraq in early 2003. Then-Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld were said to be at the center of the policy, though former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was the National Security Adviser at the time, was also among its early supporters.

Muslims in fear of police terror

0

Muslim leaders in Lancashire said on Thursday that the arrest, detention and subsequent release without charge of 12 people in police raids has created huge anxiety among the local community.

Hundreds of armed police raided addresses in Manchester, Liverpool and Lancashire during the operation, dragging the suspects from their homes and classrooms at gunpoint.

Images of the suspects being pinned to the ground with machine guns pointed to their head were beamed around the world.

In the immediate aftermath, the government commended the police on their prompt action in foiling a potentially imminent terrorist attack on British soil. Two weeks later, all 11 suspects plus a twelfth man – a British national – were released without charge. The 11 Pakistanis now face deportation.

Mr Abdul Hamed Kureshi of Lancashire Council of Mosques said: “Historically, arrests of Muslims are very high profile, it creates a lot of anxiety and there is a negative impact on community relations.

“If these people are arrested, as in this case, on what appears to be very poor intelligence, what effect will it have on their lives?

“If they are innocent they should be released.

“We have called on the authorities to be balanced and offered our support but whenever we tried to raise these issues we hardly get any response at all.

“We have been told nothing about why these arrests took place. We have excellent relations with Lancashire Constabulary but these arrests were carried out by different forces with little knowledge of the community in a negative and ruthless manner.”

Mr Mohammed Ayub of Chambers Solicitors in Bradford, which represented three of the men, said his clients had been through hell and vowed to fight the extradition proceedings.

He said: “My clients were locked in their cells 24 hours a day with only limited chance to exercise.

“They faced uncertainty and confusion and frequent questioning. It was near enough hell, especially when you are innocent. They are now ambivalent about their situation.

“They are extremely relieved that the police investigation is at an end but, at the same time, they are facing an unclear future in a detention centre waiting for possible deportation.

“These men were conducting lawful pursuit of studying in the UK and they have no criminal history.

“If the police have got it wrong they should hold their hands up and say so. You have to bear in mind that the police have acknowledged there is insufficient evidence to charge my clients with any of the 50 or so terror-related offences.”

Terror watchdog Lord Carlile has announced he is to conduct an inquiry into the raids but has declined to say whether the findings will be made public.

The Star contacted the Home Office for comment but received no new statement other than the official line that it is “seeking to remove these individuals on grounds of national security.”

Copyright Morning Star, all rights reserved

Torture Used to Try to Link Saddam with 9/11

0

By MARJORIE COHN |

When I testified last year before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties about Bush interrogation policies, Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz) stated that former CIA Director Michael Hayden had confirmed that the Bush administration only waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zabaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashirit for one minute each. I told Franks that I didn’t believe that. Sure enough, one of the newly released torture memos reveals that Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. One of Stephen Bradbury’s 2005 memos asserted that “enhanced techniques” on Zubaydah yielded the identification of Mohammed and an alleged radioactive bomb plot by Jose Padilla. But FBI supervisory special agent Ali Soufan, who interrogated Zubaydah from March to June 2002, wrote in the New York Times that Zubaydah produced that information under traditional interrogation methods, before the harsh techniques were ever used.

Why, then, the relentless waterboarding of these two men? It turns out that high Bush officials put heavy pressure on Pentagon interrogators to get Mohammed and Zubaydah to reveal a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, in order to justify Bush’s illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003. That link was never established.

President Obama released the four memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU. They describe unimaginably brutal techniques and provide “legal” justification for clearly illegal acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In the face of monumental pressure from the CIA to keep them secret, Obama demonstrated great courage in deciding to make the grotesque memos public. At the same time, however, in an attempt to pacify the intelligence establishment, Obama said, “it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”

In startlingly clinical and dispassionate terms, the authors of the newly-released torture memos describe and then rationalize why the devastating techniques the CIA sought to employ on human beings do not violate the Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. sec. 2340).

The memos justify 10 techniques, including banging heads into walls 30 times in a row, prolonged nudity, repeated slapping, dietary manipulation, and dousing with cold water as low as 41 degrees. They allow shackling in a standing position for 180 hours, sleep deprivation for 11 days, confinement of people in small dark boxes with insects for hours, and waterboarding to create the perception they are drowning. Moreover, the memos permit many of these techniques to be used in combination for a 30-day period. They find that none of these techniques constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Waterboarding, admittedly the most serious of the methods, is designed, according to Jay Bybee, to induce the perception of “suffocation and incipient panic, i.e. the perception of drowning.” But although Bybee finds that “the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death,” he accepts the CIA’s claim that it does “not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard.” One of Bradbury’s memos requires that a physician be on duty during waterboarding to perform a tracheotomy in case the victim doesn’t recover after being returned to an upright position.

As psychologist Jeffrey Kaye points out, the CIA and the Justice Department “ignored a wealth of other published information” that indicates dissociative symptoms, changes greater than those in patients undergoing heart surgery, and drops in testosterone to castration levels after acute stress associated with techniques that the memos sanction.

The Torture Statute punishes conduct, or conspiracy to engage in conduct, specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. “Severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from either the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering, or from the threat of imminent death.

Bybee asserts that “if a defendant acts with the good faith belief that his actions will not cause such suffering, he has not acted with specific intent.” He makes the novel claim that the presence of personnel with medical training who can stop the interrogation if medically necessary “indicates that it is not your intent to cause severe physical pain.”

Now a federal judge with lifetime appointment, Bybee concludes that waterboarding does not constitute torture under the Torture Statute. However, he writes, “we cannot predict with confidence whether a court would agree with this conclusion.”

Bybee’s memo explains why the 10 techniques could be used on Abu Zubaydah, who was considered to be a top Al Qaeda operative. “Zubaydah does not have any pre-existing mental conditions or problems that would make him likely to suffer prolonged mental harm from [the CIA’s] proposed interrogation methods,” the CIA told Bybee. But Zubaydah was a low-ranking Al Qaeda operative, according to leading FBI counter-terrorism expert Dan Coleman, who advised a top FBI official, “This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.” This was reported by Ron Suskind in his book, The One Percent Doctrine.

The CIA’s request to confine Zubaydah in a cramped box with an insect was granted by Bybee, who told the CIA it could place a harmless insect in the box and tell Zubaydah that it will sting him but it won’t kill him. Even though the CIA knew that Zubaydah had an irrational fear of insects, Bybee found there would be no threat of severe physical pain or suffering if it followed this procedure.

Obama’s intent to immunize those who violated our laws banning torture and cruel treatment violates the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

U.S. law prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and requires that those who subject people to such treatment be prosecuted. The Convention against Torture compels us to refer all torture cases for prosecution or extradite the suspect to a country that will undertake a criminal investigation.

Obama has made a political calculation to seek amnesty for the CIA torturers. However, good faith reliance on superior orders was rejected as a defense at Nuremberg and in Lt. Calley’s Vietnam-era trial for the My Lai Massacre. The Torture Convention provides unequivocally, “An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture.”

There is evidence that the CIA was using the illegal techniques as early as April 2002, three to four months before the August memo was written. That would eliminate “good faith” reliance on Justice Department advice as a “defense” to prosecution.

The Senate IntelligenceCommittee revealed that Condoleezza Rice approved waterboarding in July 17, 2002 “subject to a determination of legality by the OLC.” She got it two weeks later from Bybee and John Yoo. Rice, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and George Tenet reassured the CIA in spring 2003 that the abusive methods were legal.

Obama told AP’s Jennifer Loven in the Oval Office: “With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that.” If Holder continues to carry out Obama’s political agenda by resisting investigations and prosecution, Congress can, and should, authorize the appointment of a special independent prosecutor to do what the law requires.

The President must fulfill his constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. Obama said that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” He is wrong. There is more to gain from upholding the rule of law. It will make future leaders think twice before they authorize the cruel, illegal treatment of other human beings.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild and author of Cowboy Republic. and co-author of the new book, Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent. Her articles are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Street View nod prompts call for privacy watchdog reform

2

By Chris Williams |

Frustrated by years of alleged intransigence in dealing with complaints about privacy-infringing new technologies, activists have called for politicians to investigate and reform the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

London-based pressure group Privacy International (PI) said the ICO’s response this week to complaints about Google Street View was the final straw.

Giving Street View the all-clear under the Data Protection Act, the regulator said yesterday: “In a world where many people tweet, Facebook and blog it is important to take a common sense approach towards Street View and the relatively limited privacy intrusion it may cause.”

PI sharply criticised the decision, claiming it showed it had become “official policy” at the ICO not to stand in the way of business interests. The group wanted Street View to be suspended while the questions over its legal status and the effectiveness of its face-blurring technology were answered.

“The gloves are now off,” said PI director Simon Davies. “After ten years of failed complaints and undermining by that office of the core data protection principles, we have decided that there is no further point in trying to educate the officials there.”

Over the years the group has written to the ICO about the National DNA Database, fingerprinting in schools and automated number plate recognition. All its complaints have been overruled or shelved.

“We fear that the Commissioner is content to uphold fringe cases of occasional security abuses while allowing new technologies and technologies to cut a vast swathe through privacy,” PI said.

PI is not alone in believing the ICO has failed in its duties. The regulator’s decision last year not to take any action over BT and Phorm’s secret trials of internet interception and profiling systems this month prompted the European Commission to initiate legal proceedings against the UK government. Brussels said the trials were a breach of the ePrivacy Directive, which the ICO is responsible for enforcing.

PI said the regulator lacks the technological expertise to understand the impact of new technologies. It called for an independent advisory board to be urgently established.

Davies said: “The Information Commissioner has clearly decided that pragmatism and commercial interest should triumph over principle. This is a dangerous trend and one that is clearly responsible for Britain’s appalling surveillance culture.”

The group is now taking advice from MPs and peers on what Parliamentary process could be used to reform the ICO. ®

Update

The ICO sent this response:

The ICO is independent of government, pressure groups and the public and private sectors. We are a balanced and robust organisation that takes a risk based approach to regulation in line with best regulatory practice.The ICO has led the debate on the surveillance society, cautioned consumers about the value of personal information and is a strong consistent voice on issues such as data security and the growth in government databases.

The ICO has successfully intervened to prevent proposed fingerprinting at Heathrow’s Terminal 5 and issued clear advice on the use of surveillance technology in schools.

We are responsible for enforcing the DPA and FOIA and it is important to recognise that sometimes wider civil liberties and privacy issues are not covered by Data Protection law. We understand that putting images on Google Streetview causes Privacy International concern, but our job is to enforce the law and we are very clear that Google is not breaching the Data Protection Act.

Rights group: Pentagon to release new prisoner abuse photos

0

WASHINGTON, April 24 (Xinhua) — The Pentagon will release “a substantial number” of new photos that show abuse of prisoners at U.S.-run prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, a civil rights group said Friday.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said in a statement that the release, expected on May 28, will be in response to an open-records lawsuit filed by the group.

    The photos to be released were taken at facilities other than the infamous Abu Ghraib prison of Iraq.

    “These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” said Amrit Singh, an ACLU attorney. The photos are to be released by May 28, the ACLU said.

    The Pentagon has confirmed that it would release the photos.

    The lawsuit was filed in 2004 after the former Bush administration denied a 2003 open-records request by the ACLU.

    The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last year that the photos should be released.

    The Pentagon said it will not appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and will release the photos.

Paying billions for our database state

0

It is cost rather than privacy concerns that will save us from Labour’s megalomaniac surveillance schemes — a point underlined this morning when David Cameron was interviewed on the Today programme. With the vast choice of public expenditure open to him, he would single out only the identity card scheme and the children’s database ContactPoint as definite targets for immediate cuts.

There are many more savings to be made. Earlier this year, I and a couple of researchers started to calculate the costs of the database state and came up with a total of about £35bn from published figures. The Rowntree Trust followed with a report that claimed that £16bn was spent each year on IT schemes and that spending plans over the next five years amounted to £100bn.

So we are talking very big figures indeed, although no one really knows how much the surveillance state will cost. When you confront civil servants like Sir David Varney who is in charge of the transformational government project, which will make all information about individuals available to all departments and agencies, they say that the savings will pay for the scheme.

But recent investigations by the Times and Computer Weekly showed that the overrun on large-scale IT projects totals £18.6bn. For instance, the cost of the NHS Spine — a controversial plan to computerise all patients’ records — has risen from £2.3bn in three years to £12.7bn, and the system still is not working.

Here are some figures:

ContactPoint

The projected cost of the database, which will contain the personal details of every child of school age in the UK, is £224m with operating costs of £41m per annum over 10 years. The total cost of ContactPoint is £634m.

ID Cards and national identity register

A report in June 2005 from the London School of Economics predicted that the ID card scheme would cost in total between £10.6bn and £19.2bn over 10 years. The original Home Office estimate was £3.1bn. The official figure was revised up and down to £5.4bn and £4.5bn. The difficulty with the ID card scheme is working what the Home Office has passed on to other ministries and what costs it is hiding. Most estimates outside the government believe the final bill to be somewhere between £10bn and £11bn.

e-Borders

The e-Borders scheme will monitor everyone crossing UK borders. Those leaving the country will be expected to supply up to 53 pieces of information to the government. The estimated cost over the next decade is £1.2bn. Costs to the UK travel industry for the same period, which are expected to be passed onto the travelling public, are £360m. Therefore costs to the taxpayer and indirectly to the public equal about £1.5bn. Again this is unlikely to be the final story, especially when you consider that £650m alone was earmarked for the Raytheon Systems over the next 10 years. As yet there is no publicised estimate for the spy centre at Wythenshawe, which will track all our movements. Known costs are about £1.5bn.

Interception modernisation programme

Proposed in the communications data bill, the IMP will store data from every text, phone call, email and internet connection. The costs of the data silo are estimated at £12bn, although the Home Office has suggested it might be run in the private sector. Experience suggests this is unlikely to cut costs and that the security of the system would be compromised. Estimated cost: £12bn.

Automatic number recognition camera network

This system tracks, records and stores the details of all journeys undertaken on major roads and through city centres. The information is stored for five years. In 2007 this was said to have costs £32.5bn in funding with a further £10m since then; a total of £2m per annum is spent. The final bill over five years is £52m.

NHS spine

This is a computerised system linking health records. Estimated cost: £12.2bn.

Some important points: first, a lot of this money is being spent with foreign systems companies; second, the government has never produced a global figure for the surveillance state; third, there are no estimates of the vast amounts of money being wasted locally, for instance on CCTV schemes, which are held by police officers and the House of Lords to have little effect on crime reduction.

If people with knowledge of the economics of surveillance are reading this, they may like to help to refine the bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/apr/24/database-state-surveillance

North West anti-fascist hopes rest with Greens

1

TURNOUT is a key element of the Euro election battle against the BNP in the North West and Hope Not Hate should be applauded for its campaign to maximise anti-racist votes (M Star April 10).

If the BNP polls more than 10 per cent because of low turnout, it will become a certainty that Nick Griffin will represent the North West in the European Parliament.

No-one can dispute the fact that, if the BNP finishes as the fifth largest party in the North West, it makes the prospect of Griffin’s election far less likely.

That makes the race for fourth place in the North West one of the most crucial battles of this campaign.

For that reason the Green Party has welcomed the decision by Respect in this region to advocate a tactical anti-racist vote for the Greens to help keep Griffin out of Europe. The combined Green/Respect support of 6.8 per cent in 2004 was greater than the vote share achieved by the BNP.

It is disturbing that the BNP was able to gain 23 per cent in a North Manchester council by-election, even in an area with a target demographic for them, but this was only achieved with an intensive campaign effort.

For some perspective, it is worth remembering that, in the 2008 local elections, intensive campaigning saw the Greens gain 43 per cent in a Liverpool ward, 40 per cent in a Manchester ward and 30 per cent in a white working-class area of Widnes.

If the BNP gets the 7.5-9 per cent that many people are predicting, then relying only on the red, yellow and blue parties to come up with a combination of votes that will keep out the BNP is like throwing three dice and hoping for a double six.

Voting Green to keep the BNP in fifth place is going to be one of the best ways to keep the BNP out and the nature of the D’Hondt system means that a tactical vote for the Greens is going to be three times more valuable than a tactical vote for Labour.

PETER CRANIE
Lead European Candidate
Green Party, North West Region

Copyright Morning Star, all rights reserved

Blackwater Lingers in Iraq

0

By Jason Ditz |

Though three months ago the Iraqi government formally declared Blackwater Worldwide persona non grata in the nation, citing “excessive use of force” in the 2007 massacre of 17 Baghdad civilians, the group continues to have presence in the nation.

Despite no longer having a license to operate there Blackwater, which has since changed its name to Xe in an effort to distance itself from the taint of its infamous role in Iraq, continues to operate, guarding diplomats and providing air security for diplomatic convoys. The State Department signed a $22 million deal with Xe after the Iraqi government announced it would no longer be licensed to operate in the nation.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh says that Iraq “do not want Blackwater to work in Iraqi airspace or land … under one name or another.” Though it seems the unwelcome contractor will have a presence in the nation at least through this Summer (and potentially well into 2010), Dabbagh insists that Iraq will not allow them to have a long-term presence in the nation, but the delay is still outraging victims of the organization.

Contractors for Blackwater are facing 14 charges of manslaughter and 20 charges of attempted manslaughter over the September 2007 incident. The State Department also intends to review the contractor’s operations in Afghanistan.

Another victim of police brutality

1

Blair Peach was born in New Zealand in 1946. After earning his degree at Victoria University and periods of work as a fireman and hospital orderly, he arrived in London in 1969.

From that year until his death on the streets of Southall on 23 April 1979, he worked as a teacher at Phoenix School in Bow, east London. He was a dedicated and brilliant teacher who was much appreciated by his pupils.

As one of them wrote after Peach’s death, “He was a different kind of teacher. His interest in his pupils was not confined to the schoolroom but extended into their homes, where he would visit and give advice and practical help whenever he could.

“He was a man of high ideals, but ideals are no good if they are not put into practice. He always practised what he preached. At school he instituted a special class to help those children who had difficulty in reading and those classes were extended into the school holidays.

“He did this because he cared about these children and wanted them to be free-thinking adults who would not be pushed about by the system. I know I will never forget him and he will always be remembered as a friend of the people.”

The 1970s were momentous times in education for young teachers in east London, particularly those organised within the East London Teachers’ Association – the local branch of the National Union of Teachers.

As a loyal and committed trade unionist and socialist, Peach was in the centre of debate.

The topics ranged from democracy in schools, the participation of the local community in education, the abolition of wage differentials among teachers, the run-down of local public services like hospitals and council housing, South Africa, Chile, Ireland and solidarity with other trade unionists such as the Shrewsbury building workers. Peach was always leading, contributing and doing the often tedious work associated with the struggles over pay and conditions that are the daily bread of trade unionism.

In the last year of his life, he had been elected as the president of East London Teachers’ Association.

There was a particular electricity about Peach’s spoken interventions.

He had a stammer that sometimes interfered with his delivery. Yet his personal courage was such that his words and arguments always emerged, forged through a determination that you could feel was willing his voice forward.

All his colleagues knew the words would come and waited through his struggle for articulation. Even if you disagreed with his arguments, you felt so close to him and proud that you were debating with such a brave mind.

What concerned Peach more than anything was the growth in organised racism in east London all through the 1970s.

He didn’t just speak out and condemn the rise in the influence of such fascist groups as the National Front and British Movement during those years – he organised against their poison whether in the classroom, trade union meeting or the street.

He hated racism with all his being and was the first to mobilise himself and others in any action which combated it. He was an active organiser within his South Hackney and Shoreditch branch of the Anti-Nazi League, was frequently involved in standing firm against racists with the Bengali Community in the Brick Lane neighbourhood and successfully campaigned to stop the Inner London Education Authority allowing schools to be used for evening meetings by fascist organisations.

I have a particular memory of Peach’s strength against racism. After union meetings at Mile End Teachers’ Centre, a group of us would always have a drink and continue the discussions at the Railway Tavern in Grove Road, Bow.

During one such occasion, we heard from one of the pub’s customers that the landlord was refusing to serve black people. We immediately challenged him about this and he tried to defend the ban, saying that as far as he was concerned black people “were all pimps, queers and prostitutes.”

After a later court hearing which followed the consequences of this incident, the Morning Star of November 27 1974 reported: “Mr Peach told the court he was ‘absolutely disgusted’ after he heard confirmed that the landlord ‘was a racist.’ He and several other teachers, who used to go to the Railway Tavern after union meetings, went to another tavern down the road.

“There they talked to West Indians who used to drink in the Railway but who were now not allowed to drink there. They returned to the Railway Tavern and he was under the impression they were going to stand outside advising people not to go in because of the colour bar.

“But as no-one was outside, he went in and saw teachers and some of the West Indians being refused drinks by the publican. Then the police arrived and told them to leave.

“When he asked why, they would give no reason and then one of them said: ‘Let’s nick him’ and grabbed him by the arm and two of them pulled him out of the bar into a police car.”

Peach was acquitted of the charge of threatening behaviour after this hearing.

As he was leaving the court, a colleague overheard a policeman say to him as he passed: “You have got off this time Peach, but don’t worry, we’ll have you!” I remember we laughed about it at the time, but those words were to come pounding back to some of us five years later in April 1979.

During the last years of the ’70s, Peach was becoming more and more involved in anti-racist and anti-fascist activities.

The last time I saw him was in January 1979 at the funeral of Michael Ferreira, the Hackney black youth who had been stabbed to death by young racist thugs. Ferreira had died on his way to hospital after unconscionable delays in Stoke Newington police station, where his friends had taken him looking for a phone.

As we walked with hundreds of others behind the cortege through the streets of Hackney, Peach told me how he had been targeted and attacked by local fascists.

As the evening news bulletins of April 23 announced that a teacher from east London had been killed following the intervention of the police in anti-racist demonstrations at Southall, west London, how many other teachers as well as I had a terrible presentiment that it would be Peach even before his name was mentioned? For he had been the most committed, the most exemplary, the most selfless in every way.

In the London Evening News on April 24, witness Parminder Atwal described Peach’s fatal encounter with about 20 members of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Patrol Group, who were running towards him carrying shields and black truncheons.

“As the police rushed past him, one of them hit him on the head with the stick. I was in my garden and I saw this quite clearly.

“When they all rushed past, he was left sitting against the wall. He tried to get up, but he was shivering and looked very strange. He couldn’t stand. Then the police came back and told him this: ‘Move! Come on, move!’

“They were very rough with him and I was shocked because it was clear he was seriously hurt.

“His tongue seemed stuck in the top of his mouth and his eyes were rolled up to the top of his head. But they started pushing him and told him to move and he managed to get to his feet.

“He staggered across the road and came to where I was in the garden. I tried to sit him down. He was in a very bad state and he couldn’t speak. Then he just dropped down. I got a glass of water for him, but he couldn’t hold it and it dropped out of his hand. ”

These words express not only the brutal and clinical manner of Peach’s death, but the love which the black people of Southall showed to him in his last moments, during the demonstrations that followed his death and the events leading to his funeral.

This has found its most concrete form in the two schools – the Blair Peach Nursery and First School and the Blair Peach Middle School – that were finally opened in Southall in July 1988.

The context of Peach’s death and the brave resistance of the Southall community are recalled with telling realism in Colin Prescod’s film A Town Under Siege, which has now been reissued as one of the four related documentaries of the historical movements of British black people in the 1970s, Struggles for the Black Community, all made with the co-operation of the Institute of Race Relations.

They are powerful educational narratives of their epoch, strongly relevant to current struggles and racked with vital knowledge of British urban history in the 20th century.

Copyright Morning Star

Torture orders ‘came from the top’

1

TOP US officials, not a “few bad apples” of low rank, were behind harsh military interrogation tactics that spread from Guantanamo Bay to Afghanistan to Iraq, a new Senate report says.
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s 261-page report, the fruit of its investigation into US treatment of “war on terror” detainees, is likely to stoke the ongoing debate over US techniques widely seen as torture.

Democratic Senator Carl Levin said the report showed that claims by top aides to then-president George W Bush “that detainee abuses could be chalked up to the unauthorised acts of a ‘few bad apples’ were simply false”.

The report says US officials began preparing for what came to be known as “enhanced interrogation” techniques just a few months after the September 11, 2001 attacks and before a series of memos declaring such practices legal.

The approach harnessed a US military program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which aims to train US military personnel to resist questioning by foes who do not follow international bans on torture.

The resulting program included tactics like stripping a detainee, slapping, as well as “waterboarding”, a notorious kind of near-drowning.

The report also says that one suspected terrorist was forced “to bark and perform dog tricks” while another was “forced to wear a dog collar and perform dog tricks” in a bid to break down their resistance.

Interrogation tactics also included “religious disgrace” and “invasion of space by a female”.

One of the officials quoted in the report says some of the harsh tactics were used before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq amid frustration in Washington at the lack of evidence linking al-Qaeda and Baghdad.

“Even though they were giving information and some of it was useful, while we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq,” the report quoted US Army psychiatrist Major Paul Burney as saying.

“The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link… there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results,” Major Burney said.

Agence France-Presse

EDF denies hiring Greenpeace hacker spies

0

By Ian Grant |

A private security firm hired by the state-controlled French energy firm EDF allegedly planted Trojan malware that could read and record e-mails and keystrokes of French Greenpeace officers, according to reports.

According to the Financial Times, the French judiciary is conducting a judicial investigation into allegations EDF broke the law as part of a surveillance plan to monitor eco-activists.

EDF owns British Energy, which owns the UK’s nuclear power plants.

A spokesman for EDF confirmed the judicial enquiry, saying EDF believed the employees concerned exceeded their authority. EDF has asked the court to reconsider its rejection of a request to consider EDF a victim in the case.

EDF said it tried to secure its installations and people daily to prevent violent action at its sites. “Accordingly, like all industrial enterprises, EDF constantly monitors information that may affect its activity while strictly observing the legal provisions,” it said, adding: “EDF wholeheartedly condemns any method aimed at obtaining information illegally.”

According to the FT, EDF hired Kargus Consultants to investigate Greenpeace by going to meetings, demonstrations and talking to people linked to the organisation.

EDF denied that it sought to hack Greenpeace or others’ private networks. French judges rejected an EDF effort to register itself as a victim of the affair, the FT reported.

According to the report, Kargus’ owner and former spy Thierry Lorho testified that Kargus was hired by EDF to provide operational support for strategic surveillance. He said Pierre François, site protection engineer, asked him to hack into Jadot’s computer as a trial run for a longer-term contract to monitor Greenpeace activities.

According to the testimony, Lorho hired Alain Quiros, a computer expert, to hack the system. Quiros, who corroborated Lohro’s statement, said he planned to use a Trojan to record every e-mail and every keystroke made by Jadot.

François and EDF’s head of security, Pascal Durieux, rejected these claims, the FT said. François suggested that Lorho wanted revenge after his contract with EDF ended.

EDF said it suspended François and his line manager Pascal Durieux, security manager in the Production and Engineering Division, from 10 April. This followed an internal enquiry, which showed that a monitoring contract with Securewyse, which EDF cancelled, was signed without full regard for the group’s rules.

In an interview with Le Monde, Jean-Marc Sabathé, EDF’s security director, said EDF had suspended François and Durieux after an internal inquiry found that contacts to hire Kargus had breached company rules. Management knew nothing of the contacts, Sabathé said.

Police watchdog fails to block new demo video

0

By Jack Lefley |

The police watchdog has failed in an attempt to stop the broadcast of new footage of the moments leading up to the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson at the G20 demonstrations.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission wanted to secure a court order against Channel 4 News when it emerged that the programme planned to broadcast a frame-by-frame analysis of the film, which was shot by a bystander on Cornhill, near the Bank of England.

But a judge refused to grant the injunction and it will be shown tonight on Channel 4 News and More 4 News.

An IPCC spokeswoman said: “We can confirm that we attempted to seek an injunction this evening against Channel 4 as it came to light that they were due to broadcast further evidence which we believe at this moment would potentially damage our criminal investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson.”

A spokeswoman for ITN, which produces Channel 4 News and More 4 News, said the broadcast was “a responsible piece of journalism that brings important new information into the public domain”.

The Guardian today published stills from the footage which appeared to show the moment MrTomlinson, 47, hit his head on the pavement after he was pushed over by a police officer.

The film appeared briefly on the YouTube website, but was removed.

IDF: No War Crimes Committed in Gaza

0

The Israel Defense Forces announced on Wednesday that an internal investigation has determined that no civilians were purposefully harmed by IDF troops during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.

The inquiries were performed by five IDF colonels who were not involved in the fighting in Cast Lead, and examined reports of attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, medical personnel and facilities, United Nations facilities, and also the use of white phosphorous.

The inquiries, which were supervised by IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, did find cases of civilians killed by mistaken fire on the part of IDF troops, but said the incidents were isolated.

Following the release of the investigation results, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the army’s willingness to probe itself “one again proves that the IDF is one of the most moral armies in the world.

“The IDF is not afraid to investigate itself and in that, proves that its operations are ethical,” said Barak. The defense minister added that he has “complete faith in the IDF, from the chief of staff to the last of the combat soldiers.”

Deputy IDF Chief of Staff General Dan Harel said that in the dozens of cases they examined, they found that throughout Cast Lead the IDF “adhered to international law and maintained a high level of professionalism and morality.”

The most glaring case of mistaken fire found by the inquiry was the attack on the Al-Dahiyeh family home in the Gaza City neighborhood of Zeitoun, in which 21 members of the same family were killed.

In the incident, the IDF called a household that was suspected of being a weapons storehouse and told the residents to evacuate, saying an attack was imminent.

The subsequent IAF strike, which was targeting a suspected weapons storehouse, landed dozens of meters from its target, slamming into the Al-Dahiyeh household.

The mistaken fire reportedly came as a result of a malfunction in the targeting system of the aircraft carrying out the mission.

The IDF has called the incident “regretful”, but said it resulted from “an operational mistake that is bound to happen during intensive fighting.”

Another incident reported in the probe’s findings was the case of an IAF attack on a truck that military intelligence had reported was carrying Grad rockets. After the attack, which killed 8 Palestinians, including 4 Hamas gunmen, it was determined that the truck was transporting gas canisters.

An Israeli human rights group, B’Tselem, called the military’s investigation flawed. and said it “does not answer the need for an independent inquiry outside the army that would look at the whole range of violations the army is incapable of looking at.”

“Itshows how important it is that Israel cooperate with the fact-finding mission of [Richard] Goldstone that would look at violations,” said spokeswoman Sarit Michaeli, speaking on behalf of a group of human rights groups that have made this demand in the past.

Goldstone, a former United Nations chief prosecutor for war crimes, was recently appointed to head a UN investigation into atrocities allegedly committed during Israel’s three-week war against Gaza’s Islamic Hamas rulers.

The investigation called by the UN’s Human Rights Council was only supposed to look at Israeli conduct. But Goldstone did not accept the assignment until the mandate was changed to also examine Palestinian actions.

Israel has not said whether it would cooperate with the Goldstone investigation. But it has rejected council investigations in the past, calling them biased.

Among questions being raised is whether Israel used disproportionate force and failed to protect civilians.

In one case, Israeli artillery fire reportedly hit near a UN school where hundreds of Gazans had sought refuge, killing an estimated 42 people. Israeli said its troops were responding to fire from militants near the school, and both the incident and number of casualties have been disputed.

In another instance, Gazans allege Israeli soldiers ordered 110 civilians into a warehouse, then shelled it the next day, killing 30. Israel denies the army targeted the warehouse.

Israel also has been criticized for using white phosphorus weapons, which can be legitimately used in war to create smoke screens or provide illumination.

But rights activists have said its use over populated areas can indiscriminately burn civilians and constitute a war crime.

Israel says its army took great care to avoid harming civilians in Gaza, preceding some airstrikes with leaflets or phone calls warning civilians to flee – a contention confirmed by Gaza residents.

Israel is preparing for potential legal action, barring the media from publishing pictures of officers’ faces and their names for fear of
investigations. It has promised legal and financial support for any officers facing trial, despite the difficulty of prosecuting Israelis.

© Copyright 2009 Haaretz

Government issue warning to Town Hall CCTV

0

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has vowed to stop councils using CCTV to spy on staff, Yourmaidstone reports.

A survey has revealed that town halls are regularly bugged and secret cameras are used to monitor employees.

Maidstone council was one of the authorities named by a national newspaper as using CCTV to gather evidence against a worker suspected of having an “inappropriate” relationship.

But in the wake of this revelation the Home Secretary has announced she plans to tighten the rules on councils’ use of CCTV to only use it to tackle serious crime and terrorism, rather than minor offences.

The Daily Mail last week claimed that council bosses are using the controversial tactics to gather evidence of workplace theft and inappropriate relationships.

The newspaper said documents obtained using the Freedom of Information Act showed Maidstone council had “spied on an employee it suspected was having an inappropriate relationship with a local housing landlord.”

In response to the claim a council spokeswoman said: “The investigation, which included an inspection of the officer’s emails, concerned a financial matter. We found that there was no case to answer.”

But a former council employee, who did not want to be named, said: “I think this is pushing the boundaries of privacy and it’s not nice to think that you are being monitored in your work place.”

Privacy campaigners have hit out at the methods describing it as “disgusting” and that they “would make the KGB nervous”.

Director of Privacy International, Simon Davies, told the newspaper: “It’s difficult to understand how councils can justify the use of staff time and scarce resources on some of these extravagant surveillance operations.”

Councils are able to use methods such as concealed CCTV under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2002.

The regulation allows officials to use such tactics when preventing or detecting crime, preventing disorder, public safety, protecting public health, or in the interests of economic well-being.

But the tightening of the rules Ms Smith is proposing would mean in future only chief executives and senior officials will be able to use the Act’s powers to spy on employees and only if serious offences are suspected.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, told The Times: “This consultation is a tacit admission by the Government that its surveillance society has got out of hand.

“For too long, powers we were told would be used to fight terrorism and organised crime have been used to spy on people’s kids, pets and bins.

“Surveillance powers should only be used to investigate serious crimes and must require a magistrate’s warrant.”

MPs to probe ISP snooping

0

By Chris Williams |

MPs have today launched an investigation into the use of snooping technology by ISPs which allows them to profile customers for advertisers and throttle or block specific types of traffic.

An inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Communication will examine issues such as the emergence of Phorm’s profiling system, and the restriction of bandwidth available to specific applications such as BitTorrent. Both activities are reliant on Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology.

“Now the Internet is part of daily life, concerns are increasingly raised about a wide range of online privacy issues,” the group said in a background statement.

“Should there be changes to individual behaviour? Should companies be pressed to prioritise privacy issues? Or is there a need for specific regulations that go beyond mere ‘data protection’ and address privacy directly?”

The inquiry will also consider the impact of DPI technology on ISPs’ “mere conduit” protection from liability for illegal traffic such as child pornography and copyright-infringing filesharing.

Child protection charities recently called on the government to force small ISPs to implement the Internet Watch Foundation’s blocklist against indecent images of children. Some rights holders have meanwhile campaigned for ISPs to monitor and block music and video transferred illegally over peer-to-peer networks.

The informal cross-party group of MPs and Lords will also consider calls for ISPs to do more to block spam and botnets.

“Opinions differ very widely as to which of these activities should be forbidden, which should be insisted upon, which raise insurmountable privacy issues, and which should be left to the marketplace to determine whether the idea is viable,” the group wrote.

“What aspects of network neutrality actually matter in the UK and do consumers need new laws to protect them?”

The government’s recently-published report on Digital Britain dismissed the notion of network neutrality. Some UK ISPs have interfered with internet traffic using DPI equipment for several years.

Controversies over filesharing and ISP-level targeted advertising in the last 18 months, however, have gradually driven ISPs’ control over internet traffic up the politcal agenda.

The group, chaired by Labour MPs John Robertson and Derek Wyatt, has called for submissions on five questions around the subject (below). It will hold evidence sessions in June, with a final report due in Autumn. Details of how to respond are here. ®

Bootnote

Those inquiry questions in full:

  • Can we distinguish circumstances when ISPs should be forced to act to deal with some type of bad traffic? When should we insist that ISPs should not be forced into dealing with a problem, and that the solution must be found elsewhere?
  • Should the Government be intervening over behavioural advertising services, either to encourage or discourage their deployment; or is this entirely a matter for individual users, ISPs and websites?
  • Is there a need for new initiatives to deal with online privacy, and if so, what should be done?
  • Is the current global approach to dealing with child sexual abuse images working effectively? If not, then how should it be improved?
  • Who should be paying for the transmission of Internet traffic? Would it be appropriate to enshrine any of the various notions of Network Neutrality in statute?

Owning a camera doesn’t make you a criminal

0

When George Bush pronounced the war on terrorism as the “war on tourism”, we thought it was because he was an idiot.

Maybe not, because it seems that tourism and terrorism are the same thing – or at least, they are to some police officers. How else can we explain the harassment of tourists who took photographs of a bus station?

Sadly, Klaus Matzka’s experience was by no means unusual. Photographers of all kinds, from amateur snappers to pros, are finding that cameras attract all kinds of heavy-handed attention.

Snap a police officer at a peaceful demo and you could find yourself nicked under Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; snap anything else and you could find yourself accused of terrorism and ordered to delete your photos.

Part of the problem is overzealous people in uniform, whether they’re security guards or serving police officers. The Metropolitan Police’s crazed anti-terrorism adverts (PDF), which brand photographers as potential bombers don’t exactly help. But there’s also a problem with the law.

The idea that Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act makes photographing the police illegal is pure fantasy. It doesn’t mention photos at all. Rather, it says that it’s illegal to gather or publish information about the police or armed forces that is “likely to be useful” to a mad bomber, foreign spy or Osama Bin Laden.

Misinterpretation of the Act

With pretty much everything in the world linked to terrorism these days – Icelandic banks’ assets were frozen under anti-terrorism legislation, while anti-terrorism surveillance powers have also been used to crack down on such threats to life and liberty as dog crap and fly-tippers – then it’s easy to see how that phrase can be misinterpreted, either by accident or by design.

Here’s an example. Would footage of a policeman assaulting an innocent civilian who later died of internal bleeding be useful to a terrorist? How about footage of a policeman in body armour whacking a woman, his ID badges covered up so nobody can report him?

Of course they would. Circulation of such footage undermines people’s respect for the police, makes us wonder if some of them are just thugs with badges, and makes the work of the good cops – who are, of course, the majority – much harder. They’re brilliant recruitment tools for militants, too.

That doesn’t make the photographs or video clips illegal, though. If you’re hanging around military bases with a zoom lens, then of course you’re going to get nicked – but irrespective of what uniformed goons might tell you, it’s legal to take photos of pretty much anything else provided you’re not breaking any other laws in the process.

Deleting photos

Forcing you to delete your snaps, on the other hand, is not legal – because if you’re committing a crime, then your photos are evidence. Think about that for a second. If someone orders you to delete your shots, they’re saying: “I have caught you committing a crime and I am ordering you to delete all the evidence.”

Security guards don’t have the powers to search you, and they can’t legally delete your photos. The police can’t delete your photos, either, unless they get a court order.

If you’re hanging around RAF airfields with a zoom lens or you’re on privately owned property then there are laws stopping you from taking pictures – but in most circumstances there’s no reason why you can’t photograph whatever you want.

Don’t believe us? Ask the government. Here’s Shahid Malik, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, on 1 April 2009: “Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.”

As Malik told Parliament: “Our counter-terrorism laws are not designed or intended to stop people taking photographs. That is simply not their aim. People have the right to take photographs in public places for legitimate reasons and we will do everything we can to uphold that right.” Mr Malik says that police forces around the land are being issued new guidance telling them just that. Here’s hoping they actually read it.

Copyright 2006 – 2009 Future Publishing Limited

School bus tracked by satellite

0

Parents in North Wales will be able to use satellite tracking to check their children are on the school bus, as part of a new pilot project.

The smart card scheme STAR is part of a wider initiative aimed at improving behaviour on school transport.

Pupils will swipe a card as they get on buses. It will help schools and parents track them to ensure attendance while drivers can pinpoint any bad behaviour.

The scheme is being trialled across six counties in north Wales.

The project’s leader Peter Daniels said: “We think this is the first (such scheme) in Britain.”

The STAR scheme is part of the Zoon project, supported by the Welsh Assembly Government, which is designed to curb the growing problem of anti-social behaviour on journeys to school.

The project, being launched later at Mold Alun School in Mold, Flintshire, will be headed up by Denbighshire council.

Zoom’s key objective is to create a level of understanding for year 7, 8 and 9 pupils so that they recognise the good behaviour expected from them when using school transport, the council explained.

The scheme will run for one year and, if successful, could be rolled out across Wales as early as the latter half of 2010.

Peter Daniels, transport manager at Denbighshire council and head of the Zoom project, commented: “We’re trying to make sure that when pupils get to school they can learn and learn well and one way to ensure that is to make sure that travelling into school is a good experience for them.

“So where it isn’t, we’re going to try and tighten up on that. And rather than react to problems, we are trying to influence things before they start.”

Elements of the scheme include the clocking on and off GPS system STAR, covert bus monitors aged 14 and above called Bus Angels, and training aimed at helping bus drivers cope with anti-social behaviour.

A cohesive support strategy linking schools, transport departments, bus companies and the police will also be introduced.

Mr Daniels explained how the STAR project would work.

“It’s very much like the scheme in London where an Oystercard user boards a bus and taps in and then taps out when he or she gets off. Using GPS tracking, [parents] will know exactly where their pupils are on the bus.

“It will help support the schools, by ensuring that pupils actually get into school. They know they’ve been on the bus and can track them through the day and back home again,” he said.

“And it also helps to support drivers too. If there are any issues on the bus then the drivers… will be able to pick a picture (from a small screen in front of him) of any pupil who he feels is perhaps misbehaving and send a report through very quickly both to the school and to the local authorities.”

Tested

Mr Daniels denied that Zoom represented an infringement of children’s right to privacy.

“We don’t believe it is (spying on the children),” he said. “We think it is a way of ensuring that the system works a lot better.

“The system is actually very secure. There’s no information on the cards that the pupils will be given themselves. It’s all held on a database and it’s obviously governed by data protection.

“This is just one element of a number of issues that we are trying to tackle in a rather proactive way.”

Mr Daniels explained that the undercover Bus Angels scheme had already been tested elsewhere in Britain.

“If the Angel sees a problem they report the matter to the head teacher first hand, rather than wait for instance for reports to come through via parents the next day,” he said.

“We like to hear about it straight away. This is something that’s been tried elsewhere in Britain and it’s been proven to work.

“In Denbighshire there are very few buses that cause us problems but there are isolated pockets and I think that’s the case throughout North Wales.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8009624.stm

EC takes action against the UK over its handling of personal data protection

0

The European Commission (EC) last week launched an infringement proceeding against the UK over e-privacy and personal data protection. This came following BT’s launch of the trial behavioural advertising technology known as Phorm. Although the trial had the permission of the Information Commissioner’s Office, it has triggered a number of complaints from UK Internet users. The EC has concluded that Phorm was breaching consumer privacy directives, and has requested that all member states comply with EU data protection rules. In the UK’s case, this may require a change in the law.
Privacy becomes more important as the Internet gets personal
Even as early as 2001, in a British government survey, most consumers expressed their worries about the ways their information might be being used without their knowledge when using various electronic services, particularly the Internet. With increasing broadband penetration and the Internet becoming more and more part of our day-to-day lives, the amount of personal data in circulation increases ever more.

The more users become aware of these issues, the more worried they become – e-privacy complaints have soared in recent years. Phorm, whilst being the subject of this intervention, is just one of these cases. The technology provides a behavioural targeting advertising system that enables ISPs to analyse customers’ web-surfing habits to deliver targeted advertising to each user.

The EC requested UK legislation be toughened up
The EC has been following the case of BT and Phorm since last year, when BT’s trial prompted numerous complaints. Consumer privacy and data protection is receiving increasing attention from Brussels as it becomes a more important regulatory issue. The EC now feels it is time to take legal action against BT’s Phorm trial to protect customers’ privacy under the EU rules.

The EC is now addressing several problems that emerged during its enquiry into the UK situation. It has concluded that the UK failed, to some degree, to maintain the confidentiality of communications by allowing interception and surveillance without users’ consent – one of the most important principles of privacy and personal data protection. Under UK law, interception could be considered lawful when the interceptor has ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that consent has been given. Therefore, it is not completely in line with the EC’s principle of receiving users’ consent before interception.

The UK also came under fire for its lack of an independent national supervisory authority dealing with interceptions. As a result, the EC believes the current UK legal framework does not completely comply with the EU Data Protection Directive of 2002 and fails to protect customers’ privacy, and has asked the UK to clean up its act.

New technologies will be used consistently across Europe
The EC has reiterated that all member states must comply with EU rules on privacy and data protection. Whilst it sees new technologies as being beneficial to consumers and businesses, it states that those technologies must be used in a way that complies with EU rules aimed at protecting citizens.

The complex set of issues raised by e-privacy and personal data protection rules have far-reaching implications for online search and digital advertising. With the EC stressing that it will protect the privacy of European citizens and control how their personal information is used, we may see the EC increasingly monitoring the compliance of member states and investigating new technologies (such as online social networking) to ensure that they are used in a way that guarantees confidentiality of communications.

FBI Workers Accused Of Spying On Teen Girls

0

Two FBI workers are accused of using surveillance equipment to spy on teenage girls as they undressed and tried on prom gowns at a charity event at a West Virginia mall.

The FBI employees have been charged with conspiracy and committing criminal invasion of privacy. They were working in an FBI satellite control room at the mall when they positioned a camera on temporary changing rooms and zoomed in for at least 90 minutes on girls dressing for the Cinderella Project fashion show, Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson said Monday.

Gary Sutton Jr., 40, of New Milton and Charles Hommema of Buckhannon have been charged with the misdemeanors and face fines and up to a year in jail on each charge if convicted. Sutton has been released on bond, Wilson said, and Hommema is to be arraigned later this week. Wilson did not know Hommema’s age.

The workers were described in a complaint as “police officers,” but prosecutors did not say whether the men were agents or describe what kind of work they did.

The Cinderella Project at the Middletown Mall in the north-central West Virginia town of Fairmont drew hundreds of girls from 10 high schools in five counties. Organizer Cynthia Woodyard said volunteers, donors and participants are angry.

“I can’t even begin to put words around what I consider an unspeakable act, the misuse of surveillance by a branch of our government in a place we felt so secure,” she said. “Never in a million years would we have thought something like this would happen. We’re in shock.”

Hospice Care Corp. was sponsoring the event, offering prom dresses, shoes and accessories to girls who could not otherwise afford them. Dresses sold for as little as $5.

Woodyard, director of marketing for Hospice Care, said this year’s event was the biggest in the decade the organization has been holding it, with more than 800 dresses on display.

The prosecutor would not say how authorities found out about the accusations.

It was not immediately clear if the accused men had attorneys. Messages left at phone listings for Gary Sutton were not immediately returned; there was no listing for Hommema.

The FBI issued a brief statement, but refused to answer questions. The statement said the Office of Inspector General was investigating.

“The FBI is committed to the timely and full resolution of this matter, but must remain sensitive to the privacy concerns of any potential victims and their families,” the statement said.

© 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.

Prosecuting War Crimes

0

The following is an excerpt from a talk by Nick Mottern on April 19, 2009, delivered after receiving a Peace and Justice Award from the WESPAC Foundation in White Plains, New York.

I asked (several friends) what they would like me to speak about today, and the consensus was: Tell people why you do peace and justice work. I will get to that in the course of my remarks.

I want to address a fundamental issue facing us right now: President Obama has said that people who have committed torture during the Bush/Cheney years will not be prosecuted. He said: “Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past – we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.”

I would like to make two points.

First – President Obama is sending the message that there will be no investigations and prosecutions that are “divisive,” that is, if they are politically difficult.

Is this a message then to the Yonkers (New York) police, for example, that they will not be prosecuted under federal law if they continue to humiliate and physically abuse people in the black and Hispanic community?

Is Mr. Obama sending a message to certain big bankers who are stealing from us every day in a variety of ways that they are simply too big to be prosecuted?

Is it a message that the legal system that is decimating our black and Hispanic communities with the disproportionate imprisonment of black and Hispanic men will go unchallenged?

My second point is that Mr. Obama’s judgment on prosecution of torturers is central to the wars of our time.

Richard Nixon was forced out of office by Watergate; a burglary and cover-up, which was also an attempt to cover up domestic terrorism against his foes and particularly against African-Americans working for economic and social justice. Nixon was disgraced, but he did not go to jail.

But Nixon was not investigated, indicted or disgraced for a set of far greater crimes than Watergate. He and Henry Kissinger, and others, had, in the course of pursuing the Vietnam War, systematically, knowingly and willfully violated the US constitution and international law. International law doesn’t get much respect in the US, even though it was forged out of the misery, degradation, sufferings and deaths of millions of people.

Nixon was a war criminal. Kissinger is a war criminal. They were responsible for millions of deaths, including the deaths in Cambodia wrought by our war on that nation which led to the scourge of Pol Pot.

We who were fighting for an end to the Vietnam War made a big mistake when that war stopped. We did not stay in the streets until Nixon, Kissinger and the others were investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned for war crimes.

I volunteered in 1962 to go to Vietnam. I was in the Navy on a ship that had extremely boring duty in the Pacific. I was 21 years old. I was looking for more exciting duty and the mystery, romance and adventure of Asia. I had been an avid reader of Terry and the Pirates comics. I believed our government, that we were fighting Communism and that that was important. And, it was an argument that gave me a righteous reason for what seemed to me high adventure.

Fortunately, I did not see combat in Vietnam. I was not called on to directly kill, nor was I threatened directly with death. But I went to Vietnam prepared to kill. And I did see death. I did see massive corruption. I was there because of a decision by then-President John Kennedy to expand the number of troops in Vietnam. I was there because of lies. I was there because the war crimes of the current Vietnamese leaders and the deceptions of the US had been covered up. I went to Vietnam because of lies and youthful stupidity, but nevertheless I feel a need to do what I can to repent for participating in the atrocity of Vietnam because I shared the same will to power and will for glory that drove our leaders and drove them to lie.

I believe that had Nixon and Kissinger been held accountable for their war crimes, we probably would not be in the wars we are in today. That is because in the very divisive process of investigating and prosecuting Nixon and Kissinger and others, we the American people would have learned something life-changing about ourselves as a people and about our acceptance of war.

Barack Obama is not given the right by our Constitution to be the judge and jury for torturers. I include Bush and Cheney in this category although they committed other war crimes. Mr. Obama and our Congress took oaths to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. They must be reminded that they must do this job regardless of whether they think it is divisive or not.

If President Obama and the Congress do their jobs of enforcing the law with respect to torture and other Bush and Cheney war crimes, they will begin unraveling the web of deceit that has supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

We as Americans will learn things that we must learn to save countless lives here and in countries where we are supporting and waging war.

US-Trained Human Rights Abusers

1

President Barack Obama has reversed a few of the Bush administration’s most egregious policies violating human rights and international law, such as the announced closure of the detention center in Guantánamo. But it remains to be seen to what extent he will lead the military toward respect for human rights, and change the institutional impunity to which American commanders and U.S. military allies have become accustomed.

Last month, combatant commanders came before Congress to make their case for funding. Southern Command Chief Admiral James Stavridis didn’t hesitate to say how critical funds are for military training, especially the former School of the Americas (now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation). “The camaraderie developed among our military officers at these institutions,” Stavridis said, “and the schools’ strong emphasis on democratic values and respect for human rights are critical to creating military establishments capable of effective combined operations.”

But what evidence is there that the specific military units in 149 other nations receiving U.S. training and other assistance actually respect human rights more after receiving the training? Legislation known as the “Leahy Law” since 1997 has prohibited U.S. assistance to foreign military units that have committed gross human rights abuses. But the focus is on abuses committed before assistance is given. The United States doesn’t conduct any institutional evaluation of the human rights impacts of its military assistance after it’s given.

Is It the Students, Or the Training
The underlying article of faith for evaluating other nations’ human rights records to see if they are worthy of U.S. military assistance, is that such assistance will “professionalize” other armies, or at worst be neutral for its impact on respect for human rights.

In fact, sometimes the opposite is true. A study of School of Americas graduates in 2005 found that soldiers taking more than one course at the school were several times more likely to have allegedly committed abuses than those who took just one course. A 2006 study by the RAND Corporation found that U.S. military training supported forces that continued to commit gross violations in Pakistan and Uzbekistan. Similar claims could be made about assistance given to Iraq and Israel, to consider two obvious examples. In Colombia, the Fellowship of Reconciliation and Amnesty International reviewed data on army units receiving U.S. assistance – especially training. We found that nearly half (47%) of civilian killings reportedly committed by the army in 2007 were committed by units that had been reviewed and received U.S. assistance in 2006 and 2007. Many more were committed by units from which individual officers were drawn and received leadership and other training at U.S. military schools.

Periodic evaluation is a basic prerequisite for any government program, but especially one that imparts lethal skills and equipment. As Congress’ comptroller, the General Accountability Office should study whether assistance is fulfilling U.S. human rights policy objectives. Instead its reports focus on limited questions of efficiency in the use of funds. A GAO evaluation of Plan Colombia last year, for example, that was two years in the making, didn’t once address the impacts on respect for human rights – for good or bad – of the $5 billion in U.S. military aid to Colombia since 2000.

In Colombia, progress on human rights is measured by macro-factors, such as overall levels of political violence, instead of by violations by the institutions that were directly assisted by the United States or by the extent that those violations were prosecuted in civilian courts. The result is that, while political violence has diminished as a result of dominion by the State and – in many areas – the mafia, over insurgent groups, killings of civilians by the Army trained and equipped by the United States has risen dramatically, 72% since 2002.

The Colombian military’s long history of gross human rights abuses should have suggested long ago that the departments of State and Defense evaluate their military training for human rights. But although international military training aims to “emphasize an understanding of internationally recognized human rights,” the military doesn’t evaluate human rights performance, either. The U.S. Southern Command, for example, typically measures success of training by promotions of officers receiving assistance, by the officers’ positive image of the United States, and whether they rise to positions of prominence such as defense attaché, or even the presidency.

Addressing the Problem
Today, a reform process of the Foreign Assistance Act undertaken by the House Foreign Affairs Committee offers an unprecedented opportunity to require periodic and comprehensive evaluation of the human rights impacts of U.S. military assistance. As part of such evaluation, the government should establish an independent commission to investigate the past activities of U.S. military schools, and make recommendations to establish safeguards to prevent violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. The commission should include representatives of relevant government agencies, as well as human rights organizations and academics. Most importantly, such a commission should be given access to detailed data on who has received U.S. assistance and on human rights violations over long periods.

Periodic evaluation of the human rights performance of military training beneficiaries could draw on information already gathered by U.S. embassies from local courts, human rights NGOs, intelligence and enforcement agencies, and media reports. Basic criteria for evaluation should include whether there are credible reports of beneficiaries or troops under their command committing gross human rights abuses, and whether civilian courts are successfully trying those crimes. This evaluation should be transparent and made available to the public, and it should apply to assistance given through the Defense Department and other agencies, as well as the State Department.

Policymakers aren’t given to asking “why” questions. In the case of the human rights performance of client armies viewed as strategic allies, however, we should all be asking: If the United States is excluding abusive units from assistance, and training the rest in human rights, why so many of these armies continue abuse and kill their civilian compatriots? In the meantime, where the results of U.S. assistance are executions, torture, forced displacement, and other violations, the Obama administration should terminate military aid and cooperation.

© 2009 Foreign Policy In Focus

Surveillance Society

0

Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary, writes:

Good Government is about achieving a sensible balance. We need to protect our society against those who would destroy it. But if we throw away the founding principles of a democratic state to do so, then we are doing the terrorists work for them. So I think that whenever we look at security issues, and potential new weapons for the fight against terror, we should ask one simple question – will this improve the protection of our citizens without undermining our core freedoms? Too often this Government has failed to find the right balance. Indeed, they seem to have lost any sense of proportion about the things that they are doing. The terrorist threat has become an excuse for introducing draconian new powers, and those powers have developed mission creep which means that the intrusion of the state seems to be spreading across our society.

We will seek to restore that balance.

So we will continue with the introduction of biometric passports – but we will scrap the compulsory ID cards that this Government seems to determined to pursue.

We will retain the electronic systems that will record who enters and leaves our country – but we will end the situation where the Government plans to store full details of the holidays, companions and payment details of every citizen for a decade.

We will end the mission creep for anti-terror laws, and limit the use of surveillance powers to the investigation of serious crimes. There is no place for the use of intercept evidence in council tax enforcement.

And there will be no giant big brother databases established under a Conservative Government.

It really is time for a change.

Torture case lawyers may face jail for letter

0

A former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who accused a Bay Area company of flying him to foreign torture chambers for the CIA is at the center of a bizarre new case, in which his lawyers face possible jail sentences for writing a letter that asked President Obama to disclose how brutally he was treated.

The government says the letter falsely accused a Pentagon review team of censoring details of the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed from a document the attorneys wanted to send to Obama. The lawyers stand by their accusations but have been summoned to Washington, D.C., by a federal judge for a hearing next month on whether they should be held in contempt of court, punishable by up to six months in jail.

Mohamed, meanwhile, awaits a ruling from the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on whether he and four other men can sue a Boeing Co. subsidiary in San Jose for allegedly colluding with the CIA to violate their rights.

The suit accuses the company, Jeppesen Dataplan, of taking part in “extraordinary rendition,” the practice of abducting suspects without extradition or legal proceedings and taking them to foreign countries or CIA prisons for interrogation. The plaintiffs’ evidence includes a statement attributed to a Jeppesen director in 2006 that the company handled torture flights. Jeppesen has denied wrongdoing.

At an appeals court hearing Feb. 9, an Obama administration lawyer endorsed the Bush administration’s previous argument that the suit should be dismissed because it could expose state secrets about the rendition program and U.S. foreign relations.

Mohamed, a native of Ethiopia who lives in Britain, was freed two weeks after the hearing from nearly seven years in captivity, the last four at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and turned over to U.S. authorities as a suspected terrorist and Taliban fighter. Mohamed said he had been beaten, hung from a pole and held in darkness and isolation at a CIA prison in Afghanistan and that his genitals were slashed with a razor blade by guards in Morocco before he was sent to Guantanamo.

He said the charges against him were based on confessions extracted by torture. Those charges were dropped before he was released.

The charges against his attorneys stem from their effort to make the details of Mohamed’s treatment public after a British court ruled last year that there was evidence he had been tortured, but deleted that evidence from its ruling at the insistence of the Bush administration.

Seeking to release evidence

The attorneys, Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour of the British human-rights group Reprieve, drafted a letter to Obama on Feb. 9 urging him to release the evidence or to authorize Britain to do so.

They wrote that they were first presenting the letter and a document summarizing the classified evidence to the Defense Department’s Privilege Review Team, which monitors lawyer-client correspondence at Guantanamo, to clear it for forwarding to the president.

If the Pentagon refused to pass the evidence on to Obama, the lawyers said in the letter, they would send him a blacked-out document and advise him that he was being “denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by U.S. personnel.”

What happened next is disputed. According to the lawyers, Ghappour submitted the classified memo to the Privilege Review Team four times, removing more material each time, but the team ultimately refused to clear any of the material to be sent to Obama. Shortly afterward, Smith and Ghappour sent the letter and a blacked-out sheet to the president and released them to the media.

But the government, in court papers, said Ghappour approached a member of the review team with the classified document Feb. 10 and was told that the team had no authority to declassify such information, and that he should submit it to a security officer or a Justice Department lawyer.

Ghappour returned with the blacked-out document, asked for clearance, and got it approved after assuring the team member that he would send it only to Mohamed and not to Obama, government lawyers said.

Letter called deceptive

They said the letter that Mohamed’s lawyers sent to Obama the next day falsely accused the review team of concealing information from the president and was used to “deceive the press and the public” about the review team’s role.

Citing the government’s allegations, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan ordered the two attorneys to appear before him May 11 and face charges that they violated terms of the agreement they signed to gain access to the Guantanamo prisoners they represented. He did not specify the violations.

Smith and Ghappour filed their reply under seal but have denied breaching the agreement.

‘Deeply troubling’

David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor and legal commentator who is not involved in the case, said it was “deeply troubling” that lawyers could be punished for writing a letter to Obama about a secrecy decision that is ultimately the president’s responsibility. But he said the bigger problem was the Bush administration’s decision to classify all information about its treatment of Mohamed.

“This was classification to hide its own criminal wrongdoing, and the people Judge Hogan really ought to be calling in are those who decided to classify this stuff in the first place,” Cole said.

Smith, the director of Reprieve and attorney for more than 50 prisoners who have been held at Guantanamo, told The Chronicle he was unable to discuss his case publicly. But in an interview April 7 on Pacific Radio’s Democracy Now, he called the contempt charges “frivolous” and said he would come to the United States for the hearing.

“I want the real issue to be why the government continues to cover up the evidence of Binyam’s torture,” Smith said.

This article appeared on page B – 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Soldier suicides up to 56 in 2009

1

As many as 13 soldiers are believed to have killed themselves in March, bringing the number of reported soldier suicides this year to 56, officials announced April 10.

None of the March cases under investigation have been confirmed, but about 90 percent of deaths involved in such investigations typically are ruled to be suicides.

The March total marks a decrease in suicides compared with the first two months of the year.

As many as 24 suicides were reported in January, but on March 4 officials removed one case because it was determined that the soldier was no longer on active duty when he died. Of the 23 remaining cases, 14 are confirmed suicides; nine are pending a determination.

Eight soldiers killed themselves in February, and the deaths of 10 others were still being investigated. Since the Army initially reported its February numbers, two other deaths also have come under investigation as possible suicides.

In all, 56 confirmed and suspected suicides have been reported across the Army since Jan. 1. Of the 56, 22 are confirmed suicides, 34 are pending.

According to data from the Army, all 13 suspected suicides from March involved male soldiers.

The Army has charged Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli with the service’s suicide prevention efforts, introduced new training materials, and ordered stand-downs and chain-teach sessions in an effort to curb suicide numbers that have risen steadily for four years.

As many as 143 soldier suicides were reported in 2008, the fourth year in a row the Army has seen an increase in suicides, and leaders have said factors such as the stress of deployments and personal relationships played a role in the deaths.

But Chiarelli also has said that the cause of the mounting suicides is not so clear-cut.

About a third of the soldiers who committed suicide in 2008 had no deployment experience, a third killed themselves while deployed overseas, and the rest had deployed before but were home at the time of their deaths.

In addition, the percentage of suicides among soldiers with multiple deployments was much smaller than among those with one deployment, and about 50 percent of the 143 soldiers who killed themselves in 2008 had sought help from mental health care providers.

Of the 143 cases, 128 were enlisted soldiers; 41 were in combat arms military occupational specialties; 85 were married; 134 were men; 110 were white.

“The Army’s charter is more about improving the physical, mental and spiritual health of our soldiers and their families than solely focusing on suicide prevention,” Chiarelli said in an April 10 statement. “If we do the first, we are convinced that the second will happen.”

Chiarelli recently completed an eight-day suicide prevention trip that included visits to six major Army posts. In his travels and in discussions with the media, Chiarelli has emphasized eliminating the stigma attached to seeking mental health care.

“Any soldier, from private to general, may need help at some time in their Army career,” he said. “Seeking that help, without fear of stigma, has to become second nature in our Army community; it has to become part of our culture.”

By the numbers

In March, 13 soldiers’ deaths were suspected to be suicides, pending confirmation.

 

– All were male

– Six were married, seven were single

– Three were deployed when they died

– 11 were enlisted, ranging in rank from E-1 through E-7

– Of the two officers, one was a chief warrant officer 2, the other a first lieutenant

– Two had deployed three times, three had deployed twice, six had deployed once and two had never deployed

Fronting up to fascism

2

Hope Not Hate, the anti-racist campaign group, faces perhaps its toughest challenge to date in its bid to prevent the fascist BNP gaining seats in the coming European elections.

The elections are a key goal for the BNP and provide its best hope of making significant electoral gain. The traditionally low turnout for EU elections coupled with the use of the d’Hondt system of proportional representation favours small parties such as the BNP if they are able to mobilise their supporters.

The demise of the UK Independence Party and the current economic situation, which is seeing more and more disenfranchised voters casting around for an alternative to the mainstream parties, could also play into the fascists hands.

But according to one of Hope Not Hate’s key organisers, the anti-nazi campaign has garnered more support than ever from diverse quarters including the Church of England and trade unionists.

The campaign to defeat the fascists at the ballot box has even received transatlantic backing.

Blue State Digital the campaign group credited with invigorating the Obama presidential campaign, has joined with Hope Not Hate and the partnership is already reaping dividends.

A spokesman for Blue State says: “Blue State Digital’s strategy and production teams are supporting Searchlight’s Hope Not Hate campaign in the UK to stop the fascist British National Party winning a seat in June’s European election.

“BSD will be working closely with Searchlight – developing messaging, email and fundraising campaigns to help supporters organise and mobilise – and then fight back against the BNP message of racism, intolerance and hate.”

While mainstream politicians, with a few honourable exceptions, are only belatedly waking up to the growing threat of the extremist right-wing BNP, Hope Not Hate has been consistent in highlighting and exposing the hypocrisy and insidious racism of the BNP and other far-right groups.

Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate explains how the alliance with Blue State came about and also why he feels the European election campaign is not a lost cause.

“The alliance with Blue State came about in two ways,” says Lowles.

“The person who set up the European arm of the company is a friend of mine and we both worked on John Cruddas’s campaign.

“Secondly, last October we took a delegation of trade unionists to the US and met up with Blue State while we were there. They agreed to work with us on this important issue as they see our cause as a positive campaign which they wished to be involved with.”

What has the partnership meant for Hope not Hate and its campaigning?

“It has provided us with an organising tool which allows us to build up a much larger network of supporters,” explains Lowles.

“In the last two months we have built up a database of 28,000 people and we are only really starting – we hope to increase that to around 60,000 to 80,000.

“Trade unionists have huge email lists, but now we have a huge number of people actively joining us.

“We have already seen a phenomenal response. We helped get the BNP march in Liverpool stopped and we will soon be unveiling our online campaign.

“We will be providing materials for people to organise events and opposition to the BNP themselves in their local areas.”

Hope Not hate has also made major inroads into the Church of England.

Until recently, the church has, at least publicly, distanced itself from politics.

But in recent months, key figures in the Anglican faith have put their heads above the parapet to condemn the BNP as hatemongers and cynical opportunists whose beliefs are anathema to Christian teachings.

Bishop of Manchester Nigel McCulloch recently addressed the city council on the perils of ignoring the growing fascist threat and urged support for the Hope Not Hate campaign.

The BNP recently polled 23 per cent of the vote in the Moston council elections in north Manchester and have polled similarly elsewhere in the area.

Addressing Manchester city council, the bishop said the BNP would “seek political success in this year’s European elections by preaching a message of division and hatred.

“They will use racism and other prejudice to challenge the very diversity which strengthens our city. They will exploit the difficult times which presently face our country, trying to turn one community against the other.

“They will use difference as a scapegoat because they have nothing else to offer in response to the issues we face.”

Bishop of Bradford David James has also spoken out on the issue, saying that BNP policies were incompatible with the church.

Commenting on the church’s response, Lowles said: “What we are seeing is a concerted effort within the church and among all other faith groups.

“We are also now seeing cross-party support for our campaign. We are facing a big threat, but I think our campaign will be far bigger than it has in the past.

“I would urge people not to be despondent about the Moston vote. In the north-west alone we have got 9,000 people who have joined our campaign online who are all determined to help tackle the threat.”

Copyright Morning Star

UN rebuke on racism conference boycott

0

TOP UN officials have slammed “a handful” of Western countries for boycotting a UN conference on racism as the meeting kicked off in Geneva on Monday.

One hundred and three countries are participating in the five-day Durban Review Conference, which aims to evaluate progress toward the goals set by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa in 2001.

But the United States has decided to boycott the conference, asserting that the draft final document contains “objectionable references” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the 2001 declaration, which equated zionism with racism.

As the conference began, Poland joined the US, Israel, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and New Zealand in staying away from the meeting.

In his opening speech before thousands of ministers, diplomats and dignitaries, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon warned that racism “may be institutionalised, as the Holocaust will always remind us” and can also manifest itself more generally, “as anti-Semitism, for example, or the newer Islamophobia.”

Mr Ban warned that “today’s economic crisis, if not handled properly, could evolve into a full-scale political crisis marked by social unrest,” emphasising that, “in such circumstances, the consequences for communities already victimised by prejudice or exclusion could be frightening.”

Mr Ban went on to say that “some nations who by rights should be helping us to forge a path to a better future are not here.

“I deeply regret that some have chosen to stand aside – I hope they will not do so for long.”

UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay charged that “a handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to anti-racism, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of numerous groups of people that suffer racism on a daily basis all across the world.

“It is essential that they are discussed at a global level, however sensitive and difficult they may be,” Ms Pillay stressed.

“I fail to see why, given that the Middle East is not mentioned in this document, that politics related to the Middle East continue to intrude into the process,” she added.

Swiss human rights consultant Yves Lador suggested that some Western countries cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that “the problem of the colonial legacy is still here, still causing frustration and anger in the former colonies.

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perceived in the formerly colonised countries as a continuation of colonisation,” Mr Lador said. “There is an identification with the Palestinians, whose territory was colonised by Israel.”

Some Western delegates walked out of the conference hall yesterday during Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech, in which he described the Israeli government as “racist.”

Copyright Morning Star

Police threatened G20 activists with Tasers

0

By Justin Davenport, Martin Bentham and Kiran Randhawa |

SCOTLAND Yard today admitted that Territorial Support Group officers pointed Taser stun guns in a raid on protesters connected with the G20
demonstration.

Two new videos show the protesters were lying on the ground with their hands in the air when police burst into the squat in east London.

The footage shows one officer pointing the 50,000-volt weapon at a group sitting on the floor of the Earl Street squat in Bishopsgate.

The videos have raised questions over whether the use of the Taser contravened police guidelines.

These state the weapon should only be ­­drawn or fired when there is a risk of serious violence, for instance when a dangerous suspect is armed with a knife.

Scotland Yard said Tasers were not fired during the raid but were issued because of intelligence that they faced a serious threat.

Metropolitan Police Authority member Jenny Jones said she was concerned about the deployment of Tasers saying: “I would like to know if they went through all the correct procedures.”

Today the Met confirmed TSG officers led the raid on the squat.

A spokeswoman said: “A risk assessment was carried out to cover a dynamic entry into unknown properties and the nature of the intelligence police had relating to who may be inside. As a result Taser was authorised to be taken on the operation.”

Hannah McClure, 21, who was at the squat, said: “We sat on the floor with our hands up showing our peaceful intentions. Dozens of riot police entered. I remember seeing one officer with a Taser gun. He pointed it at us and yelled at us to lie face down and with arms stretched out. Very direct and abusive language was used.

“I heard one guy received more abuse because he was filming. They took the guy away and later I heard him yell, Help, I need a medic’.

“I lay on the ground for around 30 minutes and was then handcuffed, searched and detained on the suspicion of violent behaviour. I was left psychologically and emotionally drained, shocked at the tactics used by police. I feel legal action should be taken for this unnecessary and violent raid.”

Dom Marsh, 26, another demonstrator in the squat, said: “It was terrifying. They rushed in and one was carrying this Taser. He faced the room with his legs apart and was pointing it at people. We were all really shocked. One of the people next to me was filming it. He got hit with a baton. Anyone who was not lying on their front got hit.”

In a separate development today, one of Parliament’s most senior MPs said police should be made to display their names as well as numbers to make them more easily accountable. Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs select committee, also said this would “humanise” officers and improve relations with the public.

“We have to think about humanising the police and make them more accountable and that means showing their names, which are much easier for the public to remember.”

Mr Vaz’s call came as MPs prepared to launch a new inquiry into the policing of public protests and a separate probe into the handling of cases by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The first inquiry will begin tomorrow when the IPCC’s chairman Nick Hardwick and the new Chief Inspector of Constabulary Denis O’Connor appear before the committee to face questioning about the G20 protests.

It is expected to be followed by further hearings if MPs agree more witnesses should give testimony on the police’s controversial “kettling” tactic and alleged brutality by some officers.

The second inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the IPCC will take place later this year, although Mr Hardwick will also be challenged about this during tomorrow’s hearing.

Mr Vaz added he wanted to see a Parliamentary statement or debate on the G20 protests, but said the home affairs select committee hearings would help fill the void by allowing MPs to discuss police tactics.

“There have been calls for a public debate on this and Denis O’Connor has been asked to conduct a review by the Met, but Parliament should not be left out of this,” he said.

Meanwhile, the joint Human Rights Committee, which published a critical report into public order policing, is considering re-opening its inquiry in the wake of the G20 protests.

Amnesty International Calls on Chinese Authorities to End Harassment, Beating of Human Rights Activist’s Wife

0

WASHINGTON – April 20 – Amnesty International calls on the Shangdong authorities to stop the continuing harassment of Yuan Weijing, the wife of imprisoned legal activist Chen Guangcheng, who has been under virtual house arrest since 2005.

Yuan Weijing was forcibly returned to her home by nine men as she was leaving to visit her grieving family following the death of her brother in law, Luo Kengren. She was punched and kicked by the men while being dragged back to her house.

“The continued virtual house arrest of Yuan Weijing is illegal. While national authorities are touting the new National Human Rights Action Plan, we see local authorities flagrantly violating the law in this case,” said Roseann Rife, Amnesty International’s deputy program director for Asia and the Pacific.  

“Beating up the wife of a human rights activist as she attempts to reach her grieving family deserves wide condemnation.”

Yuan Weijing’s husband, legal activist Chen Guangcheng, 38, was sentenced to four-years-and-three-months’ imprisonment for “intentionally damaging property” and “gathering a crowd to block traffic.” Chen Guangcheng had been campaigning on the alleged forced abortions and sterilizations in pursuit of birth quotas that affected thousands of local women. Human rights activists believe this was the real reason why he was put under house arrest alongside his wife in 2005 and imprisoned in 2006.

Yuan Weijing has never been charged or tried for a criminal offense. She has experienced several violent encounters with local authorities over the years, as they have prevented her from meeting journalists and lawyers. The couple’s children have been prevented from registering at school.  

Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist organization with more than 2.2 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the public, and works to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.

###

We are people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights. Our purpose is to protect people wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied. We investigate and expose abuses, educate and mobilize the public, and help transform societies to create a safer, more just world.

The Torturers Among Us

0

By Matt Welch |

Torture, as the former vice-president’s [recent] words suggest, is a critical issue in the present of our politics–and not only because of ongoing investigations by Senate committees, or because of calls for an independent inquiry by congressional leaders, or for a “truth commission” by a leading Senate Democrat, or because of demands for a criminal investigation by the ACLU and other human rights organizations, and now undertaken in Spain, the United Kingdom, and Poland. For many in the United States, torture still stands as a marker of political commitment–of a willingness to “do anything to protect the American people,” a manly readiness to know when to abstain from “coddling terrorists” and do what needs to be done. Torture’s powerful symbolic role, like many ugly, shameful facts, is left unacknowledged and undiscussed. But that doesn’t make it any less real. On the contrary.

Don’t know about you, but the revelation that the United States of America was actively torturing people, and that there was a built-in cheering/apologia section for the project (including some self-styled libertarians), was my very own private National Pants-Shitting Moment (NPSM). To extend the bad metaphor a bit too far, from those days forward nothing ever really smelled the same, particularly the hot air (and Hot Air) emanating from those sections of the polity who either downplayed or defended the practice. As Cathy Young once put it around these parts, “It is a shocking sign of the times that we are having a debate about the appropriateness of torture.”

Partly because of that shocking fact, coupled with the happier development that the two major-party candidates for president were both at least rhetorically anti-torture, at some point, after an early head start, I stopped having that debate altogether. A pervasive Bush-fatigue also contributed, as did the NPSM of the economic crisis, which is ongoing and massive.

But as much as that latter crisis places me in daily opposition to Barack Hussein Obama, I am glad indeed that the new guy is dumping these documents into the public domain, and reminding us afresh of Mark Danner’s point: That there is a large and active contingent in the population who thinks that torture is an acceptable price to pay for the national defense. A stance that, among many other more serious flaws, takes as granted that the stuff works with anything approaching regularity. I don’t know if our long national nightmare is over just yet, but I’m certainly more optimistic about this particular toxic asset than I have been in a long time.

FBI database use to remain secret

0

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 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.

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.

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 H. Holder Jr. promptly beat Obama’s deadline by two months for issuing new guidelines that urged release unless “foreseeable harm” would result.

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.

Michael J. Sniffen

Britain Sleep Walks Into a Police State as Political Dissent is Criminalised

0

Julie Hyland writes: “From foul deeds endless tragedy arises,” the World Socialist Web Site wrote, commenting on the state execution of innocent Brazilian worker, Jean Charles de Menezes, by plainclothes policemen on a London subway train on July 22, 2005.

Events have tragically confirmed that warning. In the years since Menezes’ killing, for which no one has ever been held to account, the legal framework of a police state has been enacted in Britain.

The implications of this have been made clear over the last weeks.

Since the start of April, some 300 people have been arrested and detained in just three police operations. The vast majority of these were rounded up in two of these operations, both focusing on a supposed threat to “public order”.

Maintaining public order is now a pseudonym for the criminalising of political dissent.

Even before the G20 summit of world leaders began in London, five people were arrested in Plymouth under the Terrorism Act, reportedly accused of possessing “material relating to political ideology”.

All were released without charge, but the fact that political activism is considered a criminal offence in 21st century Britain was subsequently writ large on the streets of the capital.

Beginning April 1, a massive police operation was set in place around the G20 summit. Hundreds of people, legally exercising their right to protest, were “kettled”–forcibly held behind police cordons for up to seven hours–in the side streets of central London.

It was behind one of these cordons that Ian Tomlinson–attempting to make his way home after work–was attacked from behind by a baton-wielding masked police officer. He died moments later.

Eyewitness accounts, video footage and photo stills provide conclusive proof that the police’s attack against Tomlinson was par for the course during the protests.

The police actions had nothing to do with ensuring “public safety”. If anything, they constituted a deliberate attempt to provoke disorder as the pretext for further repression. This is underscored by evidence of plain-clothes officers armed with batons striking out at demonstrators, as well as the participation of the Territorial Support Group–a special quasi-paramilitary police unit which was involved in several of the most publicised incidents, and whose identification numbers were concealed.

Downloads of film footage of the police in action at the G20 protests is said to be particularly high in Brazil–Menezes’ birthplace, and a country bitterly familiar with police savagery against political dissidents.

For good reason, the government attempted to ensure that its “public order” policy would not see the light of day. While police now routinely photograph and demand the identification and addresses of people taking part in lawful demonstrations, watching the watchers is illegal in New Labour’s Orwellian dystopia.

Less than one month before the protests, section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 came into force, providing for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone taking photographs of police officers.

In one instance during the G20 protests, recorded on camera, police officers instructed photographers and news crews to leave the vicinity within 30 minutes or face arrest.

This in a country whose population is now one of the most heavily surveilled in the world. The UK has the greatest concentration of closed circuit TV cameras per head of population. Moreover, without any parliamentary debate let alone public consent, recent legislation has compelled all Internet service providers to retain data from emails and website visits for up to one year. Details of phone calls and text messages can be similarly stored, and made available to the government and other official agencies.

As if such powers were not enough for police to be aware of the movements of any potentially “significant” individuals, on April 13, police in Nottingham carried out the unprecedented “pre-emptive” arrests of 114 people. No crime had been committed. The arrests were made purely on the basis that the police “suspected” a plan by environmentalists to target a power station in Nottingham. While no charges have as yet been made, the arrests were used to mount a trawling operation, raiding homes and seizing personal papers and computers.

In between the London and Nottingham operations, police in the north-west of England mounted major “anti-terror” raids, involving dozens of armed officers. Twelve men, mainly foreign students, were detained as part of what was claimed to be an operation against an imminent terrorist attack.

Once again no charges have been made. Under British anti-terror laws, suspects can be held for 28 days without charge. It is widely reported that no evidence has so far been recovered to substantiate claims of a terrorist emergency.

All the recent police operations are predicated on the more than 200 pieces of separate anti-terror legislation enacted by the Labour government over the last years, and consolidated in the Terrorism Act 2006 which criminalises the mere expression of opinion deemed unacceptable by the Home Secretary.

At the time, then Prime Minister Tony Blair defended the measures on the grounds that political exigencies meant the “rules of the game” had changed.

This established a new legal principle–guilty on the say-so of the powers-that-be. The “rules” now in operation are those where armed police swoops and the targeting of political dissent is a matter of routine. In February this year, in a move which received barely any coverage, the Association of Chief Police Officers set up the Confidential Intelligence Unit, targeted at “domestic extremists”. Assuming the “counter-subversion” functions usually conducted by MI5, the CIU is dedicated to the surveillance of radical groups, including placing informers amongst their numbers.

The assault on civil liberties is not specific to Britain. It is a tendency evidenced throughout the so-called “advanced democracies”. Indeed proclamations of “democracy” increasingly function as a thin veneer, behind which the state has abrogated to itself near autocratic powers.

That this finds no principled opposition from within the ruling establishment or its liberal “critics” must serve as a warning.

The essential driving force behind the adoption of such dictatorial methods is not the maintenance of “public order”, but the need to defend the existing order, preserving the wealth and power of a privileged few at the expense of working people under conditions of the greatest breakdown in the world capitalist economy since the 1930s.

The defence of democratic rights requires breaking the monopoly of the financial oligarchy and its representatives over political life. This can only be achieved through the independent initiative of the working class, fighting for the reorganisation of society on a socialist basis.

RIPA review proves snoopers’ charter got out of hand

Commenting on Government review into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Huhne said: “This consultation is a tacit admission by the Government that its surveillance society has got out of hand.”

“For too long, powers we were told would be used to fight terrorism and organised crime have been used to spy on people’s kids, pets and bins.

“Without reform, RIPA will continue to be a snoopers’ charter. Surveillance powers should only be used to investigate serious crimes and must require a magistrate’s warrant.

“Ministers must ensure that this consultation results in real changes and not just warm words.”

Labour is stifling the right to protest

0

The news that government officials have been passing intelligence on climate change activists to a power company serves to underline the unhealthy closeness between big business and the British government during the Labour years. What was traditionally thought to be a Tory weakness is now palpably a Labour one, for the government is not just enthralled by polluters but also those international giants that are intent on selling surveillance systems; think of the expensive bits of hard and software which have been, or are being, purchased for e-Borders, identity cards and communications interception and storage.

It is these systems which form the heart of the surveillance state that now allows government agencies to track innocent protestors who happen to disagree with official policy. With automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras covering every major road and city centre in Britain and the police building a vast database of protestors — for which read dissidents — it is possible to know where activists are in real time, and make conclusions about their intentions — information that is very useful to a company like E.ON. Add in the data from emails, web traffic and mobile phone use and you can achieve a total lockdown on rightful protest and assembly.

That is exactly what we are now witnessing with climate change protest. This revelation, prised from the grasp of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) by FoI requests made by Liberal Democrats, show us that the authorities and big business regard themselves as almost the same entity when it comes to dealing with protestors.

It is clear that many of the surveillance systems, which we are told by government supporters in the press are for our own good and present no threat to innocent people, have been turned on legitimate protest. Activism, as I pointed out in the Observer, is being encouraged by Ed Miliband as an important driver in gaining the right international agreements on CO2 emissions. Cif posters have noticed the same bizarre hypocrisy and it must be now incumbent on the energy secretary to have a word with the business secretary, Lord Mandelson, and make some kind of statement on government attitude to climate change activists. It is quite simple: are they regarded as enemies or friends?

Even if they are deemed to be enemies by E.ON, BERR and the police, they still have the right to privacy, assembly, and lawful protest.

What is especially galling is that the government and police are using taxpayers money to fund systems that undermine Britain’s rights and traditions of protest, without the slightest awareness that they are our servants being paid by our money. What a sorry state of affairs! What a disgraceful, unprincipled bunch now occupy the major positions of influence and power in this country!

But you know what really worries me? It is the meagre response of the Conservatives on all these great matters of principle. Apart from damning the affairs of the two Damians, which were about the narrow world of Westminster, there have been no statements or speeches doing the big analysis on the moral catastrophe that is now our government. They must acknowledge the totality of Labour’s corruption, and state that they understand the rights of those who oppose official policy, and will do so under any future Tory government.

Source

SEO / Internet marketing zine exposes marketing secrets

3

A SEO & Internet marketing zine has launched a new free video series exposing some of the secret methods that big online retailers use to snare in new customers and get them spending in droves.

The Get More Sales zine has ingeniously positioned itself as the white knight of Internet marketing by releasing little known tactics to help small businesses, sole traders and home based businesses get ahead in the current financial climate.

front-imageConsumers also gain valuable information that raises their awareness of when they are being manipulated by sales hype and cleverly worded headlines; however site creator ‘MTJ’ states: “We want to help the little guys who are just trying to get by and feed their families, if consumers can become savvier through the process that’s really great. The main focus is on self empowering people to make money for themselves, help them escape their mundane jobs and start living the kind of life they deserve. It’s easily done if you have the right knowledge, and we provide that knowledge.”

The new email video series is available for free at the zine’s website.

Judge rejects bid to derail wiretap challenge

0

A San Francisco federal judge rejected on Friday the Obama administration’s attempt to derail a challenge to former President George W. Bush’s electronic surveillance program by withholding a critical wiretap document.

President Obama’s Justice Department had appeared to defy a previous order by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to allow lawyers for an Islamic organization to see the classified document, which reportedly showed that the group had been wiretapped. The document, which the government accidentally sent to the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, could establish its right to sue over the legality of the program.

Justice Department lawyers told Walker in February that he had no power to enforce his order, and indicated they would remove the document from his files if he planned to disclose it to Al-Haramain’s lawyers. But after a federal appeals court denied the department’s request to intervene, Walker told the government Friday to cooperate.

“The United States should now comply with the court’s orders,” the judge said. He told lawyers for the administration and Al-Haramain to work out a protective order by May 8 that would maintain the document’s secrecy after it had been shown to the Islamic group’s lawyers.

If the two sides can’t agree, Walker said, he will issue his own protective order “under which this case may resume forward progress.”

The Justice Department said it was reviewing the order.

The case is one of two before Walker challenging the constitutionality of the program that Bush secretly authorized in 2001 to intercept phone calls and e-mails between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without seeking a court warrant, as required by a 1978 law.

Al-Haramain, a now-defunct charity, inadvertently obtained a document in 2004 that reportedly showed it had been wiretapped that year during an investigation that led to its placement on the government’s terrorist list.

The organization returned the document and has been barred from using it to establish that it was a target of the surveillance program and had a right to sue over its legality. But Walker ruled in January that Al-Haramain had shown through officials’ public statements that it had probably been wiretapped.

In response, the Justice Department said access to the document was controlled by the National Security Agency, which has determined that Al-Haramain’s lawyers are not entitled to see it.

Jon Eisenberg, a lawyer for Al-Haramain, said Friday the next step is for him and a colleague who have passed FBI background checks to review the document under security measures approved by Walker, and try to prove that the organization was wiretapped without court approval.

This article appeared on page A – 6 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Spanish judge keeps Guantanamo probe alive

0

A Spanish judge considering possible criminal action against six former Bush administration officials for torture at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay defied pressure to drop the case Friday.

But Judge Baltasar Garzon, internationally known for trying to extradite former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, accepted that he might not personally take charge of any eventual criminal investigation into officials including former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

 

Thursday, Spain’s attorney general said Garzon should dismiss the complaint brought by human rights lawyers calling for the officials to be prosecuted.

 

In a ruling Friday, Garzon ignored this advice but also avoided a direct confrontation with the attorney general’s office by submitting the case to a lottery system which will now assign it at random to one of the six high court judges.

 

“Let it be assigned to the corresponding court,” Garzon said in the ruling.

 

The judge who gets the case will now have to decide whether to go ahead of it. Under the system, Garzon will have a one in six chance of getting the case back.

 

Under Spanish law, jurisdiction can be claimed in the case because five Spanish citizens or residents who were prisoners at U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, say they were tortured there.

 

Attorney General Candido Conde-Pumpido said the case should not be accepted because if anyone should be investigated for torture at Guantanamo it should be those who carried it out.

 

U.S. President Barack Obama also spoke out against the proposed investigation Thursday, saying he would prefer not to focus on past events at Guantanamo, which he has promised to close.

 

The other Americans named in the accusation are William Haynes II, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote secret legal opinions saying President George W. Bush had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, Yoo’s former boss at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; and David Addington, chief of staff and legal adviser to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney.

 

(Reporting by Jason Webb; Editing by Angus MacSwan)

Police ‘ignored warnings’ that tactics will kill

0

Authorities were warned three months before the death of Ian Tomlinson that someone would be killed if a wave of savage attacks by police on demonstrators was allowed to continue, the Morning Star can reveal.

Orchestrated brutality by masked and unidentified police officers has been more and more common in recent years, causing campaigners to question whether such incidents of violence and the attempts to cover them up are at least tacitly approved of by senior ranking officers.

On January 3 this year, several thousand protesters on a march organised by the Stop the War Coalition (StWC) were on their way to the Israeli embassy in London when they were herded into an underpass at Hyde Park and baton-charged by riot squad officers.

So severe was the attack that organisers said it was amazing no-one was killed.

As a result of the incident, the StWC wrote to police and the Home Office warning them that such tactics would lead to people being killed.

This month, the veracity of this claim was proven in graphic fashion with the tragic death of Mr Tomlinson moments after he was assaulted by a balaclava-wearing, un-numbered police officer at the G20 protests.

StWC national officer Chris Nineham insisted on Sunday that Mr Tomlinson’s death was not – as the authorities are attempting to paint it – an isolated incident but the “inevitable result of a wave of police brutality” that began during the anti-Bush demonstrations of 2007.

Mr Nineham added that the results of a second post-mortem on Mr Tomlinson, which revealed that he had died of internal bleeding and not a heart attack as originally claimed, “makes a mockery of all police statements about this incident and increases the likelihood that Ian Tomlinson’s death was the result of a police attack.”

He explained: “On January 3, we organised a demonstration about the ongoing situation in Gaza. Between 5,000 and 7,000 people were marching to the Israeli embassy when the police corralled us into an underpass at Hyde Park.

“Three or four columns of riot police then repeatedly charged us and savagely attacked demonstrators. It was absolutely terrifying, we all thought someone was going to die. It was a totally unprovoked and vicious attack.

“We officially complained to the police and the Home Office. We told the authorities that the police were going to kill someone and now that appears to have happened.”

Much has been made of the practice of officers removing or concealing their identifying numbers during protests. This is far from a new or isolated development, said Mr Nineham.

“We have seen it many, many times before on different protests.

“There seem to be two official responses. One is to say that senior and middle-ranking officers are not obliged to wear a number and second that it is the work of one or two bad apples.

“Even if it was one or two officers, they would not be able to do it without the implicit support of senior officers. Clearly, at the very least, this is an accepted procedure,” he stormed.

Copyright Morning Star

Government apologises for torture cover-up

1

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

“War Crimes” Memos Questioned

0

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.

Obama presidency keeps some Bush secrets

0

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

Councils’ surveillance powers under review

0

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.”

The grim RIPA and the Surveillance state

0

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.

The grim RIPA and the Surveillance state

UK torture collusion ‘widespread’

0

British involvement in the mistreatment of terrorism suspects abroad is wider than previously reported, a human rights group has claimed.

Cageprisoners – which campaigns on terror detention – said there were 29 cases of security service involvement with tortured or mistreated suspects.

One case cited, of Moroccan-born Farid Hilali, pre-dates the 9/11 attacks.

UK authorities deny collusion but say interrogating suspects in foreign prisons yields valuable intelligence.

Responding to the latest claims from Cageprisoners the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said it took any allegations of mistreatment or torture “seriously”.

“The UK’s position on torture is clear. We abhor torture. We don’t participate, solicit, encourage or condone it. We unreservedly condemn extraordinary rendition for torture,” said a statement.

‘War on terror’

The allegations include rendition – where suspects are moved between countries for questioning – and interrogation of suspects by MI5, MI6 and the SAS in foreign prisons where they have been tortured or otherwise mistreated.

All of the alleged mistreatment took place abroad and the Cageprisoners report lists a number of countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and Kenya.

A number of those making allegations were transferred to and then released from Guantanamo Bay, while others are serving prison sentences in Britain for terrorism offences.

Farid Hilali, a Moroccan man who had been living in Britain, has said he was questioned by British intelligence officers in a prison in the United Arab Emirates, where he was tortured.

The claims go back to 1999, two years before the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, after which US President George Bush launched what he called the “war on terror”.

Mr Hilali was subsequently arrested again in Britain in 2003, detained on immigration offences, and later accused of having links to the 9/11 attacks.

He was extradited to Spain in 2008 after authorities there alleged he was party to a conspiracy there that was linked to and supportive of the terrorist attacks in 2001.

‘Strongest claims yet’

The case of Binyam Mohammed, who returned to the UK from Guantanamo Bay this year, brought allegations of British involvement in the torture of terrorism suspects to the fore.

However, the claims have been around for some years, said BBC home affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford.

The latest allegations were the “strongest yet”, he added.

Last month police said they would investigate whether an MI5 officer was complicit in the torture of Mr Mohamed, 30, who was born in Ethiopia and moved to Britain aged 15.

Mr Mohamed says he was tortured while in US custody in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, with the complicity of MI5.

Mr Mohamed said MI5 had prolonged his detention and torture while he was being held in Morocco in 2002.

The MI5 agent who questioned him has denied threatening or putting any pressure on Mr Mohamed.

The Attorney General, Baroness Scotland QC, said the police probe was “the appropriate course of action”.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said it was the first time anyone could remember the police being asked to investigate MI5.

Following the latest allegations the FCO added that it expected all countries to abide by international law including the UN convention against torture and the EU convention on human rights, as Britain did.

“It is our longstanding policy not to comment on any operational work of the intelligence services, however if there was any question of any person acting in an official capacity being involved in an act of torture then this would be a matter for the police,” they said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7983914.stm

Release The Torture Memos

0

Newsweek:

“As reported by NEWSWEEK, the White House last month had accepted a recommendation from Attorney General Eric Holder to declassify and publicly release three 2005 memos that graphically describe harsh interrogation techniques approved for the CIA to use against Al Qaeda suspects. But after the story, U.S. intelligence officials, led by senior national-security aide John Brennan, mounted an intense campaign to get the decision reversed, according to a senior administration official familiar with the debate. “Holy hell has broken loose over this,” said the official, who asked not to be identified because of political sensitivities.

Brennan is a former senior CIA official who was once considered by Obama for agency director but withdrew his name late last year after public criticism that he was too close to past officials involved in Bush administration decisions. Brennan, who now oversees intelligence issues at the National Security Council, argued that release of the memos could embarrass foreign intelligence services who cooperated with the CIA, either by participating in overseas “extraordinary renditions” of high-level detainees or housing them in overseas “black site” prisons.””

Fear of embarrassing countries who cooperated with us cannot possibly be the reason for not releasing the memos. The solution is too simple: just redact their names and any identifying details. Are we supposed to believe that this has not occurred to Panetta or Holder? Or that there is some identifying detail that is so thoroughly intertwined with the legal arguments that it cannot possibly be edited out?

Give me a break.

President Obama: let us see what our public servants defended as lawful, and the arguments they used. If necessary, don’t name the countries who, to their shame, decided to assist us. But don’t insult our intelligence by pretending that you and your administration have never heard of White-Out.

Internet records to be stored for a year

3

Details of every email sent and website visited by people in Britain are to be stored for use by the state from tomorrow as part of what campaigners claim is a massive assault on privacy.

By David Barrett |

A European Union directive, which Britain was instrumental in devising, comes into force which will require all internet service providers to retain information on email traffic, visits to web sites and telephone calls made over the internet, for 12 months.

Police and the security services will be able to access the information to combat crime and terrorism.

Hundreds of public bodies and quangos, including local councils, will also be able to access the data to investigate flytipping and other less serious crimes.

It was previously thought that only the large companies would be required to take part, covering 95 per cent of Britain’s internet usage, but a Home Office spokesman has confirmed it will be applied “across the board” to even the smallest company.

Privacy campaigners say the move to force telecoms companies to store the data is the first step towards the controversial central database at the heart of the Home Office’s Intercept Modernisation Programme, which will gather far more detailed information on Britain’s online activities.

Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, said: “I don’t think people are aware of the implications of this move. It means that everything we do online or on the phone will be known to the authorities.

“They are using this to produce probably the world’s most comprehensive surveillance system.

“This is a disgraceful example of the covert influence that Brussels has across our freedoms and liberties. The entire episode has been marked by a litany of secret dealings, vicious political games and a complete absence of transparency.”

Phil Noble of privacy group NO2ID, said: “This is the kind of technology that the Stasi would have dreamed of.

“We are facing a co-ordinated strategy to track everyone’s communications, creating a dossier on every person’s relationships and transactions.

“It is clearly preparatory work for the as-yet un-revealed plans for intercept modernisation.”

Another EU directive which requires companies to hold details of telephone records for a year has already come into force, and although internet data is held on an ad hoc basis this is the first time the industry has faced a statutory requirement to archive the material.

Information held includes the details of who contacted who, and when, but does not involve the content of emails being stored.

The taxpayer will reimburse internet service providers and telecoms companies for the costs associated with storing the billions of individual records.

Thierry Dieu of ETNO, the European telecoms networks operators association, said: “We regret that the legislation has been put through without real consultation with the players in the market.

“The UK is the only country which has decided to reimburse the cost of retaining all the data. It remains to be seen whether this will cover all the costs.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “It is the Government’s priority to protect public safety and national security. That is why we are completing the implementation of this directive, which will bring the UK in line with our European counterparts.

“Letters will go out to communication service providers telling them that it is coming into force. We are talking across the board, to all communication providers.”

He said communications data played a “vital part” in a wide range of criminal investigations, such as the hunt for the killer of Rhys Jones, the 11-year-old schoolboy shot dead in Liverpool in 2007, and the prevention of terrorists attacks.

“Without communications data, resolving crimes such as the Rhys Jones murder would be very difficult if not impossible.

“Access to communications data is governed by Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which ensures that effective safeguards are in place and that the data can only be accessed when it is necessary and proportionate to do so,” he said.

A European deal on storing data was first pursued by Charles Clarke when he was home secretary in 2005.

At the time, a Home Office spokesman confirmed that a major mobile phone company which had previously stored its data for just two days had agreed to retain the information for a year in exchange for £875,000 in taxpayers’ money.

A report compiled by ETNO in 2004 said that a large internet service provider would need to store between 20,000 and 40,000 terabytes of data – of the equivalent of 40 trillion emails – if it was required to keep all traffic data for 12 months.

The Global Impact of U.S. “War on Terror” Abuses

0

By JOANNE MARINER |

My last column began to sketch out the global human rights impact of the U.S. “war on terror.” It described how U.S. abuses such as torture, enforced disappearance, and arbitrary detention, were, in many instances, carried out in collaboration with other governments.

Indeed, without foreign support and assistance, the human rights violations of the past eight years would not have been possible.

Today’s column gives some examples of this abusive collaboration. Among the dozens of countries that supported abusive U.S. counterterrorism efforts are Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Indonesia and Jordan.

Egypt

The Egyptian authorities worked closely with the CIA on renditions, both arresting suspects in Egypt and handing them over to the CIA, and accepting rendered prisoners for detention and interrogation. Prisoners who were rendered to Egypt by the CIA post-9/11 include Abd al-Hamid al-Fakhiri (better known as Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi), Ahmad Hussain Mustafa ‘Agiza, Muhammad al-Zari, Hafez Qari Mohamed Saad Iqbal Madni, Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr (aka Abu Omar), Mamdouh Habib, and Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman (aka Asadallah).

The majority of the suspects rendered to Egypt were Egyptian nationals who remained in Egypt for long-term detention. However, other prisoners–such as Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi (Libyan), Mamdouh Habib (Australian), and Hafez Saad Iqbal Madni (Pakistani)–were non-Egyptians who were apparently sent to Egypt to be interrogated; after some weeks or months there, they were returned to U.S. custody.

One of the first post 9/11 cases of rendition to Egypt was that of Ahmad ‘Agiza and Muhammad al-Zari, who were transferred from Sweden to Egypt on December 18, 2001. The two were held in incommunicado detention for five weeks before their families were allowed to visit them.

There is considerable evidence to show that Egyptian security agents tortured the men during this period. A confidential Swedish government memorandum detailing the men’s first visit by embassy officials includes allegations from the men that they were repeatedly beaten by prison guards, denied necessary medication, blindfolded during interrogations, and were threatened with reprisals against family members if they did not cooperate during interrogations.

The men also made serious allegations of torture to family members and their Egyptian and Swedish lawyers. According to ‘Agiza’s mother, he told her that he was subject to repeated beatings and electric shocks, after which a cream was applied (to minimize evidence of the burns), and that he was at one point left chained and blindfolded for 10 days, during which he urinated and defecated on himself. He also alleged that he was made to lick food off of the prison floor.

Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was rendered to Egypt by the CIA in early 2002. While under torture, he “admitted” that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons, information was later used in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations justifying the invasion of Iraq.

ABC News reported that they obtained a CIA cable describing a CIA debriefing of al-Libi, in which al-Libi described the circumstances of his purported confession. Al-Libi told the CIA that the Egyptian interrogators told him that they wanted information about al-Qaeda’s connections with Iraq, a subject “about which [al-Libi] said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story.”

Describing the treatment that led to al-Libi’s statements about Iraqi-al-Qaeda links, the cable continues:

Al Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then “placed him in a small box approximately 50cm x 50cm [20 inches x 20 inches].” He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to “tell the truth.” When al Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al Libi claimed that “he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back.” Al Libi told CIA debriefers that he then “was punched for 15 minutes.”

Former detainees Hafez Qari Mohamed Saad Iqbal Madni, Osama Mustafa Hassan Nasr (aka Abu Omar), and Mamdouh Habib have all told similarly graphic stories of torture and abuse.

The Egyptian authorities also handed over to the CIA at least one suspect arrested on Egyptian territory: Yemeni Abdel Salem al-Hila, who was picked up in Cairo in September 2002. After being held by the CIA in secret prisons in Afghanistan, he was placed in military custody, and then, in September 2004, brought to Guantanamo. He remains in detention there without charge.

Ethiopia

In early 2007, in the wake of the Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, the Ethiopian government allowed American intelligence officials to question prisoners held in secret detention in Addis Ababa. The detainees were part of a large group who had previously been rendered from Kenya to Somalia, and from there to Ethiopia. They included people of various nationalities, including U.S., British, Canadian, and Swedish citizens.

Other suspects were arrested by the Ethiopian military in Somalia before they ever made it across the border into Kenya. One detainee described being taken to a U.S. outpost near the Kenyan border, but inside Somalia, where two plainclothes U.S. agents interrogated him for several hours before he was flown to Kismayo and Addis Ababa.

Former detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that U.S. intelligence agents operated out of a villa outside of Addis Ababa during this period. Every morning, Ethiopian guards called some number of detainees out of their cells, blindfolded them, and drove them to the villa for interrogation. Every night the guards returned the detainees to various detention sites in Addis Ababa, where they were held without access to international monitors such as the ICRC, lawyers, or consular representatives, and were not allowed to contact their family members to inform them of their whereabouts.

The interrogations by U.S. agents continued until May 2007.

Gambia

Gambian authorities delivered at least two prisoners to CIA custody in 2002. Jamal el-Banna, a Jordanian citizen and U.K. resident, and Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi citizen and U.K. resident, were arrested by Gambian intelligence officials on November 8. “The next morning US officials were running the show, taking pictures and asking questions,” al-Rawi later told The Independent.

The two men–along with three other suspects–were reportedly hidden in safe houses and intensively interrogated for many days, including by a brawny American who used the alias Lee. While the three other men were released at the end of this period of questioning, al-Rawi and el-Banna were flown to CIA detention in Afghanistan. They were later brought to Guantanamo, where they spent several years without trial before being released to Britain.

Indonesia

The Indonesian government rendered at least two terrorism suspects to CIA custody in 2002. They are Hafez Qari Mohamed Saad Iqbal Madni, a Pakistani who was arrested in Jakarta, Indonesia, in January 2002 (he was later rendered by the CIA to Egypt and then brought to Guantanamo, where he was held for five-and-a-half years without charge); and Mahmoud Ahmad Assegaf (aka Omar Faruq), an Iraqi who was arrested in West Java in June 2002.

In addition, Salah Salim Ali Qaru, a Yemeni who was arrested in Jakarta in August 2003, was packed off to Jordan, where the Jordanians handed him over to the CIA.

Jordan

From 2001 until at least 2004, Jordan’s General Intelligence Department (GID) served as a proxy jailer for the CIA, holding prisoners whom the CIA had picked up from countries around the world, and later handing some of them back to the CIA. More than just warehousing these men, the GID interrogated them using methods that were even more brutal than those of the CIA. The prisoners were typically held for several months in GID custody–and in at least one case, for nearly two years.

At least 14 non-Jordanian prisoners were transferred from US to Jordanian custody during this three-year period, perhaps more. Human Rights Watch has credible information indicating that the prisoners included at least five Yemenis, three Algerians, two Saudis, a Mauritanian, a Syrian, a Tunisian, and one or more Chechens. They may also have included a Libyan, an Iraqi Kurd, a Kuwaiti, one or more Egyptians, and a national of the United Arab Emirates.

While in GID detention in late 2002, one of these prisoners, Ali al-Hajj al-Sharqawi, wrote a long note describing his ordeal. The note, which al-Sharqawi marked with his thumb print, was smuggled out of the facility in 2003. In it, al-Sharqawi describes being held as a secret prisoner and hidden in secret cells. Consistent with what al-Sharqawi told two fellow prisoners at GID at the time, the note states that the GID interrogators “beat me in a way that does not know any limits.”

“They threatened me with electricity,” the note continues, “with snakes and dogs …. [They said] we’ll make you see death …. They threatened to rape me.”

The Jordanians also rendered other suspects to CIA custody. On September 9, 2003, they arrested Yemeni Salah Nasir Salim ‘Ali Qaru upon his arrival in Amman, held him for ten days at GID headquarters, and then handed him over to the CIA. On October 19, 2003, they arrested Muhammed Bashmillah in Amman, several days after his arrival there, held him a few days at GID headquarters, and then handed him over to the CIA.

Spy agency clarifies torture policy

0

OTTAWA The top spy at CSIS says it was “unfortunate” that a senior CSIS official got the agency’s policy on torture wrong.

Jim Judd, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, distanced the spy agency from the testimony of Geoffrey O’Brian, a 25-year CSIS veteran, lawyer and adviser on operations and legislation.

“It’s unfortunate that Mr. O’Brian may have been confused in his testimony,” Judd said.

“I know of no instance where such use of information has been made by our service.”

Judd told the Commons public safety committee the policy of the spy agency is as outlined by the public safety minister.

“We do not condone torture. We do not rely on information obtained by torture,” said Judd.

Earlier this week, O’Brian had said: “Do we use information that comes from torture? The answer is we only do so if lives are at stake.”

Judd said O’Brian was asked to formally “clarify” his testimony for the record, but he would not say whether the government or he, as O’Brian’s boss, ordered the clarification.

But he did say that O’Brian has not been punished or otherwise reprimanded.

O’Brian sent a three-paragraph letter to the committee yesterday saying his testimony “may have provoked some confusion.”

“I wish to clarify for the committee that CSIS certainly does not condone torture and that it is the policy of CSIS to not knowingly rely upon information that may have been obtained through torture,” he said in the letter.

O’Brian then asked that the “clarification be brought to the attention of members of the committee.”

Tonda MacCharles

Culture observed during slavery still being practised

0

By Kerrie Bynoe |

In the harsh years of slavery, the men and women in the Caribbean still found a
way to hold on to their cultural identities.

In their small circles, enslaved men and women referred to each other by their African names, they danced and sang to the beat of the African drum and they still found ways of satisfying their African tastes.

Dr. Marcia Burrowes examined the activities of the enslaved in the Caribbean during the Barbados Museum and Historical Society’s Tuesday night lecture, which saw a number of interested persons turning up at the Solidarity House to learn more about ‘How the enslaved lived’.

As she focused on the culture of the enslaved, Burrowes said that some of the everyday practices of the men and women on the plantations in the Caribbean were customs that were still being carried out to this very day, by 21st century West Indian men and women.

“They were seen shelling pigeon peas, grinding corn, boiling yam, roasting corn… and fishing. These were the everyday activities that plantation managers made note of,” said Burrowes.

Speaking specifically about the practice of roasting corn, the historian said that the plantation owners saw this as a very unusual activity.

“As the years go on, it is interesting to note that many of the White Barbadians and others who are living in the island are also eating roasted corn as well. So that is an example of the creolisation process,” noted Burrowes, who went on to point out that the food practices of the enslaved were a good indicator of how culture is produced and reproduced.

“The actual activity of grinding corn provide an excellent opportunity to understand how the enslaved produced and reproduced their culture,” she continued.

Several observers have commented about the integration of corn into the diet of the slaves, specifically highlighting the strength needed to carry out this activity manually.

Barbadians have benefited greatly from its ancestors persistent effort to keep this food in their diets, despite the hard work needed. Cultural foods like corn bread, cou-cou and conkies are all by-products of cornmeal which is a by-product of the labour intensive ground corn.

Burrowes went on to make reference to the medicinal and spiritual practices of the slaves, noting that these activities went hand in hand, especially since the African background influenced and informed these practices and created a strong link between illnesses and supernatural forces.

The concept of Obeah is one that has been derived from the times of slavery, and because of the many opinions and ideas attached to this practice, it is actually being revisited. Burrowes said,
“There is such an ethnocentric view of what Obeah is, and what it has been throughout the territories, but present scholars are finding that we really need to rework our way of looking at Obeah”.

One cannot examine African social and cultural activities without looking at time spent in dance and song. The historian quoted several plantation owners who had observed the practices of their slaves, and while many of them found the celebratory activities to be loud and somewhat chaotic, the many comments on African song and dance proved that these practices were hard to ignore.

Speaking about the ability of the slaves to sing and dance while their freedom was being taken away, Burrowes said, “There was a system of oppression, but the enslaved found ways and means of recreating a human existence and they struggled to create a sense of being”.

G20 Violence: Death at the Hands of the Police

2

For those who have followed mainstream media coverage of the protests against the scandalous G20 (who are deciding to give the IMF, those with the Structural Adjustment Plans to steal from the poor, an enormous amount of money: The G-20 agreed to give the fund and other development bodies new resources of $1.1 trillion, exceeding most expectations, with the IMF’s coffers potentially boosted by $750 billion) might have missed a few things, but thankfully we have Indymedia and others.

GET THE EYE WITNESS REPORTS FROM THE SCENE OF THE TRAGIC AND TERRIBLE POLICE ACTION:

With regard to the death reported yesterday, which happened three hours before it was officially reported by BBC and Sky News (obviously orchestrated and timed), a “natural death” was suggested – as natural as someone kettled in for many hours without food, water and access to a toilet and surrounded by aggressive riot cops can be. The disgusting or unwittingly satirical reporting by BBC News at 10pm last night also included statements that police tried to save the man, but had to retreat because they were being targeted by bottles and other “missiles” thrown by the evil protestors. Of course the reality is different. Here is a typical scene when things are calm and normal:

So what happened then, you might ask, if we can’t trust the corporate media due to their vested interests and blind following of the state and police script?? Well, here are interviews with some of the eyewitnesses, courtesy of London Indymedia:

Various participants in the City of London demonstrations on April 1st have come forward as witnesses to the collapse of a man later identified by authorities as Ian Tomlinson. Four different university students witnessed the collapse of Mr. Tomlinson. “He stumbled towards us from the direction of police and protestors and collapsed,” said Peter Apps. “I saw a demonstrator who was a first aider attend to the person who had collapsed. The man was late 40s, had tattoos on his hands, and was wearing a Millwall shirt.”

While the first aider was helping the man, another demonstrator with a megaphone was calling the police over so that they could help.

Natalie Langford, a student at Queen Mary, said “there was a police charge. A lot of people ran in our direction. The woman giving first aid stood in the path of the crowd.” The running people, seeing a guy on the ground, went around them.

Another demonstrator had already called 999 and was getting medical advice from the ambulance dispatcher. “Four police with two police medics came. They told her [the first aider] to ‘move along’.”, said Peter Apps. “Then they pushed her forcibly away from him. They refused to listen to her [the first aider] when she tried to explain his condition.”

The first aider, who did not wish to be named, said “The police surrounded the collapsed man. I was standing with the person who’d called 999. The ambulance dispatcher wanted to talk to the police, the phone was being held out to them, but the police refused.”

Another witness, Elias Stoakes, added “we didn’t see them [the police] perform CPR.”

Other people who had tried to stay with the collapsed man were also pushed away.

All of the witnesses deny the allegation that many missiles were thrown.

According to Peter Apps, “one bottle was thrown, but it didn’t come close to the police. Nothing was thrown afterwards as other demonstrators told the person to stop. The person who threw the bottle probably didn’t realize that someone was behind the ring of police.” All the witnesses said that the demonstrators were concerned for the well-being of the collapsed man once they realized that there was an injured person.

Natalie Langford said “when the ambulance arrived the protestors got straight out of the way.”

These witnesses are happy to give media statements.

They can be contacted through this press liasion email: g20witnesses@gmail.com

Email Contact email: g20witnesses@gmail.com

Another incident, which has generated much mainstream bullshit, is the window that was smashed in the bank (that was then entered and had “its computers trashed”). Well, that “bank” was apparently shutdown, the building up for rent, and as the only building in the area it which was not boarded up, according to a comment to a poor article in The Guardian:

Nolan, 02 Apr 09, 4:26pm (about 7 hours ago)
What many people do not realise is that when the windows of the RBS were broken, they found that there were police intelligence photographers the other side of the glass (e.g. see picture [below])
The police can’t just move in and out of empty buildings at will (the building was unoccupied and up for rent), they were obviously there in advance. The windows had mirrored glass and were the only ones in the area not boarded up, so presumably the place was being used as a surveillance point and the intention was to take pictures of the protestors from behind the 2-way mirror. Can’t imagine the police expected the protestors to come through the glass.

Suddenly a group of protestors, for a longer period of time penned in, kettled down, and moved about by the police find themselves in front of corporate windows with a mirror reflection and in the possession of something sufficient to smash these windows. Now how does that work? Under the intense scrutiny for hours – surveilled for months, even teenagers in Plymouth had their fireworks confiscated – and pushed about, yet suddenly in front of a corporate building that is not boarded up?!? If we take a look at what was inside the building we might get a better idea of the screenplay for yesterday’s events:

We can only speculate, but it probably went something like this:

“We hide in there, move them close, make sure they have something heavy they can throw through the window, we inform the Evening Standard et al., and then we have those pictures that can justify all the propaganda and budget money spent on our totalitarian measures against concerned citizens, sorry evil anarchists – failing that, we have a couple of agent provocateurs standing by with something that can smash those windows”.

Mission accomplished, – have we not seen these patterns a million times by now? At every Summit, especially since the G8 in Genoa, where all bets were off?

http://colonos.wordpress.com/

Prosecuting American War Crimes

6

Did Americans commit war crimes by torturing detainees at Guantanamo Bay or at secret prisons scattered around Europe? Barack Obama doesn’t want to know. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was one of many who felt confident he would never face prosecution for his role in constructing legal rationales for waterboarding and other forms of torture.
Unfortunately for Gonzales, Spain intends to go where Obama won’t. Judge Baltasar Garzon, famous chiefly for prosecuting former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet, seems inclined to allow Spanish state prosecutors to go after Gonzales, Douglas Feith, John Yoo, William Hayes II, Jay Bybee, and David Addington. Why these guys and not, say, former Vice President Dick Cheney? Apparently, testimony elicited from Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, last summer before Congress indicated that those six officials were responsible for giving legal justifications for torture. Spanish court documents say of them:

“[W]ithout their legal advice in a series of internal administration memos, “it would have been impossible to structure a legal framework that supported what happened [in Guantanamo]…”
If Obama’s Justice Department began investigating these men, Spanish prosecutors would have to back off, but so far it doesn’t look like that will happen. Spain’s actions will likely strain relations with Washington, which will certainly deny extradition requests. Will these men ever be able to leave America again? Do they deserve this prosecution in Spain, or should it be America’s exclusive preserve to determine whether what they did was criminal or not?

Why Legalizing Cannabis Makes Sense

0

By Joe Klein |

For the past several years, I’ve been harboring a fantasy, a last political crusade for the baby-boom generation. We, who started on the path of righteousness, marching for civil rights and against the war in Vietnam, need to find an appropriately high-minded approach to life’s exit ramp. In this case, I mean the high-minded part literally. And so, a deal: give us drugs, after a certain age – say, 80 – all drugs, any drugs we want. In return, we will give you our driver’s licenses. (I mean, can you imagine how terrifying a nation of decrepit, solipsistic 90-year-old boomers behind the wheel would be?) We’ll let you proceed with your lives – much of which will be spent paying for our retirement, in any case – without having to hear us complain about our every ache and reflux. We’ll be too busy exploring altered states of consciousness. I even have a slogan for the campaign: “Tune in, turn on, drop dead.”

A fantasy, I suppose. But, beneath the furious roil of the economic crisis, a national conversation has quietly begun about the irrationality of our drug laws. It is going on in state legislatures, like New York’s, where the draconian Rockefeller drug laws are up for review; in other states, from California to Massachusetts, various forms of marijuana decriminalization are being enacted. And it has reached the floor of Congress, where Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter have proposed a major prison-reform package, which would directly address drug-sentencing policy.

There are also more puckish signs of a zeitgeist shift. A few weeks ago, the White House decided to stage a forum in which the President would answer questions submitted by the public; 92,000 people responded – and most of them seemed obsessed with the legalization of marijuana. The two most popular questions about “green jobs and energy,” for example, were about pot. The President dismissed the outpouring – appropriately, I guess – as online ballot-stuffing and dismissed the legalization question with a simple: “No.”

This was a rare instance of Barack Obama reacting reflexively, without attempting to think creatively, about a serious policy question. He was, in fact, taking the traditional path of least resistance: an unexpected answer on marijuana would have launched a tabloid firestorm, diverting attention from the budget fight and all those bailouts. In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio. The hypocrisy inherent in the American conversation about stimulants is staggering.

But there are big issues here, issues of economy and simple justice, especially on the sentencing side. As Webb pointed out in a cover story in Parade magazine, the U.S. is, by far, the most “criminal” country in the world, with 5% of the world’s population and 25% of its prisoners. We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all arrests are marijuana-related. That is an awful lot of money, most of it nonfederal, that could be spent on better schools or infrastructure – or simply returned to the public.

At the same time, there is an enormous potential windfall in the taxation of marijuana. It is estimated that pot is the largest cash crop in California, with annual revenues approaching $14 billion. A 10% pot tax would yield $1.4 billion in California alone. And that’s probably a fraction of the revenues that would be available – and of the economic impact, with thousands of new jobs in agriculture, packaging, marketing and advertising. A veritable marijuana economic-stimulus package!

So why not do it? There are serious moral arguments, both secular and religious. There are those who believe – with some good reason – that the accretion of legalized vices is debilitating, that we are a less virtuous society since gambling spilled out from Las Vegas to “riverboats” and state lotteries across the country. There is a medical argument, though not a very convincing one: alcohol is more dangerous in a variety of ways, including the tendency of some drunks to get violent. One could argue that the abuse of McDonald’s has a greater potential health-care cost than the abuse of marijuana. (Although it’s true that with legalization, those two might not be unrelated.) Obviously, marijuana can be abused. But the costs of criminalization have proved to be enormous, perhaps unsustainable. Would legalization be any worse?

In any case, the drug-reform discussion comes just at the right moment. We boomers are getting older every day. You’re not going to want us on the highways. Make us your best offer.

Council uses anti-terror powers to spy on residents

0

By Thais Portilho-Shrimpton |

Anti-terror powers are being invoked by Epsom council to spy on its residents over minor breaches of the law, it has emerged.

Epsom and Ewell Council has ordered surveillance designed to thwart terrorist bombings to catch unlicensed taxis, benefit fraudsters, alcohol licensees and noisy neighbours.

A Freedom of Information Act request by the Liberal Democrats revealed the council had utilised the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa) 36 times in the last five years.

Despite the large number of cases investigated only three led to prosecutuions.

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, said: “I think it’s absolutely wrong these powers have been used by local authorities when they were originally designed for anti-terrorism policing.

“It’s not just a waste of money, it’s an inappropriate invasion of privacy.

“It’s using powers that are designed to fight terrorism for local purposes. That’s just wrong.

“I don’t think local authorities should be able to use them at all.”

Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrat councillor Jonathan Lees said: “Nationally it is appalling these laws have been used so many times.

“Epsom and Ewell Council has used these 36 times, 29 of which have been authorised by management and only seven by senior management.

“I am very concerned these powers, which have the potential to infringe onto our civil liberties if used, are only used in extreme cases by the senior management of the council under tight guidance and control.

“They should be constantly monitored for misuse and if used, it should be documented why with a clear explanation.”

The council’s chief executive, two directors, four heads of service, one manager and three team leaders have the power to authorise the use of the anti-terror laws on council investigations.

A spokeswoman for the council admitted the use of new legislation “allows civil liberties to be breached in a legal manner”.

She said: “The council carries out investigations using powers under the Ripa in relation to benefit fraud, licensing and environmental health investigations.

“It does not do this on a routine basis, but only uses the powers where it feels they are appropriate.

“Local authorities have the power to regulate certain areas to ensure the safety and quality of life for our residents.

“Where offences are prosecutable surveillance in some cases is required to prove the offences.

“A local authority has to balance the rights of an individual against the rights and needs of the public as a whole when it carries out all of its functions.

“The staff who regularly authorise surveillance have been trained in the use of the proper powers and a refresher course led by external trainers was held last month.”

Government denies that British live in “a surveillance society”.

0

Justice Minister Lord Bach insisted the Government took its obligations under data protection and human rights legislation “very seriously”.

He told a Lords debate on personal data retention: “The use of personal data is essential for the delivery of efficient, effective and joined-up public services – to tackle crime, protect the public and help people get access to the benefits they are entitled to, to new opportunities in their lives, to developments and support.

“We want to create services that improve people’s lives and are simple and easy for them to use. The huge advance in technology makes that possible. The essential thing is to balance the provision of better services with the proper respect for an individual’s privacy in a free society.

“That balance is maintained by a strong legislative framework already in place – the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act.

“I don’t believe, for one moment, that we live in a surveillance society. We take our obligations under these Acts very seriously.”

Lord Bach said there had been “widespread misrepresentation” of the Government’s plans for a future national communications data base. He added: “We will set out our future plans on this, in a consultation document to be published shortly. they have not yet been finalised.”

He said reports were incorrect that British citizens travelling abroad would have to apply for permission to travel abroad or submit an itinerary in advance.

“If they had to do that, it would be a very serious restriction on their freedom. That’s not what they will have to do, although the newspapers say they will.”

© All rights reserved.

The innocent do have something to fear

0

The crashing of Jacqui Smith’s privacy shows that data ‘security’ is garbage. Yet gullible MPs still vote as if it existed

Sweet is the spectacle of a home secretary bitten by her own snake. The outrage of Jacqui Smith’s television expenses claim lies not in its content, lurid as it is, but in the way it was exposed. How many times must the home secretary have been assured in security briefings that her latest purchase of some data storage gizmo was “totally secure”?

“Don’t worry,” the briefers would have said, “the material will be protected by the finest firewalls, the most foolproof anti-hacking devices and the most savage legal defence. Nothing will be transferable and only the highest in the land will have access. Besides, home secretary, as you have so often said, the innocent have nothing to fear.”

Yes, they do. They have the revelation of their husband’s taste in movies, apparently leaked by contractors in receipt of easily copied discs, now on offer to anyone with £300,000.

Anyone who knows anything about computers knows computer security is a contradiction in terms. It is garbage. Yet this is not believed by gullible ministers and MPs who troop through the Commons lobby to vote through new measures for more state surveillance.

I am sure when they submitted invoiced expenses to the fee office last year MPs were told they would be secure. They may have believed it. They thought that what they told their constituents about the security of ID and NHS records also applied to them.

They thought their dodgy second homes, mildly sleazy fiddles and squalid movies would be a private matter between them and a silver disc somewhere in the Palace of Westminster. Every chit for a new bathplug or dining room suite or blue movie was invested with “adequate safeguards”. No phrase is more beloved of a minister than that.

We now learn that Virgin Media lists every downloaded TV movie by title and distributes the list via the public post. If a customer hopes to reclaim the expense from an employer, the list is passed to the relevant accounts department. There it will be shown gleefully round the office before being shared with the world on YouTube.

How many times must we repeat this? There is no such thing as a secure computer. It does not exist. The secrets of the Pentagon have been penetrated by Chinese hackers and British nerds. The most carefully programmed firewalls in east Europe were crashed at the click of a mouse by Russian agents. Such is the magnetism of secrecy that poachers will always be a step ahead of gamekeepers.

In the last eight years, the same MPs who are howling at their data vulnerability have voted for the most extensive surveillance system in Europe, as well as the biggest data storage in the most expensive and inept computers. Britain under Labour has become the world capital of privacy intrusion.

A fifth of all closed-circuit cameras in existence are in Britain, despite the Home Office admitting they appear to make no difference to crime or drunkenness. Smith has legislated or approved an astonishing range of powers. She is contracting with private firms to set up a data storage device to record all emails and internet uses, costing £46m. This is a precursor to her £12bn “interception modernisation upgrade” also to record every text and phone call. This is ludicrous and illiberal extravagance.

Smith wants, under the coroners and justice bill, to “remove barriers to effective data sharing to support improved public services”. Improve at what cost in liberty? She supports the Metropolitan police’s evidence gatherer teams. These claim powers to “record identifiable details” of citizens at any gathering who might be “bordering on civil disobedience” (including journalists reporting them). As the Guardian has revealed, such filmed material is put on “spotter cards” and stored in a “corporate intelligence database”, in gross breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

ID cards and NHS computers promise to store the defining details and medical records of the entire population. As data sharing spreads, these records will be virtually open to public view. In 2000, just nine organisations were allowed warrants to access secure government records: the figure is now almost 800. For a small fee, anyone will be able to learn anything about anyone else. It may be illegal, but like computer downloads it will happen.

This means every patient’s medical history will become available to insurance firms, rendering some uninsurable. Court and criminal records will end the privacy of a spent conviction and make many, including those who have committed no crime, unemployable for being on a police data system. It was reported last week that terrorism laws are more used for local government and crowd control than national security.

As she battles to extend detention without trial, traveller surveillance and electronic databases, Smith will incant the presence of safeguards. Like most ministers and Whitehall officials, she is putty in the hands of high-pressure computer salesmen. She believes what they say, against all the evidence of the liberty lobby and computer failure. Perhaps she now knows better.

One of the few home secretaries who dominated his department rather than be cowed by it was Lord Whitelaw in the 1980s. He boasted how after any security lapse, the police would come to beg for new and draconian powers. He laughed and sent them packing, saying only a bunch of softies would erode British liberty to give themselves an easier job. He said they laughed in return and remarked that “it was worth a try”.

Now the try always works. What is extraordinary is the weakness of the liberty lobby in opposition. It almost never wins. The Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne is proposing an excellent “freedom bill”, repealing repressive legislation in 20 areas, from pre-charge detention through DNA databases to children’s records. But it stands no chance of enactment. Nor are the Tories any longer libertarians – witness Chris Grayling this week absurdly protesting inadequate security for the G20.

The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust recently recorded just 15% of 50 government databases as “effective, proportionate or necessary”. It concluded that 10 actually broke privacy law. Yet a staggering £100bn is to be spent on them in the next five years.

The only hope is that now MPs have been hoist by their own petard, they might be more mindful of the liberties – and privacies – of others. I would not hold my breath.

simon.jenkins@guardian.co.uk

Public concerned about plans to monitor social networking sites

0

LONDON – The majority of people interviewed in the latest Brand Republic video are against the government’s plans to monitor social networking sites, claiming it would be an invasion of privacy — watch it now.
 
The government is considering monitoring social networking sites such as Facebook, Bebo and MySpace to collect data in an attempt to combat online crime and terrorism.

Most of the people interviewed for Brand Republic’s video were concerned about the plans, claiming it was wrong to monitor everyone and an invasion of privacy.

Some people were in favour of the plans arguing that the government should take whatever means necessary to combat terrorism, while others stuck to the middle ground saying that they were not happy about it, but thought it was acceptable if the monitoring was only used to tackle crime.
Under the proposal, social networking sites would be forced to retain information about users’ web-browsing habits.

This data would then be stored by the government on a central database as part of the Intercept Modernisation Programme.

The plans have angered civil liberties groups who claim the move would create excessive snooping on the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

Haymarket

Big Brother in your car – Orwellian box to track your movements

1

The government is backing a project to install a “communication box” in new cars to track the whereabouts of drivers anywhere in Europe, the Guardian can reveal.

Under the proposals, vehicles will emit a constant “heartbeat” revealing their location, speed and direction of travel. The EU officials behind the plan believe it will significantly reduce road accidents, congestion and carbon emissions. A consortium of manufacturers has indicated that the router device could be installed in all new cars as early as 2013.

However, privacy campaigners warned last night that a European-wide car tracking system would create a system of almost total road surveillance.

Details of the Cooperative Vehicle-Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) project, a £36m EU initiative backed by car manufacturers and the telecoms industry, will be unveiled this year.

But the Guardian has been given unpublished documents detailing the proposed uses for the system. They confirm that it could have profound implications for privacy, enabling cars to be tracked to within a metre – more accurate than current satellite navigation technologies.

The European commission has asked governments to reserve radio frequency on the 5.9 Gigahertz band, essentially setting aside a universal frequency on which CVIS technology will work.

The Department for Transport said there were no current plans to make installation of the technology mandatory. However, those involved in the project describe the UK as one of the main “state backers”. Transport for London has also hosted trials of the technology.

The European Data Protection Supervisor will make a formal announcement on the privacy implications of CVIS technology soon. But in a recent speech he said the technology would have “great impact on rights to privacy and data”.

Paul Kompfner, who manages CVIS, said governments would have to decide on privacy safeguards. “It is time to start a debate … so the right legal and privacy framework can be put in place before the technology reaches the market,” he said.

The system allows cars to “talk” to one another and the road. A “communication box” behind the dashboard ensures that cars send out “heartbeat” messages every 500 milliseconds through mobile cellular and wireless local area networks, short-range microwave or infrared.

The messages will be picked up by other cars in the vicinity, allowing vehicles to warn each other if they are forced to break hard or swerve to avoid a hazard.

The data is also picked up by detectors at the roadside and mobile phone towers. That enables the road to communicate with cars, allowing for “intelligent” traffic lights to turn green when cars are approaching or gantries on the motorway to announce changes to speed limits.

Data will also be sent to “control centres” that manage traffic, enabling a vastly improved system to monitor and even direct vehicles.

“A traffic controller will know where all vehicles are and even where they are headed,” said Kompfner. “That would result in a significant reduction in congestion and replace the need for cameras.”

Although the plan is to initially introduce the technology on a voluntary basis, Kompfner conceded that for the system to work it would need widespread uptake. He envisages governments making the technology mandatory for safety reasons.Any system that tracks cars could also be used for speed enforcement or national road tolling.

Roads in the UK are already subject to the closest surveillance of any in the world. Police control a database that is fed information from automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, and are able to deduce the journeys of as many as 10 million drivers a day. Details are stored for up to five years.

However, the government has been told that ANPR speed camera technology is “inherently limited” with “numerous shortcomings”.

Advice to ministers obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act advocates upgrading to a more effective car tracking-based system, similar to CVIS technology, but warns such a system could be seen as a “spy in the cab” and “may be regarded as draconian”.

Introducing a more benign technology first, the report by transport consultants argues, would “enable potential adverse public reaction to be better managed”.

Simon Davies, director of the watchdog Privacy International, said: “The problem is not what the data tells the state, but what happens with interlocking information it already has. If you correlate car tracking data with mobile phone data, which can also track people, there is the potential for an almost infallible surveillance system.”

guardian.co.uk

Two thirds of the UK do not trust the Government with data

0

MORE than two thirds of the UK population no longer trust the Government with their personal data, according to a new report.

 

The report from the York-based Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust claims to show how, in too many cases, the public are neither served nor protected by the increasingly complex and intrusive holdings of personal information invading every aspect of our lives.

Of the 46 databases considered, the authors conclude only six are broadly acceptable in privacy terms, and more than 10 should be scrapped entirely, including the ID card scheme and the centralisation and sharing of all health records by the National Health Service.

Madeleine Parkyn, co-ordinator for Scarborough NO2ID group, which campaigns against ID cards and the “database state”, said: “This survey reveals just how vast the database state has stealthily grown.

“This obsessive collection and hoarding of our personal data threatens the privacy, personal security and freedom of everyone in this country.”

 

Scarborough Evening News

DNA database grows by 38 per cent in two years

0

By Tom Young |

Some 1.4 million new profiles have been added to the DNA database in the past two years — a rise of 38 per cent — according to figures released by the Home Office.

In February 2007 the database contained some 3.7 million profiles. Figures from the Home Office on Friday (27 March 2009) show that number had risen to 5.1 million by January of this year.

The Home Office estimates that both these figures are about 13 per cent above the actual number of people on the database because of duplicate profiles — a result of people giving different names, or different versions of their name, on separate arrests.

Home Office minister Alan Campbell said: “The presence of replicate profiles does not have an impact on the effectiveness and integrity of the database.”

There are profiles of about four million men and more than one million women on the database; four million of the people on the database are white European, 400,000 are black and 280,000 are Asian.

In terms of age, 1.5 million people listed are between 25 and 34, 1.1 million are between 35 and 44, and 730,000 are between 21 and 24.

Security and fundamental freedoms on the Internet

0

 

Increasingly, companies, governments, police and even criminals are seeking the greatest possible access to our private data. The internet provides a previously unimaginable level of access to information about our private lives, which unfortunately, can be abused by companies, intelligence services or even identity thieves. The report highlights action against cybercriminals whilst also guaranteeing fundamental rights to privacy for internet users.

The report adopted with 481 votes in favour, 25 against and 21 abstentions is the first recommendation from MEPs concerning the fight against cybercrime and preserving the rights of internet users. Clearly the internet can be used as an excellent tool for accessing information and allowing connections between individuals and communities all over the world. However, it also has its dangers as it can expose users to surveillance, or even serve as a tool for criminals or terrorists. The main advantage and disadvantage of the internet is that it transcends almost all borders.
 
Criminalising grooming
 

Parliament urges Member States to update legislation to protect children using the Internet, in particular in order to criminalise grooming (online solicitation of children for sexual purposes), as defined in the Council of Europe Convention of 25 October 2007 on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.
 
MEPs are also concerned with the idea that “e-illiteracy will be the new illiteracy of the 21st Century.” The report argues that in this age, having access to the internet is “equivalent to ensuring that all citizens have access to schooling”, and that this access should not be denied by governments or private companies.
 
Fundamental freedoms of internet users

 
There are a number of fundamental rights which are affected by the internet, including “respect for private life…data protection…freedom of speech and association, freedom of press, political expression and participation, non-discrimination and education.” The report calls on Member States to protect these rights by making use of existing national, regional, and international law, and to exchange best practices amongst themselves.
 
The report recognises that given “the global and open nature of the Internet”, international standards for data protection, security and freedom of speech are required. MEPs call on Member States and the Commission to draw up a series of regulations to protect the privacy of internet users.
 
Crime, identity theft and terrorism
 
The nature of the internet also means that it is open to abuse. It has “been used as a platform for violent messages…as well as for websites which can specifically incite hate-based criminal acts.” Cybercrime, in general has also increased, and internet users are at risk of identity theft, if they transmit their personal details across the internet without a minimum level of protection. Therefore, the House calls on the Council and Commission to develop a “comprehensive strategy to combat cybercrime…identity theft and fraud.”
 
Finally, the report raises the question of consent of internet users, when giving personal information to governments or private companies, and the imbalance of negotiating power between users and institutions. In relation to this, MEPs stress the importance of internet users being able to retain the right to permanently delete any of their personal details saved on “internet websites or on any third party data storage medium.”

Police Invade High School in Mass Drug Raid- Find One piece of “Paraphernalia”

3
By Phil Leggiere |
Police from various jurisdictions swarm on a Connecticut High School with police dogs, ransack over a hundred cars in the parking lot, rifle through lockers and find- rolling papers. An embarrassing misapplication of force? Nah. Not according to the school superintendent who quite proudly said terrorizing students was worth it to prove the school was drug free. 

WTHN Reports

Officers from numerous police departments charged into Wethersfield High School Thursday to hunt for drugs.

Armed with police dogs, officers from Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Manchester and New Britain raided the high school at 411 Wolcott Hill Road.

Locker by locker and room by room, police and their dogs sniffed around to send the school district’s message that drugs will not be taken lightly.

Police also searched more than 100 cars in the school’s parking lot, which led to the arrest of one student for drug paraphernalia.

Police ended up not finding any drugs, and that lone arrest is something School Superintendent Michael Kohlhagen is proud of.

“This is just one step in the right direction, to ensure our students continue to learn and thrive in a drug free environment.” Kohlhagen said and later added, “This issue has been and remains a priority; our entire administration and faculty remain committed to the health, safety and welfare of our students.”

Kohlhagen said Thursday’s raid proves that Wethersfield High School is safe and drug free.

Thanks to the Agitator

Are Universities Turning into Corporate Drone Factories?

0

Unless we take hold of the reigns we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of corporate power wielded through naked repression.

In decaying societies, politics become theater. The elite, who have hollowed out the democratic system to serve the corporate state, rule through image and presentation. They express indignation at AIG bonuses and empathy with a working class they have spent the last few decades disenfranchising, and make promises to desperate families that they know will never be fulfilled. Once the spotlights go on they read their lines with appropriate emotion. Once the lights go off, they make sure Goldman Sachs and a host of other large corporations have the hundreds of billions of dollars in losses they incurred playing casino capitalism repaid with taxpayer money.

 

We live in an age of moral nihilism. We have trashed our universities, turning them into vocational factories that produce corporate drones and chase after defense-related grants and funding. The humanities, the discipline that forces us to stand back and ask the broad moral questions of meaning and purpose, that challenges the validity of structures, that trains us to be self-reflective and critical of all cultural assumptions, have withered. Our press, which should promote such intellectual and moral questioning, confuses bread and circus with news and refuses to give a voice to critics who challenge not this bonus payment or that bailout but the pernicious superstructure of the corporate state itself. We kneel before a cult of the self, elaborately constructed by the architects of our consumer society, which dismisses compassion, sacrifice for the less fortunate, and honesty. The methods used to attain what we want, we are told by reality television programs, business schools and self-help gurus, are irrelevant. Success, always defined in terms of money and power, is its own justification. The capacity for manipulation is what is most highly prized. And our moral collapse is as terrifying, and as dangerous, as our economic collapse.

Theodor Adorno in 1967 wrote an essay called “Education After Auschwitz.” He argued that the moral corruption that made the Holocaust possible remained “largely unchanged.” He wrote that “the mechanisms that render people capable of such deeds” must be made visible. Schools had to teach more than skills. They had to teach values. If they did not, another Auschwitz was always possible.

“All political instruction finally should be centered upon the idea that Auschwitz should never happen again,” he wrote. “This would be possible only when it devotes itself openly, without fear of offending any authorities, to this most important of problems. To do this, education must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach about the societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms.”

Our elites are imploding. Their fraud and corruption are slowly being exposed as the disparity between their words and our reality becomes wider and more apparent. The rage that is bubbling up across the country will have to be countered by the elite with less subtle forms of control. But unless we grasp the “societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political forms” we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of corporate power, one that does away with artifice and the seduction of a consumer society and instead wields power through naked repression.

I had lunch a few days ago in Toronto with Henry Giroux, professor of English and cultural studies at McMaster University in Canada and who for many years was the Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State. Giroux, who has been one of the most prescient and vocal critics of the corporate state and the systematic destruction of American education, was driven to the margins of academia because he kept asking the uncomfortable questions Adorno knew should be asked by university professors. He left the United States in 2004 for Canada.

“The emergence of what Eisenhower had called the military-industrial-academic complex had secured a grip on higher education that may have exceeded even what he had anticipated and most feared,” Giroux, who wrote “The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex,” told me. “Universities, in general, especially following the events of 9/11, were under assault by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives and market fundamentalists for allegedly representing the weak link in the war on terrorism. Right-wing students were encouraged to spy on the classes of progressive professors, the corporate grip on the university was tightening as made clear not only in the emergence of business models of governance, but also in the money being pumped into research and programs that blatantly favored corporate interests. And at Penn State, where I was located at the time, the university had joined itself at the hip with corporate and military power. Put differently, corporate and Pentagon money was now funding research projects and increasingly knowledge was being militarized in the service of developing weapons of destruction, surveillance and death. Couple this assault with the fact that faculty were becoming irrelevant as an oppositional force. Many disappeared into discourses that threatened no one, some simply were too scared to raise critical issues in their classrooms for fear of being fired, and many simply no longer had the conviction to uphold the university as a democratic public sphere.”

Frank Donoghue, the author of “The Last Professors: The Corporate University and the Fate of the Humanities,” details how liberal arts education has been dismantled. Any form of learning that is not strictly vocational has at best been marginalized and in many schools has been abolished. Students are steered away from asking the broad, disturbing questions that challenge the assumptions of the power elite or an economic system that serves the corporate state. This has led many bright graduates into the arms of corporate entities they do not examine morally or ethically. They accept the assumptions of corporate culture because they have never been taught to think.

Only 8 percent of U.S. college graduates now receive degrees in the humanities, about 110,000 students. Between 1970 and 2001, bachelor’s degrees in English declined from 7.6 percent to 4 percent, as did degrees in foreign languages (2.4 percent to 1 percent), mathematics (3 percent to 1 percent), social science and history (18.4 percent to 10 percent). Bachelor’s degrees in business, which promise the accumulation of wealth, have skyrocketed. Business majors since 1970-1971 have risen from 13.6 percent of the graduation population to 21.7 percent. Business has now replaced education, which has fallen from 21 percent to 8.2 percent, as the most popular major.

The values that sustain an open society have been crushed. A university, as John Ralston Saul writes, now “actively seeks students who suffer from the appropriate imbalance and then sets out to exaggerate it. Imagination, creativity, moral balance, knowledge, common sense, a social view — all these things wither. Competitiveness, having an ever-ready answer, a talent for manipulating situations — all these things are encouraged to grow. As a result amorality also grows; as does extreme aggressivity when they are questioned by outsiders; as does a confusion between the nature of good versus having a ready answer to all questions. Above all, what is encouraged is the growth of an undisciplined form of self-interest, in which winning is what counts.”

This moral nihilism would have terrified Adorno. He knew that radical evil was possible only with the collaboration of a timid, cowed and confused population, a system of propaganda and a press that offered little more than spectacle and entertainment and an educational system that did not transmit transcendent values or nurture the capacity for individual conscience. He feared a culture that banished the anxieties and complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish hyper-masculinity, one championed by ruthless capitalists (think of the brutal backstabbing and deception cheered by TV shows like “Survivor”) and Hollywood action heroes like the governor of California.

“This educational ideal of hardness, in which many may believe without reflecting about it, is utterly wrong,” Adorno wrote. “The idea that virility consists in the maximum degree of endurance long ago became a screen-image for masochism that, as psychology has demonstrated, aligns itself all too easily with sadism.”

Sadism is as much a part of popular culture as it is of corporate culture. It dominates pornography, runs like an electric current through reality television and trash-talk programs and is at the core of the compliant, corporate collective. Corporatism is about crushing the capacity for moral choice. And it has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our lack of compassion for the homeless, our poor, the mentally ill, the unemployed and the sick.

“The political and economic forces fuelling such crimes against humanity — whether they are unlawful wars, systemic torture, practiced indifference to chronic starvation and disease or genocidal acts — are always mediated by educational forces,” Giroux said. “Resistance to such acts cannot take place without a degree of knowledge and self-reflection. We have to name these acts and transform moral outrage into concrete attempts to prevent such human violations from taking place in the first place.”

The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy. Moral autonomy, as Immanuel Kant wrote, is possible only through reflection, self-determination and the courage not to cooperate.

Moral autonomy is what the corporate state, with all its attacks on liberal institutions and “leftist” professors, has really set out to destroy. The corporate state holds up as our ideal what Adorno called “the manipulative character.” The manipulative character has superb organizational skills and the inability to have authentic human experiences. He or she is an emotional cripple and driven by an overvalued realism. The manipulative character is a systems manager. He or she exclusively trained to sustain the corporate structure, which is why our elites are wasting mind-blowing amounts of our money on corporations like Goldman Sachs and AIG. “He makes a cult of action, activity, of so-called efficiency as such which reappears in the advertising image of the active person,” Adorno wrote of this personality type. These manipulative characters, people like Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, AIG’s Edward Liddy and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, along with most of our ruling class, have used corporate money and power to determine the narrow parameters of the debate in our classrooms, on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress while they looted the country.

“It is especially difficult to fight against it,” warned Adorno, “because those manipulative people, who actually are incapable of true experience, for that very reason manifest an unresponsiveness that associates them with certain mentally ill or psychotic characters, namely schizoids.”

Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.

Government should offer incentives for homes to go green

2

By Hank Kalet |

The federal government should help homeowners go green.

Several states are already seeking ways to encourage homeowners to switch from dirty fuels to cleaner energy sources, kick-starting a green revolution house by house.

In New Jersey, the state Legislature recently passed a bill that would require homebuilders to offer buyers solar energy systems as an option. And the state government provides grants and loans for solar installation on existing housing.

Communities, neighborhood groups and educational facilities in New Mexico are experimenting with solar and biomass systems, and dozens of cities and counties around the country are doing the same.

Take a look at California, where several cities are offering homeowners the opportunity to finance the installation of solar power the same way most public water, sewer or gas-line projects are financed – over a 20-year period to be paid back as a special assessment on a homeowner’s property taxes.

Cities and towns, however, have to get the money to finance these programs. Berkeley, the first city in California to create a public-financing program, turned to the banks for financing. Palm Desert, another California community that offers financing, used its own reserves to get its pilot project off the ground.

But interest in such programs could outstrip the ability of local governments to procure financing, which is why the federal government must step in.

Most states and towns face tight budgets because revenue has become scarce and their budgets, by law, have to be balanced.

Federal money ought to be made available – as it has for energy-efficiency projects and large-scale conversions of the energy grid.

By engaging individual homeowners in going green, we will not only reduce our carbon footprint one household at a time. We will simultaneously be building the larger constituency we’ll need to arrive at our clean energy future.

Hank Kalet is online editor and columnist for The Princeton Packet newspaper group in New Jersey. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org.

40,000 reasons the G20 must act

0

By Adrian Roberts |

THOUSANDS of campaigners marched through London on Saturday in the run-up to the G20 summit to demand action on poverty, climate change and jobs.

Over 40,000 marchers accompanied by brass bands and drummers walked the four miles from Embankment to Hyde Park.

Union banners from GMB, UNISON, Unite and RMT were on show as protesters moved past the capital’s landmarks in a carnival-like atmosphere before gathering for a series of speeches.

Many protesters carried banners bearing slogans including: “Put the children first” and “Climate emergency” and there were loud boos and whistles as the crowd passed 10 Downing Street.

The Put People First march, backed by an alliance of 150 groups including unions, charities, greens and faith organisations, was held amid anger at the £19 million cost of staging the G20.

People came from all over the country and families with children in pushchairs were among those marching.

Jyoti Fernandes, an organic farmer who travelled from Somerset with her four children, said: “We are here to remind people that we have to look after our land and look after our food.”

Protester Kevin Stevens ignored police warnings for City workers to keep a low profile and came dressed in a pinstripe suit as a banker.

“I thought I might prove all the talk about attacking City workers is nonsense,” he said.

Bryan Simpson, who had travelled from Glasgow, said it was going to be a summer of rage for the working class, who “are expected to pay the price for the debts of the banks.”

As marchers arrived at Hyde Park, Unite union leader Derek Simpson said: “I think it’s an important message, but whether it will get through to the people meeting in London I don’t know. Anyone who sees the numbers on this march should realise how important it is.”

Global Call To Action Against Poverty co-chairman Kumi Naidoo told the rally that the G20 had a duty to act.

“Today we have to say the choices the poor people face and middle-class people face are intolerable and therefore we will not accept timidity from the G20 when they gather next week,” he said.

Comedian Mark Thomas believed the protest marked “the start of a grass-roots movement.”

He said: “This is a moment. This is the first time people have had a chance to come out on to the streets in a big way.”

ActionAid’s Claire Melamed said her organisation was delighted with the turnout.

“We’re really pleased. We are hearing every day about people losing jobs and not being able to feed their children as this economic crisis deepens.

“We want the G20 to listen to us. This began as a financial crisis and it’s turning into a humanitarian one.”

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber told the crowd that never before had such a wide coalition come together with such a clear message for world leaders.

“The old ideas of unregulated free markets do not work and have brought the world’s economy to near-collapse, failed to fight poverty and have done far too little to move to a low-carbon economy,” said the TUC leader.

After the demo, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted that he would answer protesters’ concerns.

Speaking in Chile at the end of a pre-G20 tour, Mr Brown said: “We will respond at the G20 with measures that will help create jobs, stimulate business and get the economy moving.”

See reference:
Unity from diversity

New claim of MI5 collusion in torture

0

Claims that secret agents working for MI5 and MI6 watched and encouraged the torture of a second British resident held by the Americans must be investigated by the police, politicians, lawyers and human rights groups said last night.

 

Fresh allegations in the High Court this week will increase pressure on the Government to open a judicial inquiry into collusion between the CIA and British security services in torture during the “war on terror”.

 

Shaker Aamer, 42, the final British resident in Guantanamo Bay, claims that like Binyam Mohamed, he was tortured in American custody in 2002.

 

On Thursday the Attorney General took the unprecedented step of calling in Scotland Yard to investigate allegations that MI5 collaborated in the alleged torture of Mr Mohamed. Mr Aamer’s case is believed to be one of 15 similar new cases. In a legal claim against the Government to be lodged at the High Court this week, Mr Aamer’s lawyers allege that MI5 and MI6 were complicit in the torture of Mr Aamer.

 

A claim letter sent to Government lawyers alleges: “UK intelligence services officers were present whilst Mr Aamer was beaten. They provided information and encouragement to his US torturers. They made no attempt to stop his ill-treatment or any enquiries into his well-being.”

 

The British Government has requested the release of Mr Aamer from Guantanamo Bay, where he is on hunger strike. There are no terrorism charges against him.

 

Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, last night called on the Government to investigate Mr Aamer’s allegations. “These disturbing claims only strengthen the case for a judicial inquiry into allegations of British collusion in torture,” he said. “Britain’s reputation will be dragged through the mud if they go unanswered.”

 

According to an MI5 senior manager, known as “Witness A”, the Security Service was aware of transfers of prisoners from Pakistan to Afghanistan during this period. Witness A’s evidence in the case of Binyam Mohamed, given last year but only released on Friday, suggests at least some of these transfers were believed to be unlawful.

 

Mr Aamer’s lawyer Irène Nembhard, of Birnberg Peirce, is asking the British Government to disclose the identity of the US and UK agents involved in her client’s interrogation, detention and torture.

 

Mr Aamer is married to a British citizen with whom he has four children, including a son he has never seen. He says he went to Afghanistan in 2001 to work with charities. He was sharing a house with Moazzam Begg, the British man released from Guantanamo Bay in 2005, when he was forced to flee the US-led invasion. He says he was held by an Afghan militant group, who passed him to the Northern Alliance who sold him to the Americans. The CIA arranged his detention in Afghanistan and transfer to Guantanamo Bay. Mr Aamer says an MI5 officer, who gave his name as “John”, was present while he was tortured in Afghanistan in January 2002. “John” was the name given by Witness B, the MI5 agent who interrogated Binyam Mohamed.

©belfasttelegraph.co.uk

British activist jailed in China for Olympics protest

0

A British man was sentenced to serve six months in a Hong Kong jail after being found guilty of causing a public nuisance.

Matt Pearce, a teacher originally from Bristol but who now lives on the territory’s island, staged a protest against China’s human rights record on a Hong Kong bridge on August 8 last year – the opening day of the Summer Olympics in Beijing.

The 33-year-old hung banners that read ‘We want human rights and democracy’ and ‘The people of China want freedom from oppression’ on road signs on the Tsing Ma Bridge in a protest that lasted for two hours and caused major traffic congestion as police tried to remove him.

After a three-day trial Mr Pearce was found guilty of causing a public nuisance earlier this month but was cleared of a separate charge of common assault.

In 2005 the veteran activist, who is the founding member of an organisation called International Action, was sentenced to 21 days in prison after dressing as Spiderman and scaling a giant television screen in the Central district of Hong Kong on the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square killings. The sentence was later suspended for 18 months on appeal.

He was also convicted of causing a public nuisance after staging a protest in a horse costume at the Hong Kong races, in 2004, again receiving a suspended jail sentence.

Prior to the verdict, Mr Pearce had insisted he was keen to continue to stage protests in Hong Kong regardless of the outcome of this trial.

“I believe in what I am doing and the style and approach and the strategy I am adopting is what I think is exactly what Hong Kong needs,” he said.

“I am hoping that I will influence some of the other activists here and if more people started doing what I am doing then it would be quite a big problem for the Government.”

©2009 Associated Newspapers Limited

Will civil liberties be eroded by eborders legislation?

0
COULD Big Brother soon be keeping tabs on Isle of Man residents’ travel arrangements?
That’s the fear of political lobby organisation the Positive Action Group, which is concerned about the extension of the UK’s e-Borders programme and its effect on travellers between the Isle of Man and the UK.

E-borders is an integrated electronic travel monitoring system that aims to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, illegal immigration and other serious crime.

The Manx Government has agreed in principle to be involved in the programme.

It means that when someone books a flight or ferry their details would be checked on the UK e-Borders database.

The plan is to collect, in advance of travel, extensive personal information on people using airline and ferry reservation data and passengers’ biometric passport data.

But PAG fears Island travellers could be stopped and searched randomly — and their travel plan blocked for even minor offences, such as unpaid parking fines.

There are also concerns about the storage of people’s personal travel history for up to 10 years.

A pilot is already running on ‘high-risk’ routes; by next year all rail, air and ferry travellers will be tracked; by 2014, even pleasure boats, fishing vessels and private planes will be included.

PAG chairman Roger Tomlinson said: ‘A number of our members are concerned about the restrictions the system could impose on passengers as we have just learned that the new Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill proposes a new power for the UK authorities to randomly subject to ‘stop, search and delay’, passengers entering the UK from the Isle of Man.

‘We face having to carry a passport to get into the UK, booking at least 24 hours in advance to travel off Island and possibly having travel plans disrupted due to no fault of our own. The restrictions will apply to pleasure craft and the fishing fleet as well as private air travel.’

He said taxpayers may have to fund new building works at the Sea Terminal to allow for identity checks.

‘In addition there will be a need for expensive new passport reading electronic equipment at the Sea Terminal and Ronaldsway in order to pass all the data to the UK Home Office. It will indeed be Orwellian,’ he said.

A golden opportunity to test Obama pledge on open government

18

IT is said to be the most impregnable vault on Earth: built out of granite, sealed behind a 22-tonne door, located on a US military base and watched over day and night by army units with tanks, heavy artillery and Apache helicopter gunships at their disposal.

Since its construction in 1937, the treasures locked inside Fort Knox have included the US Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, three volumes of the Gutenberg Bible and the Magna Carta.

For several prominent investors and at least one senior US congressman, it is not the security of the facility in Kentucky that is a cause of concern: it is the matter of how much gold remains stored there — and who owns it.

They are worried that no independent auditors appear to have had access to the reported $137bn (€104bn) stockpile of brick-shaped gold bars in Fort Knox since the era of President Eisenhower.

After the risky trading activities at supposedly safe institutions such as AIG they want to be reassured that the gold reserves are still the exclusive property of the US and have not been used to fund risky transactions.

In other words, they want to be certain that the bullion has not been rendered as valueless as if a real-life Goldfinger had stolen it.

“It has been several decades since the gold in Fort Knox was independently audited or properly accounted for,” said Ron Paul, the Texas Congressman and former Republican presidential candidate. “The American people deserve to know the truth.”

Mr Paul has so far attracted 21 co-sponsors for a Bill to conduct an independent audit of the Federal Reserve System — including its claims to Fort Knox gold — but an organisation named the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) is taking a different approach.

It has hired the Virginia law firm William J Olson to test US president Barack Obama‘s promise to bring “an unprecedented level of openness” to the US government.

Next month it will file several Freedom of Information requests for a full disclosure of US gold ownership and trading activities.

Nuclear

“We’re taking the president at his word,” said Chris Powell, of GATA.

“If you go online you can find out how to build a nuclear weapon but you won’t find any detailed records on central gold reserves.”

A month after former US president Richard Nixon resigned over the Watergate affair, Congress demanded to inspect the contents of Fort Knox but the trip to Kentucky was dismissed by critics as a photo opportunity.

Three years earlier, Mr Nixon brought an end to the gold standard when France and Switzerland demanded to redeem their dollar holdings for gold amid the soaring cost of the Vietnam War.

Many gold investors suspect that the US has periodically attempted to flood the market with Fort Knox gold to keep prices low and the dollar high — perhaps through international swap agreements with other central banks — but facts remain scarce and the US Treasury denies that any such meddling has gone on for at least the past decade.

Pressure for more openness is mounting after the collapse of the global banking system and renewed interest in a return to the simpler era of the gold standard — a subject that is likely to be raised at the G20 summit next week.

China and Russia are calling for the creation of a new world reserve currency amid fears that the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing policy — essentially printing money — might cause hyperinflation, then collapse.

A spokesman for the US Treasury said that US gold holdings were audited every year by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Inspector General.

He confirmed that although independent auditors oversaw the process they were not given access to the Fort Knox vault.

The website of the US Mint says that the 147.3million troy ounces of gold in Fort Knox “is held as an asset of the US”. It does not elaborate. (© The Times, London).

– Chris Ayres in Los Angeles

Free Expression Assault Continues at UN Human Rights Council

0

Freedom House condemns the UN Human Rights Council for undermining the universal right to freedom of expression by once again passing a resolution that urges members to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions.

The “defamation of religions” resolution, introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), passed today by a vote of 23-11, with 13 abstentions. Muslim nations have been introducing similar resolutions since 1999, arguing that Islam-the only religion specifically cited in the text-must be shielded from unfair associations with terrorism and human rights abuses.

“These countries are using the UN to expand and bring legitimacy to their frontal assault on freedom of expression,” said Paula Schriefer, Freedom House advocacy director. “This assault starts at the level of domestic blasphemy laws present in many OIC countries, which are routinely employed to harass and imprison religious minorities, political dissenters and human rights advocates, and is elevated to the international level through resolutions at the UN.”

Freedom House is especially disappointed that South Africa, a liberal democracy whose citizens’ have a deep understanding of how such laws are used to punish dissenters, continues to back these resolutions. Similarly, strong democracies such as South Korea, Japan, India, Mexico and Brazil should have actively worked to defeat the resolution, instead of casting abstention votes.

In contrast, Freedom House applauds the leadership shown by Chile in rejecting the resolution and hopes that Chile will work to persuade other Latin American countries to vote in a manner that accurately reflects the democratic nature of their region. Such an effort would send a message that freedom of expression is a universal right and not just a right to be enjoyed by the citizens of Western democracies.

Text condemning “defamation of religions” was originally part of a draft declaration to be issued at the Durban II anti-racism conference in Geneva next month. But it was withdrawn after Western nations said they would pull out of the UN conference unless it was removed.

In addition, supporters of “defamation of religions” are increasingly attempting to incorporate the concept into existing human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). They claim that “defamation of religions” leads to “incitement of hatred or violence,” which is a legitimate restriction under the ICCPR’s Article 20.

“It’s preposterous to suggest that criticizing or satirizing a religion automatically leads to hatred or violence or in any way prevents its adherents from practicing their faith,” said Schriefer. “In fact, the ability to question religious beliefs or tenets is not only a right of free expression, but a critical aspect to freedom of religion itself.”

Of the 14 OIC members on the council, only Indonesia is ranked Free in Freedom in the World, Freedom House’s annual assessment of political rights and civil liberties. Four of these countries-Cameroon, Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia-are ranked Not Free, demonstrating an absence of political rights and a systematic denial of basic civil liberties. A further analysis of Freedom in the World comparing levels of freedom of expression and belief within OIC countries to regional groupings finds that only the Middle East and North Africa would receive a lower score in these categories.

New Labour’s dream is a surveillance state nightmare

0

The Networker

There’s a delicious moment in Alastair Beaton’s satirical film, The Trial of Tony Blair, in which the former prime minister is finally arrested for war crimes on a warrant from the international criminal court. One scene shows the standard police procedure as Blair is inducted by the desk sergeant in a London station. Towards the end of the rigmarole, the policeman moves to take a saliva swab from him.

Blair is aghast, asks him what he is doing and – after the policeman has explained that’s he’s taking a DNA sample – asks who brought in such a stupid law. “You did, sir,” is the response.

The irony, of course, is that Blair led New Labour down the path towards an authoritarian, target-driven, intrusive state. His administration dreamed up the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 handing draconian powers of surveillance to every goon and jobsworth in the land. He was the guy who undermined parliament and took the country to war on false pretences. Oh, and he was also the PM whose administration insisted on keeping forever on file the DNA records not just of criminals but anyone who’s ever been arrested.

All of this was brought to mind this week with the publication of Database State, an amazing report by IT security experts commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust in the aftermath of the loss, by HM Revenue & Customs, of the entire child benefit database in October 2007. Spurred by the HMRC fiasco, and all the subsequent data losses that came to light in the months that followed, the trust sponsored a meeting of academics and activists with an interest in privacy. These experts attempted to map Britain’s database state, identifying the many public sector databases that collect personal information about us.

Not surprisingly, the task proved to be too big for one seminar, so the trust commissioned the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) to conduct the most comprehensive survey ever of Britain’s government databases. The report was published last week (it’s available online at www.fipr.org) and makes sobering reading for anyone who cares what’s happened to this country since Blair & Co swept to power in 1997.

Of the 46 databases assessed, only six are found to have “a proper legal basis for any privacy intrusions and are proportionate and necessary in a democratic society”. Eleven are “almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law” and “should be scrapped or substantially redesigned”, while the remaining 29 were found to “have significant problems and should be subject to an independent review”.

The creation and updating of these databases is central to the Blair/Brown “transformational government” programme, for which the government is currently unable to attach an estimated cost. But the UK public sector currently spends £16bn a year on IT projects and had – at least until the credit crunch – planned to spend £100bn on databases and related stuff over the next five years.

Even these days, these are huge sums, which reflect the New Labour belief that IT systems will one day give the government the information it needs to control every aspect of our lives, defeat terrorism and eliminate crime. Much of the proposed expenditure is devoted to enabling colossal official databases to talk to one another.

The goal is that one day the government will have a seamless cradle-to-grave electronic record of every aspect of a citizen’s life. It will track school and medical records, every phone number dialled, every email and text message sent and received, every website visited, every speeding fine and passport issued, every vehicle registered, every mortgage or loan taken out, every foreign trip undertaken, every tax return filed and benefit claimed. And, of course, every encounter with officialdom. It’s an Orwellian nightmare rationalised by the need for efficiency in the spending of public money but designed to change forever the relationship between the individual and the state.

The FIPR/Rowntree survey has uncovered the extent to which the UK government is already operating outside the law. That would once have been enough to call a halt to New Labour’s Orwellian project. But those days have gone. The only thing that will stop Britain’s descent into the National Surveillance State is a change of government. Fortunately, looking at the opinion polls, we might not have too long to wait.

Wired editor: Google has us all in its web

3

Google’s new Street View service – which displays 360-degree photographs of streetscapes in 25 British towns – has made it a challenge getting pages proof-read in the Wired offices this week. First, we spot the magazine’s associate editor in a skirt in a West London street (to be fair, he insists it is a kilt). Then we discover that Google’s face-blurring algorithm has bizarrely pixellated Bobby Sands’s face on a Belfast mural, presumably to protect what the software assumes is his privacy.

But Simon Davies, who runs a generally estimable campaign group called Privacy International, isn’t much amused. Street View, Mr Davies complained to the information commissioner this week, “has created numerous instances of embarrassment and distress”, and so he pledged to bring a legal test case.

Why? A 15-year-old had complained to Privacy International that Google snapped him carrying a skateboard “which his parents had expressly forbade him from using”; oh, and a married man was captured “speaking at close proximity with a female colleague”. Forget ID cards, registers of children’s DNA and government trawling of our e-mails – in Street View, we have finally identified the ultimate threat to British citizens’ liberty.

Well, no, actually. Although some of those photographed exiting sex shops or being sick in pub car parks may have prompted panicked deletions by Google’s public-relations machine, the public sphere remains essentially public. Despite the creeping incursions of French-style privacy legislation, one can still lawfully capture images from and of the British public commons – so it’s an absurdity for those sneaking a work-break cigarette, or flirting at a bus stop, to claim that somehow their rights have been breached by a passing camera. A right to absolute privacy in public? Get over it.

No, the real public threat from Google is its ever-inflating scale as an unregulated profit-seeking company to which we are entrusting unprecedented swaths of confidential information. What was once simply a niftily effective search company now serves as a personal calendar, an e-mail archive, a store of our word-processing documents, a video repository, a mobile-phone-tracking service, a road-travel itinerary – a vigilant monitor of our medical obsessions, physical movements and political leanings. And that’s fine, provided Google is transparent and sensitive about how it collects and uses our personal data, and that it guards it unfailingly. But as Privacy International pointed out, after a survey found Google to be the worst-ranked leading internet company for respecting user privacy, it is secretive, even hostile, about the use to which it puts our data, often for an indefinite length of time. That is something that should concern us all – especially with the boom in cloud computing.

Previously, we stored most of our data on computers that we controlled in our homes or workplaces. Today, as we rely increasingly on a “cloud” of distant servers to host our e-mail or calculate our taxes, we are shifting such information at an unprecedented scale to networks administered by private corporations. So let’s say you’ve archived your family photos on Google’s Picasa, your confidential accounts on Google Docs and revealed your sexual preferences during searches of Google Images. Admit it: you have no idea how this might be used to help advertisers to target you personally, or governments to profile you surreptitiously.

I write as an admirer of a company whose innovations have enriched our digital lives. But I worry that its dominance is outpacing governments’ ability to challenge it. Two years ago I warned about the online trail Google collected about you “for ever”, all linked to a personally identifiable Internet Protocol address. I suggested that their proposed $3.1 billion acquisition of DoubleClick, the ad-serving business built on “understanding” internet users, gave a worrying indication of its corporate thinking. DoubleClick had made proud assurances about users’ privacy protection, until its CEO was forced to admit the company had made a “mistake by planning to merge names with anonymous user activity across websites in the absence of government and industry privacy standards”.

Earlier this month, Google launched “interest-based advertising” – what others call behavioural targeting – serving advertisements to users based on their online activity. Yet Google is not simply monitoring what you do at its own pages – it is also tracking your interests as you access other unrelated websites. A key benefit, it says, is that it will be able to serve you adverts that more accurately reflect your interests. But do you really want one company to know so much about you? Privately held data has a habit of leaking out. As recently as March 7, a security flaw meant that private papers stored at Google Docs could be accessed by unauthorised users. Mistakes happen – but the volume of data that the firm holds makes it a target for malicious hackers.

Then there is the immutable law of the digital age that data collected for one purpose may be used for purposes never originally intended. We have no idea how future technologies will exploit our historic data trail in ways that may disadvantage us. Will life insurers penalise our past medical search queries, or the tax office fret that we are aspiring to products beyond our declared income?

What we do know is that one database has an innate desire to merge with another to create ever more detailed personal profiles. Wired journalists have been investigating how broadcast, telecoms and internet businesses are planning to mine our viewing and clicking data as never before. Already, your TV set-top box can provide a vast information trail, allowing analysts to know whether you’ve fallen asleep, who in the family is using the remote according to how they navigate the menu, and what (based on the shows and ads they view) they want out of life. Now, let’s imagine how much more powerful this information would be if linked to other personal databases – not just your internet trail, but your purchase history at the supermarket.

Add to this near-future scenario interactive digital billboards that recognise faces and serve targeted ads based on what the database knows about you. And then crunch in real-time mapping of your precise location, based on signals emitted from your mobile phone. All, of course, benign services that will benefit the consumer by targeting special offers when in the vicinity of a store … But have we debated sufficiently how we want such information to be used, and what is being done to ensure that it does not fall into the wrong hands?

Google – did I mention? – has a rather cool mobile-phone tracking program called Latitude, which lets you know where your friends are according to signals emitted from their phones. Again, all perfectly fun, and Google makes both parties opt in to being tracked. But let’s just imagine that a jealous partner gains access to your unattended phone and enables Latitude without your knowledge. Or government bureaucrats, never satisfied with the extent of their power to track the populace…

This is the moment for us to demand clear answers from the tech industry’s data crunchers, not only Google, and to educate ourselves about what we are giving away. Because when one unaccountable company knows where we are, who we’re e-mailing, what’s in our work documents, what we’re buying and thinking – well, that starts to add up to real information.

David Rowan is the editor of Wired magazine, which launches in the UK on Thursday

Security services eye personal data

0

Privacy campaigners are already protesting the idea to use personal data to for ‘pre-emptive surveillance’.

By William Maclean |

CCTV cameras will play a big part in security during next week’s G20 summit, but a former security chief has said it could soon go further than that, with all personal data being uesd for “pre-emptive surveillance”.

That is the vision outlined by former security chief David Omand in a study of intelligence methods seen by privacy campaigners as a plan for a vast breach of human rights.

“Finding out other people’s secrets is going to involve breaking everyday moral rules,” he said in the paper for the Institute of Public Policy Research, an influential think tank.

“Application of modern data mining and processing techniques does involve examination of the innocent as well as the suspect to identify patterns of interest for further investigation.”

In an interview, Omand said: “If you have the advantage of pre-emptive intelligence, then you are able to use the rapier, not the bludgeon, of state power.”

Law enforcement agencies can already access personal data in a criminal investigation. What is new is the proposal to examine the data purely to identify leads for further investigation.

Analysts say the study by Omand, the cabinet’s Security and Intelligence Coordinator in 2002-05, may be an indicator of the kind of reforms the security agencies may seek in coming years.

It may also point to changes elsewhere, as British surveillance practice is often emulated by countries who see Britain as a leader in using technology to snoop on its own people.

Omand says a growing target for spies is not the street, where an estimated 4.2 million closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras already operate throughout Britain, but personal data held on computers that forms the stuff of personal life.

This means databases of airline bookings, advance passenger information, financial, telephone, tax, health, passport and biometric records and phone and internet communications.

“Where I disagree with many who warn of the dangers of the ‘surveillance society’ is that I think these methods are necessary for counter-terrorism, provided they are properly regulated,” he said.

What about privacy?

“I think the British public would be on my side given the still significant threat from terrorism,” said Omand, a former director of the Government Communications Headquarters, an intelligence agency that intercepts electronic communications.

Omand says the state needs this power because Britain is more vulnerable to disruption as it becomes more networked and IT-dependent. Also, he says, sacrificing some privacy is preferable to other ways of boosting security such as altering the criminal law to make it easier to convict.

“This is a hard choice,” he said. “But…it is greatly preferable to tinkering with the rule of law, or derogating from fundamental human rights,” he wrote.

Omand said surveillance should be subject to an authorizing process with clear accountability to safeguard “public trust in the essential reasonableness” of British security action.

It will be for parliament eventually to decide the limits of such surveillance, and some analysts fear MPs will permit wide powers. Britons, with no experience of invasion or occupation in their modern history, are traditionally tolerant of state power provided it is seen to be wielded benignly.

Omand’s critics have been quick to speak up.

Ken MacDonald, a former Director of Public Prosecutions, said if spies trawled the data of people suspected of no crime they “would become, in peoples’ eyes, essentially objectionable and oppressive. They would be viewed with hostility.”

“This is because to abolish the distinction between suspects and those suspected of nothing, to place them in entirely the same category in the eyes of the State, is an unmistakable hallmark of authoritarianism.”

Government may snoop on websites

1

By Stefano Ambrogi |

Social networking websites like Facebook could be forced to pass on details of users’ friends and contacts under government proposals to fight terrorism.

Millions of Britons use sites like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace to chat with friends, but ministers are concerned the rapidly evolving technology could be exploited by extremists.

Critics have attacked the plans as more evidence of big government intruding into people’s lives.

The Home Office confirmed on Wednesday that the government was looking into the possibility of monitoring networking sites, but said the idea was only at a consultation stage.

It also insisted it had no interest in the content of private conversations, simply on who is talking to whom.

“We have been clear that the communications revolution has been rapid in this country and the way in which we collect communications data needs to change so that law enforcement agencies can maintain their ability to tackle terrorism and gather evidence,” a Home Office spokesman said.

“We have been very clear that there are no plans for a database containing the content of emails, texts, conversations or social networking sites,” he added.

The spokesman said the government would begin consulting industry and the public on ways of closing potential loopholes created by technology used by social sites soon.

Facebook’s chief privacy officer and head of global public policy, Chris Kelly, criticised the plans as excessive.

In an interview with IT website ZDNET.co.uk he said: “We think monitoring all user traffic is overkill.”

There was sufficient legislation, he added, to allow law enforcement access to traffic data of suspects.

Kelly was responding to comments made by Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker earlier this month at a meeting of the House of Commons Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee.

Coaker said the EU Data Retention Directive, which requires internet service providers to retain traffic data for at least 12 months, did not go far enough because it did not apply to social-networking providers.

Coaker said the government was considering retaining traffic data for all instant messaging and communications on networking sites as part of its Intercept Modernisation Programme.

At the same meeting, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Tom Brake called plans to include the sites in mass surveillance of citizens alarming.

“Plans to monitor our phone and email records threaten to be the most expensive snooper’s charter in history,” he said in comments published in the Independent newspaper on Wednesday.

MP calling for ID card scheme to be ditched

0

SOUTH Derbyshire MP Mark Todd has called on the Government to abandon its plans for ID cards.

Since November, ID cards have been compulsory for foreign nationals living in the UK and will become mandatory for workers at Manchester and London City airport later this year. The cards, which will contain details of a person’s fingerprints, name, date of birth and address, will then be offered to the rest of the population from 2011.

Mr Todd did not support the Government on the third reading of the bill. He said: “While there have been some sensible decisions made since the passage of the bill – to simplify the project, to deconstruct it and integrate it with existing activity, to change the disastrously ill-thought through justifications of it – I doubt that it is realisable in its planned form. That would appear to me to be the wisest approach.”

© Trinity Mirror

Countries Urged to Follow Irish Lead on Guantanamo

OneWorld US | European countries should emulate Ireland’s offer to accept Guantanamo detainees who will be released by the United States but cannot return to their home countries, says an international human rights monitor.

“This strong statement by the Irish Taoiseach [Prime Minister] must now be matched by other governments in Europe and, above all, by concrete and swift action by the U.S.A. to end the unlawful detention of the men still held at Guantanamo,” said Daniel Gorevan of Amnesty International’s Counter Terror with Justice campaign.

  • “We wanted to see the closure of Guantanamo. We believed it was overall injurious to the public perception of the West, the public perception of the U.S., and also in terms of the human rights dimension to it. We have said that we are willing to respond with an offer of assistance,” said Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin in a recent meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. While some European countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, fear the security risks of accepting detainees, other nations, including France and Portugal, are more open to taking in former prisoners. Read more in an op-ed by columnist Ruth Dudley Edwards, published in the Irish online news source Independent.ie.
  • In one of his first moves as president of the United States, Barack Obama ordered a four-month suspension of the Guantanamo Bay military trials that have been criticized as unfair and counter to U.S. values of freedom and justice. Shortly thereafter, Obama issued an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, saying the move marks a new era of revitalized U.S. respect for human rights. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report.
  • UN report says Israel used boy as human shield, Israel denies

    4

    JERUSALEM/GENEVA: Israel on Tuesday slammed as “one-sided” a report by a UN human rights investigator which said its three-week war on the Gaza Strip was possibly a war crime.

    “Unfortunately this is a further example of the very one-sided, unbalanced and unfair attitude of the (UN) Human Rights Council,” government spokesman Mark Regev told AFP.

    “This sort of report does the service of human rights no good whatsoever,” he said. “It’s a politicization of human rights.”

    The UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, Richard Falk, said in a report on Monday that there was “reason” to conclude that Israel’s massive military offensive on Gaza in December and January was a war crime.

    Falk said that in order to determine if the war was legal, it was necessary to assess if the Israeli forces could differentiate between civilian and military targets in Gaza.

    “If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful, and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law,” Falk wrote in the report.

    “On the basis of the preliminary evidence available, there is reason to reach this conclusion,” he added, pointing out that attacks were targeted at densely populated areas.

    On Monday UN human rights expert said Israeli soldiers used an 11-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield during the offensive on Gaza.

    The Israeli Defense force ordered the boy to walk in front of soldiers being fired on in the Gaza neighborhood of Tel Al-Hawa and enter buildings before them, said the UN secretary-general’s envoy for protecting children in armed conflict.

    The boy also was told to open the bags of Palestinians – presumably to protect the soldiers from possible explosives – before being released at the entrance to a hospital, Radhika Coomaraswamy said.

    She said the Jan. 15 incident, after Israeli tanks had rolled into the neighborhood and during “intense operations,” was a violation of Israeli and international law.

    It was included in a 43-page report published Monday, and was just one of many verified human rights atrocities during the three-week war between Israel and Hamas that ended Jan. 18, she said.

    Coomaraswamy accused Israeli soldiers of shooting Palestinian children, bulldozing a home with a woman and child still inside, and shelling a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier.

    “Violations were reported on a daily basis, too numerous to list,” said Coomaraswamy, who visited Gaza and Israel for five days in February.

    Coomaraswamy said there also have been allegations that Hamas used human shields or fired from heavily populated areas, and that UN officials are investigating.

    Israel criticized the report as “unable or perhaps unwilling” to address Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza or the threat of terrorism, citing Saturday’s failed attempt to explode a car bomb in a Haifa mall parking lot as the most recent manifestation.

    “The report claims to examine Israel’s actions while it willfully ignores and downplays the terrorist and other threats we face,” Ambassador Aharon Leshno Yaar told the 47-nation Human Rights Council.

    Leshno Yaar said terrorists use women and children as human shields when they launch attacks from schools, homes, hospitals and mosques. He did not address the report’s specific allegation about the boy, but an army spokesman rejected the claim.

    “We are an army to which morals and high ethical standards are paramount,” said Capt. Elie Isaacson.

    Coomaraswamy said her list of Israeli violations constituted “just a few examples of the hundreds of incidents that have been documented and verified” by UN officials who were in the territory.

    She was the only one of the nine UN experts who compiled the report that was allowed into Gaza following the war. The experts covered issues ranging from health and hunger to women’s rights and arbitrary executions.

    The experts also noted reports that Hamas had committed other abuses. They said Hamas had been unwilling to investigate the allegations.

    The report called for Israel to investigate human rights abuses that occurred during the conflict.

    Last week Israel’s military ordered a criminal inquiry into published reports from soldiers that some troops had knowingly killed Palestinian civilians, including children.

    Meanwhile, Falk had focused his report on the legal issues arising from the war, as he had been unable to enter Gaza to assess the human rights situation on the ground.

    He attempted a mission in December – before Israel launched its 22-day offensive – but was detained by the Israelis and then expelled, with the foreign ministry accusing him of “legitimizing Hamas terrorism”.

    “Such a refusal to cooperate with a United Nations representative, not to mention the somewhat humiliating treatment accorded has set an unfortunate precedent with respect to the treatment of a representative of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and more generally of the United Nations itself,” Falk wrote.

    Falk has been highly critical of Israel’s policies against the Palestinians, saying in December that they amounted to a crime against humanity.

    Falk in January also charged that Israel’s military operations in Gaza raised the “specter of systematic war crimes” and needed to be investigated. — Agencies

     

    Privacy group urges sites to say no to Phorm

    0

     Online privacy and civil liberties organisation the Open Rights Group has urged major websites including Amazon, Google, Ebay and Facebook to opt out of Phorm’s targeted advertising system.

    Jim Killock, the group’s executive director, said the software, which tracks the websites a user visits to match them with relevant advertising, is set to be introduced by major ISPs “in the near future”.

    In an open letter to chief privacy officers at seven websites, he wrote: “You may already be aware of the very significant concerns expressed by many of your UK internet customers about the interception and processing of their data whenever it is viewed by ISPs who deploy the Phorm system.”

    Killock said that opting out of the system would “provide reassurance to your customers and help them retain confidence in your brand, as well as the integrity of the internet as a whole”.

    “We strongly believe,” he continued, “that it is clearly in your company’s interest, the interests of all of your customers and will serve to protect your brand’s reputation if you insist that the Phorm system does not process any data that passes to or from your website.”

    The Open Rights Group chief spoke at a roundtable event at the House of Lords earlier this month which was debating deep packet inspection (DPI) technology — the technology on which Phorm’s ad targeting system is based.

    Many on the panel expressed concern about the privacy implications of the technology — with web inventor Tim Berners-Lee likening it to “wire-tapping someone’s phone or opening their mail”.

    Phorm CEO Kent Ertugul was on hand to mount a vigorous defense of his company and its software, stressing that no personally identifiable data or sensitive information was collected by the system. And despite its many vocal critics, Phorm has been given the green light to operate by the government’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

    Responding to today’s letter, a spokesman for the company said: “We are aware of the letter and note that the vast majority of recipients use or offer interest based advertising. Many of them have, like Phorm, demonstrated their commitment to user privacy as signatories to the IAB UK’s interest based advertising good practice principles.”

    Author: James Verrinder

    Fresh security fears force halt to work on ContactPoint child super-database

    0

    By Leo King |

    Fresh security fears over the ContactPoint child database have forced the government to call a halt to its roll out.

    The temporary halt to work on the £224 million database comes only a day after a major review said work should be stopped on the database — and a number of other large databases — over privacy grounds.

    That review branded ContactPoint and other databases “almost certainly illegal” on privacy and human rights grounds. There were also no decent options to opt-out and “inadequate” security, it said.

    In a new security worry today, local authority staff uploading information to the database have found that shield systems for vulnerable children are not always working.

    The systems are supposed to remove all details of vulnerable children — including victims of domestic violence and those in witness protection schemes — from the record, except their name, sex and age.

    For some adopted children, their original and adopted names are being linked on the database, potentially allowing adopted children to be tracked down at school by their birth parents, observers noted. On other occasions, duplicate records revealing all the details of individual vulnerable children are appearing unexpectedly on the database.

    A spokesperson at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which runs the database, said it has “paused the ongoing data update” while it investigated the problems and until local authorities were “satisfied that these issues have been addressed”.

    But Annette Brooke, Liberal Democrat spokesperson for children, said: “We cannot have some of our most vulnerable children being put at risk.” Conservative shadow children’s minister Tim Loughton added: “The government has proved that it cannot be trusted to set up large databases or to keep our data secure.”

    The ContactPoint system, built by Capgemini, will see the names, addresses, schools and GPs of all 11 million under 18’s listed in a database which is only intended to be accessed by professionals working with children, such as social workers, doctors and the police.

    The project has been hit by a string of delays amid concerns over security, and finally launched in January, even though security concerns remained.

    ID cards not compulsory after all, says Home Office

    0

    By John Lettice |

    Plans to make ID cards compulsory for UK citizens at some point in the middle distance have been officially abandoned, apparently. According to the Home Office’s revised counter-terrorism strategy document, published today, “It is not our intention that identity cards should be mandatory for UK nationals.”

    This in some senses reverses the previous plan, which was for ID cards to be made compulsory via a vote in parliament after they had achieved significant penetration among the UK population. In most senses, however, it changes nothing. ID cards will be issued to airport workers “initially for an 18 month evaluation period” this year, offered to “young people to assist them in proving their identity” next year, and will “start to enroll people at high volumes” from 2011/12.

    The hordes of people desperate for ID cards and the luckless population of Manchester seem to have fallen off this roadmap, possibly for reasons of space but more likely because both ideas were ridiculous.

    Presuming (possibly a big presume) that the Home Office doesn’t change its mind about compulsion again, the roadmap is now more closely aligned to David Blunkett’s cunning plan to save the ID scheme. Once ID cards become available to the general UK population, people will be given “a choice between an identity card, a passport or both”. Whatever they choose, their details will be added to the National Identity Register, and as it’s the database that’s the point, not the card, the Home Office is happy to let them decline the latter.

    The two problems with this, from the point of view of the Home Office, are first that people who don’t want or need a passport won’t go onto the NIR (which is why Blunkett wants to make passports compulsory instead), and second that EU citizens living in the UK will escape the scheme entirely. So in the unlikely event of New Labour and Smith (majority 1,948) remaining in place after the next election, we can perhaps expect a compulsory passport announcement in a few years time.

    Should the 2011 part of the 2011/12 general rollout actually happen, incidentally, it’s likely to be the last time you will be able to collect a passport, and presumably ID card, without handing in your fingerprints. These will be required for passport renewals from 2012, according to today’s document. ®

    Council uses spy plane to snoop on homes

    2

    They already track innocent citizens’ movements with CCTV, are in cahoots with police over speed cameras, and have been using powers supposed to tackle terrorism to put tails on people suspected of minor ‘crimes’.

    Now local authorities are putting spy planes in the air to snoop on homeowners who are wasting too much energy.

    The data is being used to create colour-coded maps which will enable council officers to identify offenders and pay them a visit to educate them about the harm to the environment and measures they can take.

    A scheme is already underway in Broadland District Council in Norfolk, which has spent £30,000 hiring a plane with a thermal imaging camera.

    It said the exercise has been so successful other local authorities are planning to follow suit.

    But critics have warned the crackdown was another example of local authorities extending their charter to poke their noses into every aspect of people’s lives.

    Broadland, which covers towns including Aylsham, Reepham and Acle, hired the plane from a Leicestershire-based company for five days at the end of January.

    The aircraft took images of homes and businesses, with those losing the most heat showing up as red, while better insulated properties appear blue.

    The council’s head of environmental services, Andy Jarvis, said the original plan was to target businesses but it was realised the scope could be extended to include residental properties.

    ‘The project we put together was for a plane to go up on various nights flying strips of the district and taking pictures,’ he said.

    ‘Through those images, a thermal image photograph can be created in which you can pick out individual properties which are losing a lot of heat.

    ‘We do a lot on domestic energy conservation already and realised it would be useful to see if any of the homes which were particularly hot were properties where people had not insulated their lofts.

    ‘We were also able to look at very cold properties and think we might have picked up people on low incomes who are not heating their homes because they cannot afford to.’

    More than half the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions come from the domestic sector, which includes property and transport.

    Almost 60 per cent of a household’s heat is lost through uninsulated walls, lofts and windows, costing the average home £380 a year.

    Insultation is estimated to reduce each home’s carbon emissions by around two tonnes annually.

    The first city in the UK to make a heat-loss map was Aberdeen, while the first local authority in England was Haringey Council, in London – although environmental groups at that time said they viewed the practice as a ‘gimmick’ of little real value.

    The TaxPayers’ Alliance has added concerns about the issue of privacy.

    Chief executive Matthew Elliott said: ‘People are sick and tired of being heckled and spied on by local government and this council has shown an utter disregard for the man on the street.’

    He added: ‘We’re in a recession and you would have thought this council had better ways to spend £30,000.

    ‘Taxpayers are already footing the bill for innumerable advertising campaigns at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet.’

    But Conservative-led Broadlands insisted the heat-loss map would allow officers to pinpoint offenders and point out how to get help and grants to improve insulation to cut carbon emissions.

    Council leader Simon Woodbridge said the project would ‘effectively pay for itself within a few weeks in terms of the amounts of money we can help people to save’.

    Lib Dem group leader Stuart Beadle added: ‘Cameras are in place all over today and we have to accept them. So long as the right guidelines are in place and it will bring benefits, I think the scheme is a good thing.’

    Britain now has more than four million CCTV cameras – a fifth of those in use around the world – and around 8,000 speed cameras.

    Almost 500 local authorities have been using anti-terrorism powers brought in under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to launch a string of bizarre investigations.

    These have included checks on dog fouling, putting bins out on the wrong day and people trying to cheat school catchment area rules.

    Andrew Levy

    Privacy campaigners pressure web firms to boycott Phorm

    0

    Privacy campaigners have written an open letter to leading web companies demanding they resist the introduction of the Phorm web user tracking system by BT, Virgin and TalkTalk.Phorm is a technology that can be used to track the web content viewed by web users to enable advertisers to send them targeted advertising.

    BT and other firms have previously said the system will only be introduced to those subscribers accepting an opt-in to Phorm, but that has not stemmed the resistance of privacy campaigners.

    The Open Rights Group, the Foundation for Information Policy Research, and prominent privacy advocates Alexander Hanff and Pete John, have written to Microsoft, Google/YouTube, Facebook, AOL/Bebo, Yahoo, Amazon, and eBay to win support for a boycott of Phorm.

    The letter reads, “We are writing this open letter to you to ask you if you will act to protect your users’ privacy.

    “We are asking you to exercise your ability to opt out of the Phorm system, that is planned to be rolled out in the near future under the ‘Webwise’ brand by BT, Virgin and TalkTalk, the three largest UK ISPs.”

    The letter cites the opposition of world wide web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee to technologies which “snoop” on the internet.

    It also says 21,000 members of the public have signed a petition against Phorm’s deployment.

    “We believe that many of your customers will feel exactly the same way. They may be using other internet providers, but the information they put on your website may well be viewed by them as personal, and they will not wish it to be read and stored by third-party technologies.

    “Where your customers are using Phorm/Webwise ISPs, we are entirely unconvinced that the information they are given will ensure that they give ‘informed consent’ to the processing of all the data they send to and receive from your website.”

    The letter suggests those leading web companies may also have concerns of their own that a third party will be processing the contents of their websites, without asking their permission, to construct profiles of their customers.

    The privacy campaigners claim that the Phorm/Webwise system is illegal, as they say communications cannot be lawfully intercepted, without the informed consent of both the sender and receiver.

    They say the system will make copies of copyrighted material without permission, “a further unlawful activity”.

    “We strongly believe that it is clearly in your company’s interest, it is in the interests of all of your customers, and it will serve to protect your brand’s reputation, if you insist that the Phorm/Webwise system does not process any data that passes to or from your website,” the letter adds.

    The web companies are urged to use an opt-out process from Phorm published by BT.

    Antony Savvas

    The database state we’re in

    The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has published a major report on the UK’s Database State. Technology is transforming government, and there is an urgent need to control and understand it. 

    One of the most irritating tropes of New Labour is its repeated claim to be “leading the world’ in whatever activity it has decided to highlight to the media. This was not merely a vanity of Tony Blair. If anything it has got worse under Gordon Brown, who is currently claiming to lead the world in saving the banking system.

    However, there may be one area where the UK government is indeed pioneering a programme unequalled elsewhere. This is the creation of what is now being called ‘The Database State’. This describes the creation of very large databases at the heart of the UK departments of state, most of which it plans to join up. It is very much an all-British approach that may indeed be designed, at least in part, to compensate for the dis-uniting of the Kingdom by the rise of devolved governments in Scotland and Wales. The thinking behind the policies of the database state has not been properly debated in parliament and the press and the motivations behind it remain unprobed. Meanwhile, the tip of the iceberg is showing already as ID cards are being introduced for foreigners. The planned ID cards are not intended to be internal passports that enhance and confirm the identity of the citizen who holds it. They are rather electronic tags designed to monitor and even control those to whom they are issued. Cory Doctorow has described why he will leave the country rather than be forced to carry one.

    The rise of the database state was one of the threats identified by those of us who called the recent Convention on Modern Liberty. While first advanced by the campaigning group NO2ID it is gaining in general usage, although sometimes in a way that may seem alarmist. One of the problems that strikes anyone attempting to debate the issue is it’s two-sided nature. On the one hand the construction of such vast systems of centralised surveillance is frightening enough if it works. Internalising the loss of privacy and sense tha the state knows everything of importance about you, will reduce the people to inner servility. The government is, in effect, modernising subjecthood. On the other had it can’t work.

    We know three things: the larger the IT system the larger the number of errors it will generate, in this case errors that could result in lives being ruined by false results. Second, we know that the larger an IT system is the more valuable it is to hackers and the less secure it is likely to be. Third, we know that the more people who have access to a database the less secure it is likely to be. But the British government seems determined to create ever-larger databases that will be accessed by an ever growing number of poorly paid functionaries. We can therefore say with some confidence that Her Majesty’s Government has embarked on a course of action that is bound to go wrong. It should be opposed.

    Up until now, the ‘Database State’ has remained more myth than fact in the way it is reported. All this is about to change.

    The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, one of the original sponsors of the Convention has commissioned a careful survey of all the state databases that a distinguished group of experts could identify. They found 46. Of these they judged that only six are safe. The rest are either ‘Amber’ or ‘Red’. Many of the latter they found to be almost certainly illegal as well as dangerous.

    You can find them listed in the Executive Summary below, while the whole report (in pdf) is available on the Rowntree website and is carried as well on the Conventions. For the first time we have a sober accounting of what is going on, something that Parliament should obviously have done for itself.

    The quality of the report and the devastating calm of its prose can be judged from this passage:

    The 2005 Transformational Government IT strategy promised citizens choice and personalisation in their interactions with government. However, this was to be based on centralised databases and data sharing across traditional provider and departmental boundaries. At its heart lay not people, but great collections of data about people. Meanwhile, two different faces of government were being joined up.

    One is the public services agenda, which formalises our social compassion. It speaks of customers and choice, cares for vulnerable children, provides health and education, keeps the streets clean and generally seeks to please.

    The other is the enforcing state, in constant conflict with those who break laws or ignore regulations. It seeks to exercise coercive control and speaks of enemies, targets, suspects and criminals.

    The database state appears to fuse these two together. Increasingly users who should feel like a citizen or customer — responsible and in control — feel instead like a suspect or recidivist: fingerprinted, scanned, and their numberplates recorded as they travel around the country. But, as the police themselves freely admit, policing depends on continued public perceptions of legitimacy and fairness. [Nor can] technologies such as DNA profiling, databases and even CCTV be dissociated from ethical and social questions.

    The authors as well as Rowntrees are to be congratulated on a fine job that will put the term ‘database state’ fully onto the map. Here we republish the short summary in article form for ease of access and I recommend anyone interested to download the full 68 page pdf and read it for yourself.

    UK’s DNA database and ID register are illegal

    3

    The UK’s controversial DNA database and ID cards register are in breach of European data protection and rights laws, according to a new report by the Rowntree Trust published this week.

    The report slams Britain’s ‘database state’, claiming that 11 of the 46 biggest public-sector database projects are illegal and should be immediately cancelled or fundamentally reworked to bring them in line with European privacy laws.

    In addition to the DNA database and ID cards register, the report calls for the canning of the notorious ContactPoint index of all children in England.

    Vast majority of databases problematic

    The Guardian reports that: “Only six of the 46 systems, including those for fingerprinting and TV licensing, get a ‘green light’ for being effective, proportionate, necessary and established – with a legal basis to guarantee against privacy intrusions. But even some of these databases have operational problems.”

    29 of the databases in the report get an ‘amber light’, which means they have significant problems and need to be immediately rehauled to be brought in line with European laws — including the NHS summary care record, the national childhood obesity database, the national pupil database and the automatic number-plate recognition system.

    The study was carried out by the Foundation for Information Policy Research and claims that single mothers, ethnic minorities and young children are particularly at risk due to the UK government’s failing databases.

    An ethical disaster

    Ross Anderson, Professor of Security Engineering at Cambridge, told The Guardian: “Britain’s database state has become a financial, ethical and administrative disaster, which is penalising some of the most vulnerable [in] society. It also wastes billions of pounds a year and often damages service delivery rather than improving it.

    “There must be urgent and radical change in the public-sector database culture so that the state remains our servant, not our master… we have to develop systems that put people first.”

    The report adds that the genetic fingerprints of nearly four-in-10 black men aged under the age of 35 are currently held on the DNA database in England, with this information not being deleted, despite suspects subsequently being acquitted or released without charge.

    Kids under threat

    Children, in particular, have never before been “so measured, graded, monitored and discussed” and this can not be “justified on the basis of good intentions” says the report’s co-author Terri Dowty, of Action on Rights for Children.

    Another of the report’s authors, Ian Brown of the Oxford Internet Institute, added that; “The UK needs information systems that support citizens and professionals on a human scale, rather than multi-billion pound centralised databases used to stigmatise and snoop.”

    In response, a Ministry of Justice spokesman told BBC News that the government “takes its responsibilities seriously and will consider any concerns carefully, adapting existing safeguards where necessary.”

    In response, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman Chris Huhne said: “In their desperation to track our every move, ministers have created a glut of databases, many of which are quite simply illegal.”

    Medical marijuana raid raises question: What’s Obama policy?

    0

    WASHINGTON – A recent Drug Enforcement Administration raid on a South Lake Tahoe, Calif., medical marijuana dispensary showcases one of the legal conflicts inherited by the Obama administration.

    The Jan. 22 raid near the California-Nevada border occurred two days after Obama took office and before the new president’s own Justice Department team was in place. The raid resembled many conducted during the Bush administration, but seemingly clashed with Obama’s campaign opposition to such tactics.

    “I think the basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs prescribed by doctors (is) entirely appropriate,” Obama told Oregon’s Mail Tribune newspaper in March. “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”

    Now, citing the Tahoe episode, medical marijuana activists and civil libertarians are urging Obama to freeze future raids. Some hope, as well, that Obama will reverse a Bush administration decision and let additional legal marijuana production to take place.

    At the very least, activists and law enforcement officials alike are awaiting clarification about what’s changed in the world of medical marijuana. This could take time.

    “We’re sympathetic to the fact the administration is just getting its feet on the ground,” Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Dan Bernath said on Thursday, “but this does show he needs to appoint folks who will respects his principles and policies.”

    Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder has not yet been confirmed by the Senate, and his proposed deputy hasn’t yet had a confirmation hearing. The phrase “medical marijuana” never came up during Holder’s extensive hearing, nor in the follow-up written questions asked by senators.

    Obama has yet to nominate a permanent DEA administrator, though acting administrator Michele Leonhart is considered one potential candidate and would be the first African-American woman to run the agency. Obama, likewise, has yet to nominate a new head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

    “The new drug czar could recommend policies that are more restrictive, or more lenient,” noted Bill Ruzzamenti, director of the Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area in California.

    With federally funded staff in Sacramento and Fresno, the Central Valley HIDTA coordinates antidrug efforts in a 10-county area. It participated in a high-profile investigation into the California Healthcare Collective, a Modesto-based medical marijuana dispensary whose founders were sentenced last year to long prison terms on charges of running a criminal enterprise.

    “The ones that are targeted are the ones making millions and millions of dollars,” Ruzzamenti said.

    Federal agents during the past two years similarly have raided organizations in Bakersfield, Vallejo, San Mateo and other California cities. The most recent raid, on South Lake Tahoe’s Patient-to-Patient Collective, seized five to 10 pounds of marijuana and a small amount of cash, according to police reports. No arrests were made.

    By one count, the DEA has raided more than 60 medical marijuana facilities nationwide during the past two years, including a July raid in Seattle in which agents seized hundreds of patient files. The ongoing raids underscore a running conflict between state and federal laws.

    Through a 1996 ballot measure, approved by California voters with a 55 percent to 45 percent margin, patients can obtain medical marijuana with doctors’ permission. Ten other states, including Washington and Nevada, have followed California’s lead.

    Several hundred marijuana dispensaries are now publicly listed by the California branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, with names such as High Flight Deliveries in Stockton, Mr. Purple Skunk in Modesto and Earth Meds in Tulare County.

    These dispensaries, and their counterparts in other states, have been on thin ice following a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that empowered federal authorities to prosecute marijuana purveyors even in states that permit medical marijuana use. Bush’s drug czar, John Walters, championed such prosecutions.

    Leonhart, a week before Bush left office, likewise took a hard line in issuing a 118-page decision rejecting a DEA administrative law judge’s recommendation to allow a University of Massachusetts researcher to grow higher-quality medicinal marijuana. The American Civil Liberties Union and medical marijuana proponents hope this last-minute rejection, coming two years after the judge issued a positive recommendation, is put on hold until Obama’s team is fully in place.

    UN Launches Probe of Secret Detention Sites

    0

    U.N. human rights investigators are launching a year-long global investigation into secret places of detention. They note the use of such facilities has increased since the global war on terror was declared after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States. The investigators say their probe will look at so-called rendition flights used by the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, in the United States to secretly transfer suspects to third countries for interrogation. The UN probe also will examine the policies of secret detention as practiced by other nations around the world.

    Cracks are appearing in the wall of silence surrounding the secret practice of extraordinary rendition as prisoners are coming forward to tell of their ordeals.

    “The torture was going on sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly,” said a former prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Binyam Mohamed, who accuses the British security service MI5 of helping U.S. intelligence agents interrogate him after he was seized in Pakistan in 2002. Mohamed claims U.S. agents took him to Morocco, where he was tortured.

    “I want to see people taking responsibility for what has happened over the seven years,” said Mohamed. “If we let people just do what they want to do and not be held accountable, that is opening up the doors to torture and abuse.”

    The U.N. investigators who are launching a probe into secret places of detention agree with Mohamed. They contend people who are detained in these facilities are intentionally placed outside the protection of the law.

    They say people who are confined in such places run great risks of being tortured and even disappearing for good.

    UN Special Investigator on Torture, Manfred Nowak, says secret places of detention, enforced disappearances and torture are closely interconnected. He adds the risk of being subjected to torture is particularly high in these facilities.

    “We have had the experiences in many Latin American states, but also in many other states where enforced disappearances were practiced,” said Nowak. “Also, in the form of fighting terrorism. There is nothing new that now after 9/11, in the global fight against terrorism, that secret places of detention again came to the forefront of our attention, of course, in the context of CIA practices, but going far beyond that.”

    The U.N. probe will look at CIA rendition flights that secretly transferred terror suspects for interrogation, mainly in North Africa and the Middle East. Nowak is very critical of the widespread use of this practice by the former Bush administration.

    “The very purpose of so-called extraordinary renditions employed by the Bush administration was that in cases where the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA in places like Guantanemo Bay, etc. were not ‘successful’ … enough, that they were then sent to countries known for their torture practices by means of extraordinary rendition flights,” said Nowak.

    U.N. human rights investigators applaud moves made by President Barack Obama in pledging to close Guantanamo Bay and stopping the practice of torture and extraordinary rendition. But, they say they will not let the president off the hook until a number of important questions are answered and certain reprehensible acts are ended.

    UN Special Investigator on terrorism, Martin Scheinin, says he will be watching the president’s moves closely.

    “We can at least hope that this is a real change, which will put an end to the most horrendous forms of extraordinary rendition,” said Scheinin, “where persons were not brought to the United States at all, but were dumped in third countries for the purpose of torture.”

    Member of Parliament in Pakistan, Sanaullah Baloch, praises the investigation that is getting under way. But, he tells the U.N. experts to expand their focus to include countries like his own in their probe.

    “In Pakistan, the Asian Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has identified 52 illegal detention centers in Pakistan,” said Baloch. “So my suggestion is that there should be a type of mechanism that United Nations aid, United Nations cooperation and United Nations support to the democratic regimes must be linked, should be linked with this protection of human rights and particularly getting rid of this practice of enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions and secret detention centers. ”

    The U.N. investigators agree that torture in secret places of detention might be useful in eliciting information. But, they argue that more often than not, the information received is wrong and might end up being counterproductive.

    Regardless of the quality of information received, they note torture, under any circumstances, is absolutely prohibited under international law.

    The experts expect their one-year global probe into secret detention centers to shine more light on the extensiveness of these facilities and how they operate.

    They acknowledge they will not be able to prevent similar practices in the future, but they are hopeful their study will promote changes for the better.

    Thousands protest anniversary of Iraq war

    0

    They want troops out now, fear that Obama is ‘stalling’

    By Nafeesa Syeed |

    WASHINGTON — Before war protesters ended their demonstration yesterday afternoon, several placed cardboard coffins in front of the offices of northern Virginia defense contractors such as KBR Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp. as riot police stood by.

     

    “Lockheed Martin, you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide!” they chanted as part of a demonstration that began in Washington to mark the sixth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

    Arlington County, Va., authorities estimated there were 2,500 to 3,000 protesters.

    Organizers from the ANSWER Coalition said more than 1,000 groups sponsored the protest to call for an end to the Iraq war.

    Demonstrators carrying cardboard coffins and signs saying “We need jobs and schools, not war” and “Stop the war!” beat drums and played trumpets as they marched.

    Protesters demanded that President Barack Obama immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq, saying that thousands of Iraqis have died and thousands of American troops have been wounded or killed.

    “We think it’s especially important for this new administration to feel the pressure from people that we don’t want more war,” said Obama supporter Pat Halle, 59, of Baltimore.

    Anti-war activists said even though former President George W. Bush is out of power, they are disappointed with what they see as stalled action from Obama.

    “Obama seems to be led somewhat by the bureaucracies. I want him to follow up on his promise to end the war,” said 66-year-old Perry Parks of Rockingham, N.C., who said he served in the Army for nearly 30 years, including in Vietnam. “But the longer it goes, the more it seems like he’s stalling.”

    Obama has said he plans to withdraw roughly 100,000 troops by summer 2010. He promises to pull the last of the U.S. troops by the end of 2011, which is in accord with a deal Iraqis signed with Bush.

    About 138,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq as of March 13.

    Meanwhile, in California, hundreds of protesters gathered in Hollywood. Among them were peace advocate Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, Oscar-winning screenwriter Paul Haggis and Ron Kovic, a paralyzed Vietnam veteran whose story was chronicled in the book and film Born on the Fourth of July.

    Protesters in Los Angeles were expected to follow a rally with a march and then a symbolic “die in” where they would lie down in a major Hollywood Boulevard intersection to symbolize the soldiers who have died in the war.

    Protesters waved signs and sold bumper stickers and T-shirts commemorating the event.

    Denise Clendenning, 51, an environmental scientist from Chino Hills, Calif., said she hopes Obama will rethink his strategy of withdrawing most of the troops from Iraq and call all of them back instead, and those in Afghanistan as well. “We all have a lot of confidence in him,” she said, holding two signs that read “Out of Iraq” and “End the War.”

    Donna Moreno, 32, a medical worker from Gardena, Calif., said she was representing her Vietnam-veteran father at the rally.

    “I know Obama is making the effort. I have hope,” she said, wearing an Obama shirt and several buttons. “But I’m here to protest the war and job situation.”

    This year, the protest in Washington was held on a weekend, a few days after the March 19 anniversary of the war, which began in 2003. Last year’s weekday protest was marked by lower turnout than in previous years.

    Blackwater sued in US court over alleged cover-up

    1

    The widow of a 32-year-old Iraqi has filed suit in a federal court against private security firm Xe, formerly Blackwater, for allegedly trying to hide that her husband was killed by one of its security agents who was drunk.

    According to the suit filed in federal court in San Diego, California, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, “on Christmas eve 2006, a highly intoxicated and heavily armed Xe-Blackwater employee named Andrew Moonen, shot and killed a man named Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon, for no reason.”

    “Although Xe-Blackwater has learned of their employee’s crime short after it occurred, Xe-Blackwater acted, and continues to act, in conspiracy with Moonen to evade any accountability whatsoever,” the suit charges.

    The lawsuit also alleges the company rushed to get the agent out of Iraq, and destroyed documents in the case.

    It also charges that Xe, which until recently was a contractor for the Department of State in Iraq, does not punish employees found guilty of wrongdoing, but “instead, Xe-Blackwater continued to rehire and deploy mercenaries known to have killed innocents.”

    The company, which made hundreds of millions of dollars protecting State Department officials in war zones, was banned from working in Iraq two months ago because of a 2007 incident in which 17 civilians were killed by Blackwater guards.

    An Iraqi investigation found that 17 civilians were killed and 20 wounded when Blackwater guards opened fire with automatic weapons in Baghdad while escorting an American diplomatic convoy.

    US prosecutors say 14 civilians were killed in the incident. Five former Blackwater guards pleaded not guilty in January to manslaughter charges.

    “From Mr. Sa’adoon’s death to the litany of other civilian shootings by Xe-Blackwater personnel, the company has created, fostered and refused to curb a culture of lawlessness and unaccountability,” said a statement from Susan Burke, an attorney for Sa’adoon’s widow.

    AFP

    CIA Has 3,000 Docs on Torture Tapes

    0

    The CIA has about 3,000 documents related to the 92 destroyed videotapes that showed “war on terror” detainees being subjected to harsh interrogations, the Justice Department has disclosed, suggesting an extensive back-and-forth between CIA field operatives and officials of the Bush administration.

    By Jason Leopold

    The Justice Department said the documents include “cables, memoranda, notes and e-mails” related to the destroyed CIA videotapes. Those tapes included 12 that showed two “high-value” prisoners undergoing the drowning sensation caused by waterboarding and other brutal techniques that have been widely denounced as torture.

    The number of documents — but not their contents — was mentioned Friday in a Justice Department letter from Lev Dassin, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Dassin told Judge Hellerstein that unredacted versions of the materials would be available for only him to review “in-camera” on March 26. The CIA also refused to provide the ACLU with a list of individuals who watched the videotapes prior to their destruction because that information “is either classified or otherwise protected by statute.”

    The number of relevant documents — “roughly 3,000,” according to the letter — adds weight to the belief that CIA interrogators were in frequent communication with headquarters at Langley, Virginia, and with senior Bush administration officials who were monitoring the harsh techniques used and approving them one by one or even in combination.

    The volume of communications also lends support to the suspicion that many officials were involved in the debate about what to do with the incriminating videotapes, not just one or two CIA officers acting on their own. CIA officials have said the videotapes were destroyed to prevent disclosure of how the agency’s interrogators subjected “war on terror” detainees to waterboarding and other brutal methods.

    Torture Allegations

    Last weekend, author Mark Danner disclosed a report prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), concluding that the abuse of 14 “high-value” detainees “constituted torture.”

    “In addition, many other elements of the ill treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” according to the ICRC report. Since the ICRC’s responsibilities involve ensuring compliance with the Geneva Conventions and supervising the treatment of prisoners of war, the organization’s findings carry legal weight.

    The ICRC report also found that there was a consistency in many details from the detainees who were interviewed separately and that the first “high-value” detainee to be captured, Abu Zubaydah, appeared to have been used as something of a test case by his interrogators. Zubaydah was one of the prisoners whose interrogations were videotaped by the CIA.

    Another detainee subjected to waterboarding and other abuse was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Two weeks ago, the Justice Department released a heavily censored page of what appears to be a CIA internal report about the torture of “war on terror” detainees, which read: “Interrogators administered [redacted] waterboard to Al-Nashiri.”

    The same page indicated that a dozen of the 92 destroyed videotapes of the CIA’s interrogations were of detainees undergoing brutal treatment. “There are 92 videotapes, 12 of which include EIT [enhanced interrogation techniques] applications,” the page says.

    The ACLU criticized the Justice Department for continuing to withhold documents related to the destruction of the torture tapes.

    “The government is still needlessly withholding information about these tapes from the public, despite the fact that the CIA’s use of torture is well known,” said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. “Full disclosure of the CIA’s illegal interrogation methods is long overdue and the agency must be held accountable for flouting the rule of law.”

    Besides the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit, the destruction of the CIA tapes has been the subject of a year-long criminal investigation by John Durham, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia who was appointed special prosecutor last year by Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

    On Wednesday, the ACLU called on Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Bush administration officials who signed off on and approved the torture of prisoners.

    “The fact that such crimes have been committed can no longer be doubted or debated, nor can the need for an independent prosecutor be ignored by a new Justice Department committed to restoring the rule of law,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero.

    “Given the increasing evidence of deliberate and widespread use of torture and abuse, and that such conduct was the predictable result of policy changes made at the highest levels of government, an independent prosecutor is clearly in the public interest,” Romero said.

    The Justice Department’s restrictive handling of the 3,000 documents comes one day after Attorney General Holder issued sweeping new Freedom of Information guidelines for all Executive Branch agencies to “apply a presumption of openness when administering the FOIA.”

    “The American people have the right to information about their government’s activities, and these new guidelines will ensure they are able to obtain that information under principles of openness and transparency,” Holder said Thursday.  

    Holder said FOIA requests would be denied and records withheld “only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions, or disclosure is prohibited by law.” But even then, all federal agencies were directed to at least “release records in part whenever they cannot be released in full.”

    10 government databases ‘will break the law’

    0

    By

    AT least 10 of the giant government databases built or planned by ministers unlawfully breach privacy, according to a report.

    The computer registers – including the DNA database, the national identity register, the Contactpoint child protection database and the health service patients’ register — all breach human rights and data protection laws, the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust will say in research released tomorrow.

    It argues that they should be scrapped or fundamentally redesigned to take privacy objections into account.

    The report, whose joint author, an academic expert on privacy at Cambridge University who is one of the most respected in Britain, warns that ministers are planning to spend a further £100 billion on information technology databases over the next five years while only 30% of big information technology projects succeed.

    Claims by the government that the databases make the provision of public services such as health easier are dismissed as “illusory”.

    In fact, the giant repositories of personal data can expose people to greater risk, particularly the most vulnerable, the research says.

    More than half the nearly 50 state databases have “significant problems” in protecting privacy, it adds. Only one in seven of the databases assessed by the study was “effective, proportionate or necessary”.

    The report is the most comprehensive and damning study of the creeping culture of state surveillance.

    It has been overseen by a team including Ross Anderson, professor of security engineering at the University of Cambridge’s computer laboratory.

    Campaigners and opposition MPs say the rapid emergence of Britain as a “Big Brother” society is transforming the relationship between the citizen and the state.

    One of the planned databases condemned by the report is a Home Office system to store information on every telephone call, e-mail and internet visit made in Britain.

    Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, had been planning to announce the database in a bill last October.

    She backtracked after officials in her department reportedly expressed concerns about the legality of the plan. Ministers had been planning to release a consultation paper on their plans in January.

    This has now been delayed amid speculation at Westminster that Gordon Brown has ordered ministers to ditch all controversial and potentially unpopular legislation in the run-up to the general election, expected in 2010.

    The report says Britain is alone among developed countries in the pace at which it is expanding national database systems.

    Climate change protest starts tonight

    0

    CLIMATE change activists who are planning a protest in the City at next month’s G20 summit are to begin their demonstration tonight.

    More than 1,000 activists are expected to arrive in Bishopsgate for a “weekend of activity” ahead of a plan to camp out for the duration of the convention of world leaders.

    The group Climate Camp will spend this evening playing hunting games to familiarise themselves with the area and tomorrow there will be a day-long seminar discussing the problems of carbon trading.

    On Sunday, the protesters will hold action-planning meetings involving legal training, direct action training and other planning for 1 April.

    At exactly 12.30pm that day – the day before the summit – the group will descend on the European Climate Exchange in Bishopsgate, setting up camp outside the offices for 24 hours of “flashcamping” protest and demonstration.

    Their aim is to “transform the financial district, both symbolically and visually, into a physical manifestation of our desired worlds, with wind turbines, tents, and action plans”.

    It is believed it will be one of the biggest demonstrations yet by the group, which has become notorious for carrying out direct action campaigns protesting against the expansion of Heathrow airport and Kingsnorth power station.

    Climate camper Gary Still said: “The Climate Camp is about action, education and sustainability, and that’s exactly what we’ll be doing in the Square Mile on 1 April.

    “The G20 want to get the world back onto the track of endless economic growth, and that will take us careering into the face of runaway climate change.”

    The protesters blame carbon traders for being complicit in causing environmental problems. The activists’ recruitment advert says that “by creating a brain-bending system of carbon pollution licenses, fossil fuel companies and trading firms have found a way to keep on churning out global warming gases and to reap huge windfall profits at the same time”.

    It adds: “They are speculating with our climate and the very future of life on earth – and our governments are cheering them on. Don’t let them get away with it.”

    On 2 April, as world leaders meet at the ExCel centre in Docklands, tens of thousands of protesters are expected to descend on the City with police planning the biggest street security operation since the May Day riots nine years ago.

    More than 5,000 Met and City of London police officers will be deployed to maintain order and protect foreign leaders.

    Climate camper Rachel Greenthorpe said: “We’re going to be in Bishopsgate rather than the site of the actual G20, because we have a different agenda.”

    On 28 March, thousands will march through London on the Put People First campaign challenging the G20 on the global financial crisis.

    Benedict Moore-Bridger

    Google Street View – an invasion of privacy?

    0

    IT HAS already revolutionised the way we search for information, find images or plan routes, but now Google has gone all Big Brother on us, with the launch yesterday of Google Street View in the UK, a service that allows you to view 360-degree images of the road outside any address on virtually any street in one of 25 cities, including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen.
    This is Google Earth, but at street level, with every fag butt, discarded kebab and pool of vomit on show to the world, as well as a few less savoury things. How this service will be of much real
    use is notimmediately apparent when you log on, but it’s certainly rather good fun.

    Available in nine countries worldwide, the online service was first launched for the US in 2007. You can type an address or postcode into Google Maps and find a static photograph of it, or you can drag a little wobbly orange icon called ‘Pegman’ (he looks like a clothes peg) across the map and drop him wherever you like (as long as the street is highlighted blue).

    An image of the area will pop up and you can then use arrows to rotate it. If you’re using Google Maps to plan a journey, your route will be accompanied by moveable images to ensure you don’t get lost.

    Like most first-time Street View Googlers, I initially search for my own flat, swivelling the view to see the regulars outside the pub across the road enjoying a sly fag. These innocuous locations prove more fun than a city’s recognisable landmarks — which might as well be virtual postcards — although busy streets such as Byres Road in Glasgow or the Royal Mile in Edinburgh prove fun for virtual people-watching (is that an argument we spot outside Rawalpindi’s Indian restaurant on Sauchiehall Street?)

    The voyeuristic element proves one of the most entertaining uses of Street View. I search all my haunts to try to spot my virtual self, and friends’ houses, finding that I can just about see into the window of one acquaintance’s living room.

    This aspect does, of course, raise the very real concern about breach of privacy. Last year, Google was investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office over the plans, but was eventually given the go-ahead for the project. Street View uses special technology to blur registration plates and faces (resulting in some cases in the blurring of the faces of statues or horses) and users can flag up images for removal by clicking on a ‘Report a concern’ link.

    Google argues that the level of detail shown is the same as that you would see driving down a road (hence the reason 10 Downing Street is not visible).

    While critics argue that the service could be used to plan crimes, Google UK’s new head, Matt Brittin, said that in discussions with the Metropolitan police, they found that the service helps to track and monitor crime. Indeed, on one occasion police in the US used Street View to find the location of a kidnapped child.

    However, some campaigners claim that it violates our right to privacy. “These images are being captured without people’s permission for commercial use and we believe that it is not legally acceptable,” Simon Davies of Privacy International told a reporter yesterday. “They are also putting into place a system for updating these images in the future, and for storing the images digitally where they could be misused.”

    So could a man put his home address into Street View only to spot his wife greeting the milkman in a rather-too-friendly manner? Could a boss search for their place of work and catch their employees at the back door having a sneaky cigarette? Certainly, Street View has inadvertantly caught people red-handed (albeit retrospectively) on more than one occasion.

    The tens of millions of pictures were obtained last summer, when a fleet of Google cars nipped across the nation capturing images — which were later stitched together — on special 360-degree cameras that were mounted on their roofs. Difficult weather conditions held up the process in many cases: dry, overcast days proved most effective for getting clear pictures, but last summer those were few and far between.

    So for what will we use Street View? Google suggests you might employ it to preview your holiday accommodation, show friends abroad where you live, check out local amenities if you’re moving to a new area, or check out the level of wheelchair access a building or area has before you visit.

    “Street View has been hugely popular with our users in Europe and worldwide; we’re thrilled it’s now available in the UK for so many great cities,” says Google’s geospatial technologist, Ed Parsons. “Google Maps and Google Earth have long been popular with British people and are used by governments, businesses and individuals as essential and informative tools every day of the week — (this] now adds a new dimension.”

    Street View has also teamed up with other organisations, including FindaProperty.com, which allows users to look at the local area before they view a property to rent or buy (a service that would certainly have saved me some time last year, when I wrote off a potential flat upon finding it was located opposite a suspicious-looking sauna) and Tate, who will offer art lovers links to locations that have inspired paintings in their galleries.

    All practical uses certainly, but Street View is also — quite simply — an addictive resource. Once you get the hang of it, you can zip around a city, exploring less familiar areas from the comfort of your desk and getting excited when you spot all your favourite places. (Some are more interesting than others of course — there’s something rather sinister about sitting indoors on a sunny day, taking a virtual tour of the A199 in East Lothian.)

    In countries where the service has been established for a while, spotting weird and wacky things on Street View has evolved into something of a sport.

    From nudity to thieves escaping through windows and even a man dressed as a beehive, entire websites are now devoted to bizarre Street View sightings.

    So with the service now up and running in Scotland, what strange Street View spots might we clock up? A Morningside Lady shoplifting a cream scone, perhaps? Naked sunbathing in Kelvingrove Park? Fred Goodwin nipping out to collect his pension? Log on to maps.google.co.uk to find out.

    MILES BETTER

    – ORGANISERS said that London was the most difficult place to drive for Street View because of its many one-way streets and high buildings, and a lack of parking areas.

    – SOME areas are yet to be visible on Street View, owing to road works taking place when Google was in town. Edinburgh’s Princes Street and George Street, for example, aren’t yet available to view.

    – THE Google team covered 22,369 miles across 25 cities in the UK to launch the service in Britain.

    – ONE imaginative Google employee used Street View to propose to his girlfriend.

    – STREET View provides 360° horizontal and 290° vertical panoramic street-level views.

    – FOR pedestrian areas and narrow streets that cannot be accessed by car, Google Bikes are used instead.

    – THE ultimate aim, Google claims, is to eventually provide street views of the whole world.

    – IN order to protect their privacy, before the service was launched, Google removed photos of domestic-violence shelters.

    – THE Pentagon, right, has banned Google from publishing Street View content of US military bases.

    – A US couple sued Google unsuccessfully for invasion of privacy, stating that because their home was visible on Street View, its value was diminished because it had been chosen for its privacy.

    Coming to an ID Card Near You: Your DNA

    0

    One of the many disgraceful aspects about the disgraceful ID card programme is the reluctance of the UK government to make key documents available.

    For such a momentous change in the relationship of government to governed, it is critically important that a full debate about all the issues be conducted; but without key details of the scheme, that is made more difficult — which is presumably why the UK government has resisted the publication of the so-called “Gateway reviews” so long.

    Finally, though, we have gained the right to see these somewhat outdated documents. Despite their age, and the unnecessary redactions, some useful new information has come to light, which more than justifies the long battle to gain access.

    There are two astonishing sections in the reviews, both from the second document, written in January 2004. The first is as follows:

    The Identity Cards programme’s potential for success is not in doubt. As the SRO and Programme Director recognise, however, there is much work to be done before a robust business case can be established for a solution that meets the business need, is affordable and achievable, with appropriate options explored, and likely to achieve value for money, as required at Gate 1.

    We list below some key areas where in our view the planned activities are critical, with recommendations where appropriate.

    “The Identity Cards programme’s potential for success is not in doubt”: that is an extraordinary statement against the background of countless analyses, reports and comments by experts in the field pointing out all the flaws inherent in the proposed ID card scheme. The fact that the existence of those is not even *mentioned* is testimony to the complete indifference to those views. The government and its advisors have clearly made their minds up, and anyone else’s opinions are just irrelevant.

    But, for me, the single most shocking revelation is the following:

    There is general agreement that there should be a second biometric as well as the photograph (or digital photograph). On the assumption that DNA would be too expensive, however, should it be fingerprints or irises (or both)?

    What this clearly states is that it was only considerations of *cost* that prevented the use of our DNA as a “second biometric”, not any concerns about the huge social and moral implications of such a move. Here’s what I wrote on the subject five years ago:

    Last September, the police called for the UK national database of DNA samples to be extended to include everyone. Given the determination of the UK government to introduce identity cards, despite widespread opposition and the well-known flaws in the whole approach, it can only be a matter of time before it links the two compulsory schemes together. The advantages – for the authorities – would be enormous.

    Including a silicon chip storing your entire genome would add little to the overall cost once sequencing becomes cheap, but would ensure that an identity card would be tamper-proof and impossible to forge, since its identification number – the sequence of As, Cs, Gs and Ts that make up your genome – would be unique to you (apart from any twin) and always checkable against your DNA.

    Moreover, there would be no need for the proposed draconian legislation to make carrying such cards obligatory: it would be a physical impossibility to do otherwise, since your digital code/identification number is present in practically every cell of your body.

    This includes those you shed as skin and hair, whatever you touch and wherever you go – the perfect trail for government surveillance based on a Google-like capacity to index and cross-reference the DNA present in a given location at a given time.

    As I mentioned back then, it is only a matter of time before reading our genome becomes as cheap as taking a blood test: as the US National Human Genome Research Institute put it recently: “sequencing costs have decreased faster than Moore’s Law”.

    This means that the objection voiced in the 2004 ID card review about cost will fall away: it will be quite feasible economically for every person’s DNA to be sequenced and included as another biometric check.

    Given the plans to monitor all emails and Web views, together with the fact that there are already four million people on the UK DNA database – nearly a million of whom have never been convicted of a crime – can there be any doubt that the UK government will, at some point, try to add DNA to the other biometrics on the card? Purely for our own good, you understand….

    Glyn Moody

    Government ignored serious ‘concerns’ over ID card feasibility and benefits

    0

    By Leo King |

    The government was warned about the technical feasibility and merits of its highly controversial £4.7 billion ID cards scheme, according to the just published findings of two Gateway reviews.

    The reviews, conducted in 2003 and 2004 at the start of the scheme, had been kept under wraps but were finally released after the Information Tribunal last month ordered the government to release them.

    The tribunal said the public deserved to know the results of the reviews because there “remains a perception that central government does not have a particularly good track record with regard to IT projects.”

    It emerged that the authors of the reviews expressed “concern” the authorities that were supposed to benefit from the scheme were not in reality particularly enthusiastic about it.

    The second report said early recommendations on project management and risk assessment were addressed by the government, but “many complex issues” remained, affecting feasibility and affordability.

    “The main potential beneficiaries of an identity cards scheme, such as police, DVLA, Passport Agency, IND (Immigration and Nationality Directorate) DWP (Department for Work and Pensions), Inland Revenue, and the financial sector, though generally supportive, were not quite as enthusiastic about the programme as might have been hoped,” the authors of the report wrote.

    The police originally questioned the point of ID cards when there was no legal requirement for citizens to produce them on demand, it emerged.

    The reviews also warned the government that there could be “unexpected data problems”, because of the “sheer scale” of the scheme. There was “no evidence that the skills and capabilities for the programme are readily available, nor have arrangements been made so far to secure them,” the reviews warned.

    Experts had also warned that biometric data would not necessarily be a reliable way of checking identity.

    And the money spent on the scheme was not justified considering the “erosion of public support” for ID cards, the authors wrote.

    The Conservative party today seized on the opportunity to criticise the scheme. Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said “now we know why” the government had fought to keep the reports private.

    But the Identity and Passport Service said the reviews were five years old, highlighting that the second review showed many of the recommendations on project management and risk assessment had been addressed early on.

    “They acknowledge the good work that was done to ensure successful development of the ID cards scheme — good work which continues to this day,” an IPS spokesperson told the Daily Telegraph newspaper.

    Gateway reviews published since 2004 have not been released.

    Liberty League International or American Liberty League?

    0

    By John Hoefle |

    Liberty League International? After four decades of decay, and eight years of the worst Presidential administration since before the Civil War, our nation stands on the brink of collapse. There are many reasons for this, some of them involving serious shortcomings among ourselves, but we have also been subject to a continuous assault by the most determined and dangerous adversary we have faced in our existence: the British Empire.

    The last time our nation faced economic collapse was during the Great Depression. We were saved at that point by the emergence of a great leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who took on what he called the “economic royalists,” and defeated fascism both in the United States and abroad. FDR’s New Deal not only revived the economy, but it reestablished the government’s control over the financiers of Wall Street. It was a hard fight, but the nation and its people ultimately won.

    FDR did not just take on Wall Street, however: He took on the British Empire. The most powerful bank on Wall Street at the time was J.P. Morgan & Co., and Morgan’s power came from its role as an agent for the Empire in the United States. The Morgan bank was the spider at the center of a web of financial houses which waged a war against the industrialists of the American System, bankrupting them and consolidating them under Morgan’s control. The Anglophile Morgan crowd grew rich and powerful, while destroying what America had built.

    In 1934, the Morgan empire and its affiliates created a fascist organization inside the United States, the American Liberty League, for the purpose of stopping FDR. The Liberty League was funded by some of the richest families and largest corporations in the nation. It tried to organize a military coup against FDR in 1934, but failed.

    We do not use the term “fascist” lightly. It is not name-calling, but a precise description. These Wall Street Anglophiles were backers of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, openly, until World War II. They had helped fund the Empire’s global fascism project, just as they tried to impose it in the U.S. They did not do so because they were enamored of Il Duce or the Nazi Führer, but because they were oligarchs, who saw themselves as an elite ruling over masses who were little more than cattle.

    FDR beat them, and they have never forgiven him, nor have they forgiven the United States. Today, in a similar but far worse crisis, these same forces are desperately attempting to make sure that the U.S., under President Barack Obama, does not turn toward the path of FDR. The old Liberty League is long gone, but the forces behind it remain, and are determined to prevail this time. Their anti-American, anti-human lies may come through new orifices, such as the duplicitous Amity Shlaes (see accompanying article), but it is the same old fascism. The forces stalking the Obama Presidency today, are the same fascists who tried to overthrow FDR in 1934.

    The people have changed, and the tactics have changed, but the content and the method have not. With this report, we will lift the rocks and let the sunlight shine upon these fascists, so that we may defeat them, forever.

    The Empire Strikes Back

    During the 1920s and 1930s, a wave of fascist movements spread across the world. The two best known of these were the operations that created Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Party and Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party. But there were fascist movements in England, France, Spain, and the United States, among others. These fascist movements were not independent movements which sprang up spontaneously, but were part of a global war on the very concept of the nation-state, and in particular on the world’s leading republic, the United States.

    The British Empire had suffered a great defeat at the hands of Abraham Lincoln and the Americans, and was looking to put an end to what it saw as both an impudent upstart and a mortal threat, once and for all. With the defeat of the Empire’s Confederacy in 1865, the American System flourished, and American industrial might began transforming the world. American companies were helping to usher in a modern industrial era, in particular, by helping develop railroad systems in Germany and Russia, creating land-based transportation grids as rivals to the British Empire’s control of the seas and maritime trade.

    The British mounted a counterattack, beginning with eliminating the leaders of the opposition. Three U.S. Presidents were assassinated in rapid succession: Lincoln in 1865, James Garfield in 1881, and William F. McKinley in 1901. Otto von Bismarck was deposed as Chancellor of Germany in 1890, destabilizing the British Empire’s main European rival. In 1914, the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was used as the trigger by the Empire to launch World War I, targetting Germany, Russia, and the U.S.A. In 1917, Russia exploded, with Lenin’s Bolshevik Party overthrowing the Tsar. By the time the shooting stopped in 1919, the American-led global Renaissance had been derailed, and the British were moving to recapture the U.S. and consolidate their hold over the world. World War II, and the Cold War which followed, were a continuation of that process.

    While they were picking off our leaders and our partners in progress, the British were also running financial warfare against the American economy, using a series of financial panics to increase their control over American finance, and using that control to take over American industry. Prominent in this assault were the House of Morgan, investment banks like Kuhn Loeb, Brown Brothers, and W.A. Harriman, and big banks like Chase and National City Bank.

    Morgan was a British bank in American clothing. J. Pierpont Morgan’s father Junius Morgan owned a bank in London, J.S. Morgan & Co. In 1860, Pierpont Morgan opened J.P. Morgan & Co. in New York, to serve as an agent for his father’s bank. By 1900, J.P. Morgan was one of the most powerful banks in the world, retaining its close ties with J.S. Morgan (later Morgan, Grenfell).

    With access to the deep pockets of the Empire, Morgan and its allies led an assault on American railroads, bankrupting them and buying them on the cheap, and, in the same manner, went after heavy industry, targetting both the suppliers of the commodities they used as inputs, and the manufactures of iron and steel and other industrial components. Morgan became a major force in the manufacturing and production of electricity through General Electric and its utility trust, and consolidated a number of steel companies into the giant U.S. Steel. Morgan also bought into the DuPont-controlled General Motors.

    These men and their institutions were not industrialists, despite their holdings. They were parasites, who seized the capabilities and wealth created by others, in order to destroy the United States. They hated the idea of a nation-state where all men are created equal, and all men have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They viewed themselves as members of the elite, barons of finance, far above the common people. They may have resided in America, but in their own minds they were Lords of the Empire.

    Creating Fascism

    Benito Mussolini was a founder and leader of the National Fascist Party of Italy. He became prime minister in 1922, when he and his Blackshirt squadristi marched on Rome, and by 1925, was calling himself Il Duce (the Duke, or Doge). Mussolini rapidly turned Italy into a corporatist police state, where the government was used to keep the population in line on behalf of the elite. Behind Mussolini were the Venetian bankers, such as British agent Count Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata, who organized Mussolini’s corporatism on the model of the Lombard League of the 14th Century.

    Mussolini had considerable support from London and its agents in the United States. In 1926, Morgan partner and later chairman Thomas Lamont arranged a $100 million loan for Mussolini’s government. Lamont described himself as “something like a missionary” for Il Duce, who, he bragged, had “done a great job.” Mussolini was also promoted heavily by Anglophile publishing baron Henry Luce, who featured the fascist prominently in his Time, Fortune, and Life magazines. Time featured Mussolini on its cover eight times between 1923 and 1943. A Time article in 1923 called Mussolini the “patron saint of fascism,” while another praised his “triumphant reforms.” Another piece in 1924 was entitled “Wonderful Benito!”

    Throughout the 1920s, the Empire pushed Mussolini’s corporatist fascism as a role model for other nations. Spanish dictator Miguel Primo de Rivera, the Marques de Estella, was touted by Time as “Spain’s Mussolini.” Primo de Rivera, a captain general in the Spanish military, overthrew the Spanish government in 1923, and established himself as dictator.

    Meanwhile, in Germany, the Nazi Party (the National Socialist German Workers Party) was founded by the occult Thule Society in 1919, and in 1921, police spy Adolf Hitler became its leader. Inspired by Mussolini’s March on Rome, the Nazis stormed a beer hall in Munich, where Bavarian Commissioner Gustav von Kahr was making a speech. The famous Beer Hall Putsch failed, and Hitler was jailed for just over a year for high treason. The event established Hitler as a national figure, and while in jail he wrote his Mein Kampf (My Struggle).

    The Nazi Party grew in popularity, garnering one-third of the vote in 1932, but in November elections of that year, the population was not buying Hitler’s line. The Nazis lost 2 million votes, and went into a deep depression. At that point, however, the London-backed financiers intervened, through Reichsbank chairman Hjalmar Schacht and Baron Kurt von Schröder, and not only filled the Nazis’ coffers once again, but got President Paul von Hindenburg to swear in Hitler as Chancellor of Germany, in January 1933–a de facto coup d’état. A little over a month later, the Nazis burned down the Reichstag (Parliament building), while blaming it on the Communists, and calling it a prelude to a Communist revolution in Germany. Pushed by Chancellor Hitler, Hindenburg suspended civil rights and ordered mass arrests of Communists, including those in the Parliament. As a result, the Nazis acquired a majority in Parliament and Hitler consolidated his power. Hitler quickly passed the “Enabling Act,” which gave him legislative powers, effectively abolishing the separation of powers written into the German Constitution. In July 1933, Hitler banned all other political parties, making the nation a Nazi state.

    The similarities of Hitler’s actions to those of the Bush/Cheney Administration in the wake of our own Reichstag Fire–9/11–should not be overlooked. The neocons who ran policy under Bush were themselves a fascist bunch, by predilection and training.

    Though Mussolini’s party was the first fascist party in name, his fascism was really a derivation of the French brand of fascism, known as Synarchy. The made-in-London French Synarchy was the basis for the various fascist movements which emerged in the 1920s.

    The rise of Mussolini and Hitler has largely been falsely ascribed to the personalities of the two men, as a way of pretending that the National Fascist Party and the Nazi Party emerged spontaneously. The truth is that both Hitler and Mussolini were front-men for the oligarchy, whose financiers and psychological warfare units created, protected, and nurtured fascism. The bankers who supported Mussolini and Hitler did not do so because they were captivated by such men; they did so because they knew that Mussolini and Hitler were tools with which to destroy the nation-state. As LaRouche aptly put it, just because you leave a poisonous spider in your neighbor’s bed, does not mean you have an attraction to spiders!

    Financing the Nazis

    It is no secret that the British Empire and its American helpers helped fund the rise of Hitler’s Nazi regime. Numerous books have been written on the subject, including Antony Sutton’s Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler; Charles Higham’s Trading with the Enemy and American Swastika; James and Suzanne Pool’s Who Financed Hitler; James Stewart Martin’s All Honorable Men; and our own The Hitler Book and George Bush, The Unauthorized Biography, to name a few. Any trip to a good library will allow the reader to confirm our charges.

    James Stewart Martin’s story serves as a good opener, because he was one of the men deployed by FDR after World War II to investigate the Nazi war machine. In 1942, he had been asked to help organize a unit inside the Justice Department’s Economic Warfare Section to investigate the connections of the Nazi industrial cartel to U.S., British, and other corporations and financial houses. Even before the war ended, Martin led a team that scoured the Allied-controlled parts of Germany to find the records of companies like the infamous I.G. Farben, and the J.H. Stein Bank of Cologne, the “bank of the cartel kings.”

    As one would expect, Martin met opposition from the Germans he was investigating, who preferred that their secrets be buried. Much more interesting, and telling, was the opposition Martin received from some of the British and American officers with whom, and under whom, he served. What Martin discovered is that some of the men who had been involved in building the Nazi war machine before the war, had then been deployed to not only cover up their roles, but to protect the Nazi industrial machine after the war.

    One such officer was Brig. Gen. Graeme K. Howard, the director of the Economics Division of the group that would become the Allied military government of Germany, and in that capacity was Martin’s boss. Howard had been an executive at the DuPont/Morgan-controlled General Motors, where he headed the firm’s export business. Howard lost his job when it was exposed that he had written a book in 1940, entitled America and a New World Order.

    An FBI report at the time stated that “One more high official of General Motors Corp., has come forward to ask the American people to do what HITLER would like them to do. He is GRAEME K. HOWARD who has recently written for popular consumption a book called ‘America and a New World Order.’ ” The report quoted the book as asserting that “the emergence of totalitarian regimes in Italy and Germany” was “the only alternative to the spread of communism,” and urging that the U.S. support Hitler.

    That such a man could be given a post which oversaw investigations of the Nazi industrial cartels should be reason enough to set off alarms among patriots. Clearly, powerful forces were interested not in revealing the truth, but in hiding it.

    That point was made even more clear by the choice of Howard’s replacement, Brig. Gen. William H. Draper, Jr. Draper was on military leave from his position as Secretary-Treasurer of Dillon, Read & Co., a prominent Wall Street investment bank. Prior to taking his position at Dillon, Read, Draper had worked for National City Bank of New York, and the Morgan-controlled Bankers Trust.

    Under the Dawes Plan of 1924, Dillon, Read had been a major funder of German corporations. (The Dawes Plan was named after its head, Chicago banker Charles G. Dawes, but it was largely a J.P. Morgan operation.) Three U.S. banks–Dillon, Read; Harris, Forbes & Co.; and National City–led syndicates which issued almost three-quarters of the loans to German companies under the plan. Dillon, Read was a major lender to Fritz Thyssen’s United Steel Works, while National City made big loans to both I.G. Farben and A.E.G., the German subsidiary of Morgan’s General Electric.

    Draper had not only helped arm Hitler, he was also the sponsor of the Third International Eugenics Conference, held at the Museum of Natural History in New York in 1932. The British-spawned eugenics movement served as the basis for Hitler’s horrific “race science” policies. Among the big funders of eugenics was W. Averell Harriman, the Skull and Bones Society banker who played a major role in the emergence of the Bush family as a political dynasty-cum-disaster.

    Another banker with whom Martin was assigned to work was Capt. Norbert A. Bogdan, who had been a vice president of the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. of New York. It was Bogdan, Martin said, who had tried to block an investigation of Bankhaus J.H. Stein, on the grounds that it was “small potatoes,” when in fact it was one of the places where the darkest secrets were buried.

    The Stein Bank, based in Cologne, Germany, was the bank of Baron Kurt von Schröder, who was a lieutenant general in the SS Black Guards, and a leader of the Nazi Party. He was a member of the Schröder banking family of Hamburg, and one of his cousins, Baron Bruno von Schröder, had headed both the J. Henry Schroder & Co. bank in London, and the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. of New York–the bank of Capt. Bogdan. The roster of clients of Stein read like a who’s who of German industrialists.

    The Stein Bank was also home, Martin’s team discovered, to a special account labeled “Sonderkonto S,” and served as a conduit for funding Heinrich Himmler’s SS. The investigation determined that the German industrial cartels would quietly make deposits into this account when the SS needed funds, so that Himmler could withdraw the money.

    Martin’s British counterpart was Col. John Kellam, who was angry at the U.S. for its “delay” in entering the war. Kellam also had little sympathy for trust-busting, Martin said.

    Men such as Howard, Draper, Bogdan, and Kellam were obviously deployed to obstruct, rather than advance, the investigations into the relationships between the Nazis and the Anglo-American financiers. Then, as now with the financial crisis, covering up the crimes of the Empire was paramount.

    Lots To Hide

    The Empire clearly had a lot to hide, from its financing the career of Adolf Hitler, to its funding the buildup of the German cartels, and its role in Hitler’s eugenics fantasies. A sampling of the more egregious deals which have come to our attention follows.

    • I.G. Farbenindustrie, or I.G. Farben, as it was more commonly known, was the German chemical cartel formed in 1925, by the merger of six of the biggest German chemical companies. It became the fourth-largest corporation in the world, after General Motors, U.S. Steel, and Standard Oil, and had close ties to both Britain’s Imperial Chemical Industries and DuPont in the U.S.A. Farben built a synthetic oil and rubber plant in Auschwitz, Poland, which used slave laborers, and was the first of the death camps of the Holocaust. Farben also held the patent for the pesticide Zyklon B, which was used to gas the slaves when they were no longer able to work. Farben had a U.S. subsidiary, American I.G. Chemical Corp. (later General Analine & Film), whose bank was the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp. of New York, and whose law firm was Sullivan & Cromwell, of John Foster Dulles and top spook Allen Dulles. Allen Dulles was a director of the Schroder bank, and a vice president of the bank, one V. Lada-Mocarski, was a U.S. consul in Switzerland, where Dulles ran the European Mission of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the American intelligence service.
    • In 1939, an agreement was reached between Standard Oil of New Jersey (today, Exxon Mobil) and I.G. Farben, for Farben to sell certain patents and shares of stock to Standard. A separate, secret agreement provided that the first agreement would be cancelled and the patents and stock would be returned to Farben after the war. When the Alien Property Custodian seized the patents and shares as enemy property, Standard arrogantly filed suit in Federal Court to have them returned. Fortunately, documentation was obtained to prove the government’s case, and the suit was defeated.
    • In 1941, after many American freighters headed for Europe had been sunk off the U.S. coasts, investigators discovered that the Nazis had obtained the details of their destinations, cargoes, and sailing dates, making them easy prey for German submarines. The source of the leak was not a ring of spies at the ports, but the insurance companies. The American companies that insured the ships and their cargoes routinely reinsured those policies with Lloyds of London or the Zurich group, and the Zurich group, in turn, reinsured its policies with the Munich reinsurance pool. The details of each shipment so insured thus went straight to the Germans.
    • The Anglo-German Fellowship, founded in Britain by investment banker Ernest Tennant, a member of a prominent banking family and a close friend of Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German Ambassador to Britain. Members of the group, which was formed to promote business links between the British and the Nazis, included Bank of England governor Montagu Norman; Bank of England director F.C. Tiarks; Midland Bank’s Lord Magowan; Milner’s Kindergarten member Lord Lothian (Philip Kerr); and the Reichsbank’s Hjalmar Schacht, among others. Lothian, the British Ambassador to the U.S. in 1939-40, was the founder of the British Roundtable and a major factor, along with Prescott Bush and Averell Harriman, in putting Hitler into power.
    • Prescott Bush was a managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, and a director of Union Banking Corp. of New York. Union was seized by the U.S. government in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, ten months after the U.S. entered World War II. Union, chaired by E. Roland Harriman, was affiliated with the Thyssen family of Germany’s United Steelworks, which produced a substantial portion of Germany’s steel and explosives. United Steelworks was organized in 1926, with funding arranged by Dillon, Read. Thyssen and his partner Friedrich Flick were major financial contributors to the Nazis, and Flick was convicted at the Nuremberg war-crimes trials. Averell Harriman also met with Mussolini to cement business deals. Both the Harrimans and Prescott Bush were members of the Skull & Bones cult at Yale, as were Bush’s son George H.W. Bush and grandson George W. Bush.

    The ‘Liberty’ League

    The same American bankers and cartel bosses who backed Hitler and Mussolini, both openly and through more discreet means, wanted to turn the U.S. into a fascist state as well. They created a top-down fascist movement they called the American Liberty League, and funded it lavishly. The League then spun off a number of satellite groups, such as the Crusaders, the Sentinels of the Republic, and the Southern Committee To Uphold the Constitution–all very patriotic-sounding, all anti-American.

    The Liberty League was dominated by the Morgan and DuPont interests. Its top officials included J.P. Morgan’s chief lawyer John W. Davis; Irénéé du Pont; E.F. Hutton; and Grayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy. The leading funders were the DuPont interests, including both members of the du Pont family and executives of their corporate interests, the family’s DuPont chemical company and General Motors, which DuPont controlled. Other major contributors included: J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil; George D. Baker of the First National Bank of New York; Morgan partners Horatio Lloyd and E.T. Stotesbury; and Andrew Mellon, to name but a few of the prominent contributors.

    Together, these men and the financial and industrial cartels they represented, held great sway in the nation. Since that time, however, due to globalization and decades of consolidation, the power over our economy represented by this small elite has grown enormously. They are again using their power to push fascism–they can’t use the word fascism, of course, because Hitler ruined it for them–so they wrap the same policies in new greenie, free-enterprise packaging, new labels on the same old snake oil.

    johnhoefle@larouchepub.com

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    0

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Majority disagree with cannabis reclassification

    4

    There is a substantial amount of anger over the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis, a new poll suggests.

    The politics.co.uk poll, which comes as government ministers from across the world meet in Vienna for the UN’s summit on drugs, shows a deep split in public opinion over how to proceed with narcotics legislation.

    Asked if drugs should be legalised, just under 50 per cent of respondents answered ‘yes’, while 37 per cent said ‘no’.

    But opinions on the reclassification of cannabis were far clearer.

    Thirteen per cent of users agreed with the decision, compared with 87 per cent who said they ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’.

    The government recently implemented the change to cannabis, bringing it back up to class B after former home secretary David Blunkett expended considerable political capital downgrading it to class C in 2003.

    But the poll showed considerably less sympathy towards calls from the government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to downgrade ecstasy.

    Over 50 per cent of users said they disagreed with the decision, while 37 per cent agreed.

    Asked what they thought of current UK drugs policy, politics.co.uk users appeared to take a liberal stance. Sixty-two per cent of users said current policy was too authoritarian. That compared with 25 per cent who said it was too lenient.

    Asbestos found in 90% of British schools

    0

    Nearly nine in 10 schools contain deadly asbestos, the Daily Mirror has found.

    We can reveal the biggest and most shocking picture yet of asbestos in schools and other public buildings after compiling results from freedom of information requests made to local authorities across the UK.

    More than a dozen councils responded, admitting that 2,917 out of their 3,286 schools were built using asbestos.

    That means that in total more than 22,000 of Britain’s 25,000 schools could be contaminated with asbestos.

    asbestos-map18-03-09.jpg

    Between 1980 and 2005, 178 teachers died from mesothelioma, the lung disease caused by inhaling asbestos dust – and worryingly the number is rising.

    “For every teacher who may have been exposed to asbestos, up to 30 children have probably been similarly exposed,” warned Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

    “Because asbestos-related illnesses take between 15 to 60 years to develop it is impossible to know how many will become ill or die as a result of exposure.”

    Asbestos has also been found recently on the new 2012 Olympic site in Stratford, East London, and within the Houses of Parliament.

    It has even been found in the window displays of up-market department store Selfridges in central London.

    The Daily Mirror is campaigning for a national register of public buildings which have been surveyed for asbestos to give at-risk teachers and other workers the knowledge they need to protect themselves.

    All the UK’s main teaching unions are supporting our key demands.

    Chris Keates, general secretary of the NASUWT, said: “Asbestos is a huge risk in schools and teachers are often unaware it is there.

    “We would be very supportive of a national register.”

    Dr Bousted added: “We support the Mirror’s campaign to get all the surveys on asbestos in schools published and freely available to everyone.

    “The health of thousands of young people and those working in education are far too precious to be swept under the carpet any longer.”

    Nick Sommerlad

    CIA Kidnap Trial to Resume in April

    0

    An Italian judge says the trial of 26 U.S. agents and seven Italians accused of kidnapping a terrorism suspect will resume next month, after the Constitutional Court clarifies key rulings in the case.

    Wednesday’s hearing in Milan was postponed to April 22.

    The defense claimed victory last week after the Constitutional Court ruled that state secrets had been violated in the case against the Americans. The court is expected to rule by April 22 on whether prosecutors can use any state evidence said to violate secrecy provisions.

    The defendants, including the former head of Italy’s military intelligence agency Nicolo Pollari, are accused of kidnapping an Egyptian imam from Milan and flying him to Egypt. The cleric, Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, says he was imprisoned, interrogated and tortured outside Cairo.

    The Americans are being tried in absentia. The Italian government has not asked for their extradition, and the CIA has refused to comment on the case.

    UN rapporteur: Israel guilty of war crimes

    0

    By Matthew Brett |

    Professor Richard Falk is the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He is world-renowned as an authority on international law and has authored and co-authored 20 books. Recently, Professor Falk has focused much of his attention on the Israeli massacres in Gaza, alleging that Israel’s actions are constitutive of both violations of the laws of war and indicative of crimes against humanity. This is the transcript of a phone interview with him from his home in Santa Barbara, California.

     

    Can you begin by explaining the reasons why you believe that Israel is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity?

    Well that’s a big question of course. I think that the attack on Gaza initiated on December 27th of last year was a violation of a fundamental norm of the UN Charter, which prohibits non-defensive uses of force. At the Nuremburg trials after World War II, that was treated as a crime against the peace, which was viewed as the most serious of all international crimes.

    Following from the attack itself, which was not a justifiable use of force, is the whole question of whether the use of modern weapons in a setting where the civilian population is exposed to the ravages of war can ever be reconciled with the international law of war. I believe it cannot be. That conclusion is somewhat controversial, it hasn’t been formally tested in an international tribunal, but I think the inability to prevent civilian casualties has clearly been established by the results of the attacks on Gaza.

    Beyond the actual physical death and injury endured by Palestinians, including many women and children, is the wider reality that being trapped in a war zone of that sort almost certainly imposes severe and maybe incurable mental damage to the entire population. So it is a matter of waging war against a whole civilian population. That is, it seems to me, the essence of the most serious violation of the law of war. And it was aggravated in this situation because the civilians in Gaza were not even given the option to become refugees. They were locked in the war zone and therefore deliberately trapped in this combat area, which was so densely populated and being attacked from the sea and the air and by land.

    Finally is the issue of the tactics and weapons that were used. There is a lot of eye-witness evidence that prohibited targets were struck, including several UN buildings; that civilians were deliberately targeted in an act of vengeance, apparently; and that legally dubious weapons were used in contexts where civilians were exposed to them, such as phosphorous bombs and a weapon called DIME, which involves a very intense explosive power that makes surgical and medical treatment impossible. So there’s a whole bunch of issues that together create quite an inventory of violations of the law of war as well as violations of the UN Charter.

    Considering geopolitical realities today, do you think there’s a chance that Israeli leaders will be brought to justice in any way, shape or form?

    I am skeptical at this point as to whether the intergovernmental framework of world politics has the capacity to impose legal responsibility on Israel or on its civilian and political leaders. And I don’t think the UN is likely to do anything significant although they have called for investigations of these allegations of war crimes and will give, I think, some further documentation to those allegations. But I am not very optimistic about implementing those reports by taking steps to impose accountability.

    There are two areas where there is some prospect of a development that would move in this direction. One is indicated by the national court system in Spain that has encouraged the prosecution of thirteen leading Israeli political and military officials. That at least establishes a legal claim by a governmental institution giving added credibility to the allegations. It’s doubtful whether it can be operationalized in terms of real prosecution, but it probably will prevent prominent Israelis at any rate from visiting Spain, and it will inhibit their travel plans.

    The other possibility that I think is quite likely to take some form is the organization by civil society of citizen tribunals that will investigate these allegations and reach a judgment that can’t be enforced in a typical way but has a considerable symbolic weight. This will be influential for activists around the world who are already pursuing efforts to impose boycotts, encourage divestment from companies doing business in Israel, and encouraging their governments to consider sanctions. So I think one shouldn’t overlook the civil society impact of this dimension of concern about the criminality of what Israel did in its attacks on Gaza, and that that criminality has contributed to the mobilization of people around the world in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. One needs to remember that that is eventually what turned the tide in South Africa and led to the victory of the anti-apartheid movement. It wasn’t a victory that was one by force of arms. It was a victory in what I call the second war, the legitimacy war, which eventually isolated South Africa in such a way that it internally transformed its constitutional and political system in a way that met the demands of international society.

    As you may be aware, a couple weeks ago over 40 cities in the world took part in the series of events called Israeli Apartheid Week. What’s your sense of the use of the term “apartheid” to depict what is going on in Israel/Palestine? Would you say that Israel is also guilty of the international crime of apartheid?

    Well I think that first of all, that event involving 40 cities is itself an illustration of the degree to which the Palestinians are winning the legitimacy war. That would not have happened a year ago much less five years ago. So symbolically, again, this is a very important development, independent of how literally that analogy should be pursued. I think that there is some mobilizing effect of using that analogy but there’s also some alienating effects, so it’s very hard to know whether that’s a tactically useful language to use. Each situation has its originality. There are certainly resemblances that South African victims of apartheid have noted and there are dissimilarities. This is a military occupation that has its own characteristics that shouldn’t be overlooked such as the imposition of the settlements on the West Bank or the continuing blockade of Gaza. So I think that it is not inappropriate to use the analogy between the situation confronting the Palestinians and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. But I find it less useful than to focus directly on the realities of the occupation as it affects the daily lives of the Palestinian people.

    As you were mentioning, the settlements have become a major problem. There are now about a half million settlers living in the occupied West Bank, not to mention the recently unveiled plans to double that number. Meanwhile, the international community remains steadfast on pushing for a two-state solution despite the seemingly irreversible physical realities on the ground. Given this, in which direction do you suppose supporters of a just solution should proceed at this point?

    It’s a difficult question because both obvious paths of solution, two-state or one-state, seem very difficult to understand in regards to how one proceeds from the present reality to that solution. There’s no doubt that the further expansion of the settlements, if it actually takes place, represents the death of the two-state solution. Even without the expansion, it seems very difficult to implement a two-state solution without dismantling a substantial portion of the existing settlements. At the same time, many people feel that no Israeli leadership would have the political will or capacity to implement such an approach, even if it was itself desirous of moving in that direction. But to expand the settlements, especially so massively, not only exhibits defiance of the international will on such a question, but it also is a repudiation of the Quartet peace process that had rested in part on a settlement freeze, which Israel consistently has ignored.

    So I think if this expansion is not opposed effectively by the United States and by the Quartet, it represents the end of the Quartet peace process. This would introduce a new phase in the diplomatic approach to some sort of solution and would bring the one-state alternative into sharper focus. But there, one would have to think about whether there is a way to achieve a one-state solution that doesn’t involve the abandonment of Zionism by the Israeli leadership, because that would seem again to be beyond the realm of feasible politics. No foreseeable Israeli leadership would consent to renouncing Zionism as the basis of their governing process. If any leader were to do so, it is unlikely that he or she could survive politically and possibly even physically.

    Since being appointed UN Special Rapporteur you’ve been refused entry into Israel. Will you try again with the new government once it is formed?

    I will certainly explore the possibility. I would like to be able to carry out my role in a responsible way, which would involve visiting the West Bank and Gaza and meeting with people and their leaders there. I’m not very optimistic that a change of government in Israel will result in a change in policy toward my admissibility, but I will certainly do my best to carry out this job as well as I can.

    ‘Secret’ ID card reviews may become public

    0

    By Tony Collins |

    The Office of Government Commerce is seriously considering publishing two early Gateway reviews on ID cards – after four years of trying to stop their publication under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Computer Weekly has learned that the Identity and Passport Service, which runs the ID cards scheme, has raised no objection to the two Gateway reviews being published.

    The OGC must by law make a decision on whether to publish within the next week. It has never before published a Gateway Review, although it has overseen thousands of them. Gateway reviewers shred all copies of the reviews, leaving only two copies, one for the OGC and the other for the project or programme’s senior responsible owner.

    One reason the Identity and Passport Service has not objected is that it considers the two reviews in question to be of little relevance today – one was carried out in 2003, the other in 2004, before the government published the draft Identity Cards Bill.

    But the final decision will be taken by the OGC, which is an independent office of the Treasury.

    Gateway reviews are independent checks on risky projects and programmes at various stages. The two Gateway reviews on ID cards in question assessed their feasibility and it is thought they raised some questions. But the government has repeatedly made it clear that the two reviews contained no particularly sharp criticism.

    A request for them to be published was made in 2005. The Information Commissioner ruled that they should be published, as did the Information Tribunal – twice. But the OGC has always appealed.

    Its legal costs on the case so far have been at least £140,000 – which excludes the costs to the taxpayer of the time spent by the Information Commissioner’s Office in contesting the OGC’s appeals.

    On 19 February 2009 the Information Tribunal gave the OGC 28 days to publish – but the clock did not start ticking until the OGC had received the tribunal’s ruling in the post.

    One of the OGC’s concerns in publishing the reviews is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has put on hold some other FOI requests for gateway reviews to be published, while the OGC decides over the ID cards reviews.

    Although every FOI request is considered on its merits, a decision by the OGC to publish may make it harder for its lawyers to argue in future that other Gateway reviews should remain secret.

    It is ironic that the board of the Identity and Passport Service has raised no objections to the two early reviews on ID cards being published – the IPS’s officials appeared before the Information Tribunal to support the OGC’s arguments that the reviews should not be published.

    ID cards began to be issued to foreign nationals in November 2008 and some will be issued to British citizens this year.

    A spokesman for the OGC said that the latest ruling of the Information Tribunal is being considered before any decision on whether to publish is taken.

    Watching the watchers – online behaviour and privacy

    0

    Recent developments in behavioural or personalised internet advertising have prompted much debate and press coverage. 

    For example, it was reported in September last year that BT is to restart trials of Phorm’s Webwise, a system which tracks individuals’ online activities. 

    By building detailed behavioural profiles based on individuals’ online activity, advertising can be much more highly targeted, thereby generating greater revenue.  

    Two earlier secret trials of Webwise, conducted without the consent of participating individuals, prompted public outcry and a police investigation. 

    Should individuals accept these new technologies in return for the benefits that they are claimed to provide, such as free web content and personalized advertisements that individuals may value, or should they be justifiably concerned about the possible infringement of their privacy rights? 

    Was US Congressman Joe Barton, who co-founded the Congressional Privacy Caucus, right when he said recently: “Businesses don’t send out gumshoes to track you around the shopping centre, and they shouldn’t be allowed to dog you around the internet, either”?

    Targeted online advertising directs advertisements at individuals based on their previous online behaviour by tracking the searches they have conducted, the web pages visited and the content viewed. 

    Together with an individual’s ISP, the addresses and certain content of websites visited by individuals are profiled and then that information is used to place that individual in defined advertising categories.  

    What does this mean in practice? 

    Whereas traditional contextual advertising matches advertisements to the context of the page the individual is currently viewing (so travel advertisements appear when looking at travel websites and sports advertisements when looking at sports websites), behavioural advertising matches advertisements to an individual’s interests as determined by searches, visits and viewing over time. 

    For example, put very simply, an individual who visits travel websites and then a sports website may see a travel advertisement even though the sports website has no travel content. 

    Although only the minority of online advertisements are currently targeted, behavioural advertising is a fast growing part of the online advertising industry.

    The creators of these systems argue that, as the profiling will take place with the knowledge and agreement of the individual, there is no cause for any privacy concerns. 

    According to Phorm, the profile is based on a unique ID allocated at random to each individual which is held only on their computer and by Phorm, with the result that the profiling and advertising occurs without knowledge of the identity of individuals. 

    As a result, no “personal data”, within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, are processed. However, most individuals’ understanding of privacy is wider than the rather restricted definitions of the Act so the fact that these systems may comply with individuals’ data protection rights to have their personal data processed fairly and lawfully in accordance with the Act may not be the full story. 

    Data protection and privacy are not the same thing; there is other legislation which also plays a part in shaping notions of privacy and what constitutes a compromise of privacy rights.  

    Take, for example, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. 

    This prohibits the interception of communications without consent. Even if targeted online advertising complies with data protection legislation because no personal data are processed, the operation of such advertising may constitute the interception of an individual’s communication with a website, requiring the consent of both the individual and also the companies hosting the web pages visited by that individual.

    In addition, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 require individuals to be informed when a cookie is placed on their computers and to be given clear and comprehensive information about its purpose and the ability to refuse it. 

    There is also the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case of Copland v. UK [2007] ECHR 253 confirmed that this right extends to respect for the privacy of internet usage.

    There is similar state and federal legislation in the US but in both countries the regulators appear, at least in principle, to be willing to accept these new technologies. 

    In the UK, the Information Commissioner has reviewed how Phorm operates and has concluded that it can operate in a way which complies with both the Data Protection Act and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations. 

    The Home Office has confirmed that it is questionable whether Phorm’s technology involves an interception within the meaning of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and, even if it does, it could be argued that such an interception was not unlawful. 

    Likewise, the City of London police found no evidence of illegal activity when investigating Phorm. 

    In the US, the Federal Trade Commission has released a set of proposed principles to guide the development of self-regulation and various advertising associations, including The American Association of Advertising Agencies, The Association of National Advertisers, The Direct Marketing Association and The Interactive Advertising Bureau, have last month announced plans to collaborate on privacy standards for online behavioural advertising data.

    What appears to be key to this regulatory acceptance is the obtaining of individuals’ fully informed opt-in consent and the ability of individuals to opt-out. 

    Conversely, any attempt to conceal or even play down what is involved in behavioural advertising may well result in both regulatory and consumer disapproval. 

    It is interesting, therefore, to note that on BT’s website, when describing what Webwise is and how it works, it states: “Webwise checks for known fraudulent websites and warns customers if they visit one, with no need to download or install any software.

    It also replaces generic adverts on participating websites with adverts more relevant to customers’ interests, based on the web sites they visit and the things they search for.” 

    Whilst the anti-fraud element may be true, it is certainly not the primary purpose of the system.  

    Gaining and maintaining public confidence will be key to the success of these new advertising technologies. 

    This may not always be easy as different people have different notions of, and expectations around, privacy, due to, for example, generational differences. 

    Those using online behavioural advertising must be aware of and address such differences in attitude if they are going to reassure those concerned about privacy and persuade them to embrace these new advertising technologies.  

    How companies go about gaining and maintaining confidence is currently up to them. Some organisations have adopted their own policies on behavioural advertising; AT&T, for example, has an Online Behavioral Advertising Pledge. 

    However, it is clear that both the regulators and those concerned about privacy will be watching carefully and, if self-regulation does not deliver the required protections, specific legislation could be on the horizon.   

    Ann Bevitt, Partner, and head of data privacy, Morrison & Foerster
    campaignlive.co.uk

    UK heat seeking spy in the sky

    0

    By Peter Law |

    A LIGHT aircraft fitted with a military-style infra-red camera took to the skies at the weekend to expose Hampshire’s worst heat wasters.

    Clear and cool conditions allowed the crew to soar 3,000ft to capture a series of aerial photographs of almost every home in Southampton, Eastleigh and Gosport.

    The thermal images, taken with cameras similar to those used by police to pinpoint cannabis factories, will highlight how much energy individual houses and businesses are wasting.

    Southampton City Council, Eastleigh Borough Council and Gosport Borough Council will overlay the images with their Ordnance Survey data to create a unique “heat loss map”.

    The digital maps will then be published on council websites to encourage homeowners to turn down their central heating and improve their home’s insulation.

    Officials from the councils last night downplayed accusations that the £34,000 project, funded with Government and council cash, was a Big Brother-style invasion of privacy.

    The surveys were carried out in the late evening hours over the weekend, when weather conditions were fine and heating was most likely to be switched on.

    Every building photographed will be given a colour-coded rating to indicate how much heat it was losing at the time of the spy-in-the-sky survey.

    Shades of reds and blues are used to show grades of heat loss. Homes that are losing the most heat are represented as bright red or yellow, while the least wasteful households are in deep blue.

    Residents in homes emitting the most heat will be given information on how they could benefit from energy-saving grants to better insulate their homes and reduce their fuel bills.

    Councillor Phil Williams, cabinet member for Housing and Local Services, said: “The council is adopting an exciting scheme to create a heat map of the city, so that residents can go online and see how much of their hard-earned cash is being lost through poorly-insulated homes.

    “Many people may be shocked once they see the map and how much heat they are actually losing. We have a lot of help and guidance for anyone who wants to contact us.

    “We would also encourage private landlords to use this facility and to ask how they get their free roof and wall insulation; which will not only improve the quality of life for their tenants but add value to their properties.”

    An Eastleigh Borough Council spokesman said that the scheme was “far from being Big Brother” and that the council would target problem areas, rather than individual homes.

    He said: “We will use the information to reduce the borough’s carbon emissions and help residents’ fuel bills. It is not designed to target individual homes.”

    Cavity wall insulation could save about £160 a year on fuel bills, according to the Energy Savings Trust, while loft insulation could save £205 and double-glazing £140.

    Aerial survey firm Geoinformation Group was commissioned to capture the images. Further sky camera flights may need to take place this month or next if the thermal images captured at the weekend are not of a sufficient quality.

    Motorists could be banned from leaving Britain over unpaid parking fines

    1

    By David Millward |

    They risk being caught up in plans to recoup almost £1billion in outstanding fines and court orders imposed for criminal offences as well as driving ones.

    Ministers are examining whether to use powers to track the travel plans of everyone leaving the country under a system known as e-Borders to deal with the problem of unpaid fines.

    As disclosed by The Daily Telegraph, the scheme will track anyone leaving Britain including day-trippers, leisure sailors and even channel swimmers.

    The idea of using the system to detain fine defaulters is contained in an “Explanatory Memorandum” to the Immigration and Asylum Act prepared by the Home Office.

    It says that e-Borders could help recoup millions of pounds of unpaid fines, and make it easier to enforce the confiscation of criminals’ assets following a court order.

    “Whilst not a key e-Borders priority, e-Borders could also contribute to compliance on fine enforcement, if provisions were issued prohibiting travel overseas whilst fines remained unpaid and confiscation orders undischarged.”

    The memorandum continues: “There are totals of £487 million in outstanding fines and £300 million in unpaid confiscation orders.

    “It is important to note that in order to minimize the number of interventions at ports, in this context, the police will be mounting an awareness campaign in partnership with other parts of government and the courts to encourage discharge of fines and will use the data collected through e-Borders to support enforcement activity at ports and elsewhere.”

    A Home Office spokesman said that the proposals would apply to any unpaid fines issued by the courts, including for speeding and motoring offences as well as those for general crime.

    It is anticipated that such powers would be used when substantial arrears have been accumulated.

    In the case of parking fines, these provisions would be triggered when the debt becomes the subject of an order issued by Northampton County Court.

    The court, which is close to one of the main firms of debt collectors, is used by around 200 local authorities to pursue motorists who have not paid their parking fines.

    A Home Office spokesman confirmed that Northampton County Court, which issues around a million orders against motorists, a year would be included in any scheme.

    The willingness of the Home Office to contemplate using such powers to enforce parking fines has alarmed motoring organisations, however.

    “Somewhere a line has to be drawn between pursuing people for minor offences and those which are more serious,” a spokesman for the AA said.

    The plans were also condemned by Liberty, the human rights campaign group.

    “Any attempt to expand passenger databases or to ban people from leaving the UK without compelling security justification would be a legal and political minefield, said Isabella Sankey, the organisation’s policy director.

    “Surely the Government must wake up to the wide public concern about personal privacy and disproportionate administrative control.”

    Chris Grayling, the Tory Home Affairs spokesman, also voiced some concern.

    “I am in favour of using innovative methods to ensure that people pay their fines,” he said.

    “My only worry is that it could become so complicated that we will not be able to control our borders properly.”

    Asked how the Government justified using the extensive powers contained in the scheme to tackle fine defaulters, a Home Office spokesman replied: “e-Borders allows us to secure the UK’s Borders by screening people as they travel in and out of the UK.

    “It has already screened over 82m passengers travelling to Britain, leading to more than 2,900 arrests, for crimes including murder, drug dealing and sex offences; e-Gorders helps the police catch criminals attempt to escape justice.”

     
     

    More MI5 torture claims

    0

    By politics.co.uk |

    A former British terrorism suspect has claimed he was tortured on behalf of MI5 in Egypt.

    Azhar Khan, 26, has acquired legal representation to take action against the British government, alleging he was stripped naked and shackled during five days of interrogation.

    He claimed he was beaten with sticks and subjected to electric shocks last July after flying into the country.

    Mr Khan alleged he was also asked questions about people he knew back in the UK.

    His accusations come on top of those made by former Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohammed who claims he was tortured in Pakistan and Morocco on behalf of the British secret service.

    Reprieve investigator Clara Gutteridge said: “After similar cases in Pakistan and Guantanamo Bay, Azhar Khan’s story indicates that the virus of British involvement in torture also spread to Egypt.

    “Sad to say we have further evidence of UK involvement with abusive regimes around the world including Kenya, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

    “Enough is enough. The British government must come clean and reveal exactly what happened to the victims, where they are now, and what is being done to make things right.”

    Mr Khan’s claims are reported to have received the support of the high court and are being investigated by the attorney general Baroness Scotland.

    The Foreign Office confirmed Mr Khan was detained in Egypt for a week last year “on suspicion of extremist activities”, and the Guardian newspaper suggested his claims of mistreatment are supported by medical evidence.

    A spokesman for the Foreign Office is quoted as saying: “Our consular staff spoke to the individual concerned. When they asked about his treatment in custody, he did not share with them any specific allegations of mistreatment.

     

    “At no time since the release from Egyptian custody has the UK been asked to take up any allegations of mistreatment.”

    The new development comes after Conservative leader David Cameron called for a full inquiry into British intelligence agencies’ involvement in torture.

    Warning over use of CCTV in pubs

    0

    The information commissioner has said pubs with no history of trouble should not be forced to install CCTV cameras.

    The Information Commissioner’s Office is concerned that the Policing and Crime Bill could introduce this as part of mandatory conditions for licensing.

    “The use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate… to maintain public trust and confidence,” it said..

    The Home Office said the mandatory code would target bad practices “that can result in crime and disorder”.

    A spokesman said that while the bill’s mandatory code could allow CCTV to be made a requirement, there was no plan to do so.

    The department added that consultation on CCTV in pubs was still to take place, and the ICO said it hoped to be part of those discussions.

    “Hardwiring surveillance into the UK’s pubs raises serious privacy concerns,” said an Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) spokesman.

    “Installing surveillance in a particular pub to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but hardwiring in blanket measures across entire areas and including pubs where there has been no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements.”

    The Home Office said it was in discussion with the alcohol retail industry on draft mandatory conditions.

    “These new proposals are not intended to penalise those businesses that do act responsibly – particularly in the current economic climate,” a spokesman said.

    “They’re focused on irresponsible promotions and bad management practices that can result in crime and disorder.”

    He added that the government supported the proposal for a national body to oversee CCTV use.

    BBC

    The Internet is at risk from ‘wiretapping’

    0

    The ever-increasing power of computers that is helping the internet to grow is also threatening its future. That was the warning delivered by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web, and online security specialists at the Houses of Parliament in London last week. This article was originally published on NewScientist.com. 

    By Colin Barras |

    Their concerns are centred on deep packet inspection (DPI), a technique that makes it possible to peer inside packets of data transmitted across the internet.

    DPI is already being used for commercial gain, without the consent of users, said Richard Clayton, a security expert at the University of Cambridge and treasurer of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. Companies try to sell DPI-acquired data to firms that can use it — for example, to target online adverts. DPI is also used by the Chinese government to enforce its web censorship programme, sometimes called the Great Firewall of China.

    Lives, hates and fears

    Berners-Lee has no issue with targeted adverts, which he said offered online users an improved service, but is uncomfortable with using DPI to provide them. He likened DPI to wiretapping, and pointed out that companies could use it to learn a huge amount about our “lives, hates and fears”. One example he gave was that the web is often the first point of call for people with health concerns.

    DPI has become possible thanks to improvements in computing power, said Robert Topolski, Chief Technologist of the Open Technology Initiative. That allows internet servers to relay data and simultaneously snoop inside data packets. Until recently that was beyond the capabilities of the available technology.

    DPI threatens the trust that exists between web users and internet service providers, Topolski said. It makes it possible for a “man in the middle” not directly accountable to a website’s operators or its users to intercept and use data sent over the internet, from details of purchases made online to messages shared on social sites, he explained.

    Topolski pointed out that this is very different from the widespread practice of monitoring online activity such as search terms, with the user’s consent, to offer similar targeted adverts.

    Protection protocols

    This week Google revealed its own targeted ads service. Crucially that service is opt-in rather than opt-out: consumers have to sign up before they can use it.

    Kent Ertugrul, CEO of the digital technology company Phorm, defended the use of DPI. Phorm sells information gleaned this way to internet service providers in the US and UK who wish to deliver targeted adverts, but Ertugrul claims his firm’s privacy protection protocols are unrivalled. Phorm strips user data of anything that could link it to an individual in the real world, he says.

    But Topolski dismissed this as a side issue. Phorm captures people’s private data without permission, before those protection filters are implemented. Because companies like Phorm are accountable only to their shareholders, this leave the privacy of users and their data compromised, he said.

    Clayton and other members of the discussion group said DPI should be tested against existing data-protection and privacy laws, before it becomes more widely used. This would either establish precedents that protect web users, or make it clear that new legislation is needed, they said.

    New Search Tool for Mining Government Documents

    0

    New Search Engine Highlights EFF’s Transparency Efforts During Sunshine Week

    San Francisco – In celebration of Sunshine Week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) today launched a sophisticated search tool that allows the public to closely examine thousands of pages of documents the organization has pried loose from secretive government agencies. The documents relate to a wide range of cutting-edge technology issues and government policies that affect civil liberties and personal privacy.

    EFF’s document collection — obtained through requests and litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) — casts light on several controversial government initiatives, including the FBI’s Investigative Data Warehouse and DCS 3000 surveillance program, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Automated Targeting System and ADVISE data-mining project. The documents also provide details on Justice Department collection of communications routing data, Pentagon monitoring of soldiers’ blogs, mismatches in the Terrorist Screening Center’s watchlist, and FBI misuse of its national security letter subpoena authority.

    The new search capability enables visitors to EFF’s website to conduct keyword searches across the universe of government documents obtained by EFF, maximizing the value of the material.

    “Until recently, documents obtained under FOIA often gathered dust in filing cabinets,” said David Sobel, EFF Senior Counsel and director of the organization’s FOIA Litigation for Accountable Government (FLAG) Project. “We believe that government information should be widely available and easy to research, and our new search engine makes that a reality.”

    EFF is launching the tool during national Sunshine Week, an annual, non-partisan event that promotes government transparency. The celebration is particularly significant this year, because it comes after eight years of a presidential administration that was widely criticized for its secrecy and two months into a new administration that has promised “unprecedented” openness.

    “We welcomed President Obama’s declaration — on his first full day in office — that he will work to make the federal government more open and participatory,” EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann said. “There’s certainly a lot of work to do — so much government activity has been hidden from public view in the name of ‘national security’ and the ‘war on terror.'”

    For the new FOIA document search tool:
    http://www.eff.org/issues/foia/search

    For more on EFF’s FLAG Project:
    http://www.eff.org/issues/foia

    Human rights leaders call for investigation into Gaza conflict

    0

    [JURIST] A group of 16 human rights investigators and judges “shocked to the core” by the events during the most recent Gaza conflict [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] have called for a full investigation of possible violations of the Geneva Conventions [link to texts] in an open letter [text] addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon [official profile; JURIST news archive] and all members of the UN Security Council. The signatories to the Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website; JURIST news archive] supported letter include Archbishop Desmond Tutu [Nobel profile; JURIST news archive], former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson [official profile; JURIST news archive] and South African Justice Richard Goldstone [official profile]. They said:

    As individuals with direct experience of international justice and reconciliation of conflict, we believe there is an important case to be made for an international investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict. Without setting the record straight in a credible and impartial manner, it will be difficult for those communities that have borne the heavy cost of violence to move beyond the terrible aftermath of conflict and help build a better peace.

    AI called for an arms embargo on Israel and Hamas following the release of a UN report detailing the use by both parties of foreign-made weapons. Several other investigations into the Gaza conflict are pending. Earlier in March, Iran announced that it would seek INTERPOL arrest warrants [JURIST report] for Israeli war crimes suspects. In January, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for an independent investigation [statement text; JURIST report] of possible war crimes and human rights violations in Gaza. International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website] Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is also attempting to gain jurisdiction over Israel [JURIST report] to investigate its actions in Gaza for alleged war crimes. Israel has already begun to consider defenses against possible war crimes charges, partly based on accusations [JURIST reports] that it used white phosphorus in a civilian area.

    Calls for ID cards to be scrapped

    0

    SOUTH Derbyshire MP Mark Todd has called on the Government to abandon its plans for ID cards.

    Since November, ID cards have been compulsory for foreign nationals living in the UK and will become mandatory for workers at Manchester and London City airport this year.

    The cards — containing details of a person’s fingerprints and their name, date of birth and address — will then be offered to everyone else in the country from 2011.

    Mr Todd (pictured) called on the Government to halt the project during an adjournment debate.

    He said: “While there have been some sensible decisions made since the passage of the bill — to simplify the project, to deconstruct it and integrate it with existing activity, to change the disastrously ill-thought through justifications of it — I doubt that it is realisable in its planned form.”

    Activists lose legal bid to stop expansion

    0

    ANTI-EXPANSION campaigners lost their High Court battle yesterday to block the decision to expand Stansted airport.

    The Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) group was opposing proposals for an additional 10 million passengers a year to use the single existing runway at the Essex airport.

    The SSE accused the government of unlawfully “steamrollering these plans every step of the way.”

    But High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes dismissed the legal challenge and said that criticisms of the way it had been handled were “unjustified and without substance.”

    Following the judge’s ruling that the government’s decision to approve permission was legal, the SSE campaign director Carol Barbone said: “This High Court action was never simply about winning or losing.

    “Our primary concern was to ensure that our main battle against a second Stansted runway was not prejudiced by the wording of the original decision.

    “However, today’s ruling seems to make matters even less clear than they were before. That is why we are seeking leave to appeal.”

    The judge refused permission to appeal, but SSE lawyers can still ask the Court of Appeal itself to hear their case.

    The group was ordered to pay the government’s legal costs from the High Court hearing up to an agreed limit of £20,000.

    The GMB union’s Stansted branch said that it supported the expansion of the airport because it would increase job opportunities and career prospects.

    A Department for Transport spokesman said: “We welcome the court’s dismissal of this appeal on all grounds and its recognition that we acted properly. Runway capacity in the south-east is scarce, so we believe it is right best use is made of the existing runway at Stansted.”

    Stansted commercial and development director Nick Barton added: “We are very pleased with the decision – it’s the right decision and one we fully expected.

    “The social and economic case for G1 (expansion) remains strong and our plans were endorsed by a full and independent public inquiry and a recommendation for approval by the planning inspector.

    “As a result, this is a very good day for the millions of people who need and want to fly to visit their friends and family, go on well-earned holidays or travel on business.”

    Copyright Morning Star

    A History of War Crimes

    0

    By Peter Dyer |

    On June 13, 1899 one of the largest battles of the Philippine-American war took place on the southern outskirts of Manila. After several hours of fierce fighting at the Zapote River Bridge, 5000 poorly armed Philippine soldiers were outgunned and routed by 3000 Americans.

    Including guerilla conflict and the Moro Rebellion this war dragged on for 14 years.

    By 1913 between 4000 and 5000 American soldiers had died. Estimates of Philippine military deaths run from 12,000 to 20,000. There were massive civilian deaths from starvation and disease due to scorched earth campaigns and forced relocation. Estimates of civilian deaths in the Philippine-American war range from 200,000 to 1,400,000.

    As the battle of Zapote Bridge raged, the world’s first international peace conference was in full swing 10,000 kms away at The Hague in Holland.

    On July 4, exactly three weeks after the carnage near Manila, Andrew White, the United States Ambassador to the Hague Peace Conference, laid a silver wreath at the tomb of Hugo Grotius, the 17th century “father of international law.” He said: “From this tomb of Grotius I seem to hear a message to go on with the work of strengthening peace and humanizing war.”

    The contradiction involved in the effort to apply law to war-the ultimate expression of lawlessness-is so stark the enterprise sometimes seems by nature doomed to failure. As Ambassador White unintentionally highlighted the gap between uplifting rhetoric and brutal reality, he could not have expressed more succinctly the enormous challenge inherent to the evolution of the law of war.

    As White noted, Hugo Grotius was the first to express a comprehensive and detailed vision of the regulation of armed conflict by international law. In De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (On the Law of War and Peace: Three books) 1625, he proposed that “…there is a common law of nations which is valid alike for war…” Conduct discussed in De Jure ranges from fundamentals such as “The Right to Kill in a Lawful War” where he advises “moderation in laying waste and similar things” through hostage-taking and care; truces; “ruses and falsehoods” and the right of safe passage in a section on good faith between enemies, even including safe conduct of baggage.

    There was plenty of war, but few subsequent advances in the law of war until the mid 19th century.

    In 1859 Swiss businessman Jean Henri Dunant witnessed the gruesome aftermath of the savage battle at Solferino in present day northern Italy. His efforts to establish an international organization for relief and care of those wounded in battle, regardless of nationality, led to the establishment of the International Red Cross. This was formalized on August 22, 1864 by the first international humanitarian law treaty-the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field.

    While the Red Cross was emerging out of European conflict, the American Civil War gave rise to the Lieber Code. In April 1863, Columbia University Professor Francis Lieber prepared “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field” at the request of Union General Henry Halleck. The Lieber Code was essentially a working manual that aimed to provide a practical framework for day-to-day ethical conduct of war. In this sense, its focus was considerably more broad than that of the Geneva Convention.

    Unlike the Geneva Convention, the Lieber Code prescribed specific punishment for violations, including death. And although it allowed starvation of unarmed belligerents (Article 17) the Lieber Code was noted for its general ethical treatment of civilian populations and prisoners of war.

    It seems highly likely that Lieber, a scholar of law and ethics, born and educated in Germany, was influenced by the work of Grotius. For example, Article 40 refers to “… that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war on land.”

    The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 were the first international agreements to specifically prohibit a wide range of weapons and tactics in war.

    Poisons-especially poison gas-were forbidden. “Arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury”; “bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body” and projectiles and explosives launched from balloons also made the list.

    As Ambassador White noted, the work at The Hague built on foundations laid by Grotius. It is likely that the Lieber Code played a role as well. Humane treatment of prisoners of war was a priority. Specific situations and tactics were either permitted (such as ruses) or prohibited (such as pillage).

    In addition the Hague Conventions specifically incorporated the 1864 Geneva Convention.

    The Hague Conventions seem to have brought together and developed further the bulk of the most enduring contemporary principles of the law of war. The result was a significant advance in international law.

    One important principle, however, was absent: Professor Lieber’s perspective of violations as crimes with corresponding punishments.

    Because the legal authority of the Conventions was seen as flowing from their status as treaties between states, the only responsibility for treaty violations on the agenda was the collective responsibility of the State. So, despite the terrible personal and communal violence that was the subject matter of the Conventions, the only remedies envisioned were similar to those provided in contract law: mediation, commissions of inquiry and a permanent court of arbitration.

    Given the issues of state sovereignty arising from a multinational pact, this is not surprising. But even with the remedies available, consistent and fair enforcement depended entirely on the willingness of the most powerful nations to submit to the will of those less powerful.

    In other words, there were no teeth. It was easy for powerful nations to proclaim dedication to the rule of law and to the highest humanitarian principles, whatever the reality.

    And no persons of any rank, low or high, were to be held responsible for any of the outrages the Hague Conventions aspired to prevent.

    Less than seven years after the 1907 Hague Convention was signed, the industrial slaughter of World War I began. The shock of 15,000,000 military and civilian deaths undoubtedly contributed to what was probably the first use of the language of criminal law in the international law of war.

    Articles 227 of the 1919 Versailles Treaty, which formally ended the war, called for no less than the arrest and public trial before an international tribunal of the defeated German Emperor, Kaiser Wilhelm II, for “a supreme offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties.” and to “fix the punishment which it considers should be imposed.”

    In addition, Article 228 called for the trial “before military tribunals of persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Such persons shall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law.”

    However, Holland, home of the Hague Conventions, refused to extradite the Kaiser and he was never tried. Although a few Germans of lesser rank were eventually tried under Article 228 by German courts in Leipzig, the process was crippled by controversy among Allied observers and widespread, vehement German opposition. A good portion of this controversy sprang from the radically new idea of individual criminal responsibility for acts of war.

    Ten years after the fighting stopped the trauma of the “war to end all wars” was still fresh. In 1928 fifteen nations, including Germany, signed the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (Kellogg-Briand Pact or Paris Pact).

    The Paris Pact was short, clear and unqualified. It condemned “recourse to war for the solution of international controversies”.
    Although there were no sanctions provided for violation, the treaty can be seen as perhaps the first significant effort to go beyond various acts of war and address the source of all such acts: aggressive war.

    Seventeen years later in 1945, 50 million more deaths from another World War brought a momentous leap in law. Aggressive war (along with war crimes and crimes against the peace) was formally criminalized, with individual responsibility, in the charter of the first international criminal tribunal-the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany.

    Twenty-two of the most powerful Nazis were tried. Nineteen were convicted of one or more of the IMT Charter crimes. Twelve received death sentences.

    Delivered on October 1, 1946, the Tribunal judgment invoked both the Paris Pact and the 1907 Hague Convention, essentially establishing violations of these treaties as crimes. “In the opinion of the Tribunal, the solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy necessarily involves the proposition that such a war is illegal in international law.”

    World War II and Nuremberg provided a catalyst for a few years of accelerated development of the law of war. Just ten weeks after the Nuremberg judgment the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 95(1) “Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.”

    The next year, the General Assembly adopted resolution 174 (II) establishing the International Law Commission (ILC) for the “promotion of the progressive development of international law and its codification.”

    In December 1948 the General Assembly passed Resolution 260 (III), the Genocide Convention, recognizing that genocide is an international crime and providing a precise definition.

    In Part B of Res. 260 the General Assembly invited the ILC “…to study the desirability and possibility of establishing an international judicial organ for the trial of persons charged with genocide, or other crimes over which jurisdictions will be conferred upon that organ by international conventions.”

    Eight months later, in August 1949, the international community modified the Geneva Convention of 1864 and significantly expanded international humanitarian law, adopting three more conventions relating to those wounded in war at sea, prisoners of war and civilians. Two protocols protecting victims of international and national conflicts were added in 1977.

    Today these conventions provide the foundation of international humanitarian law.

    The efforts of the ILC and others to establish an “international judicial organ” were essentially frozen during the Cold War. Forty-one years after UNGA Res 260 the General Assembly asked the ILC to “address the question of establishing an international criminal court” (Res 44/39, 1989) with a specific purpose: interdicting international drug trade.

    During the 1990s the horrors of war crimes and genocide in Yugoslavia and Rwanda resulted in the establishment of temporary international criminal tribunals. The need for a permanent and broadly focused International Criminal Court as envisioned in 1948, became more urgent. Eventually, on July 17, 1998 the Statute of the International Criminal Court was signed in Rome.

    Ironically, the United States, which led the way at Nuremberg, voted against the ICC Charter, along with China, Libya, Iraq, Israel, Qatar, and Yemen. Resistance was especially strong in the U.S. Senate where Senator Jesse Helms declared the treaty “… will be dead on arrival when it reaches the Foreign Relations Committee. Let us close the casket right now…”

    Since then the U.S. has not only refused to participate but has actively resisted and attempted to undermine the ICC.

    Since the time of Hugo Grotius there has been considerable progress in the evolution of the law of war. However, 110 years after the first Hague Convention and the Battle of Zapote Bridge, the problem of enforcement ensures that the stark contrast between noble words and savage violence is still very much with us.

    Although 139 nations have signed the Rome Statute and 108 are full Parties, without the support of the world’s richest and most powerful country, the ICC faces an uphill struggle. In the mean time, as Michael Scharf pointed out to Senator Helms: “We have lived in a golden age of impunity, where a person stands a much better chance of being tried for taking a single life than for killing ten thousand or a million.”

    The law of war will continue to evolve because there is no civilized alternative. As Hugo Grotius wrote nearly four centuries ago: “For when treaties have been done away with it will follow that all peoples will wage unending wars with one another.”

    Obama’s Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

    1

    It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama’s high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

    Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama’s net presidential approval rating — which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve — is just six, his lowest rating to date.

    Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president’s performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

    A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration’s policies and their impact on peoples’ lives.

    There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.

    Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.

    When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.

    Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama’s budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for a second stimulus package.

    While over two-thirds support the plan to help homeowners refinance their mortgage, a 48%-36% plurality said that it will unfairly benefit those who have been irresponsible, echoing Rick Santelli’s call to arms on CNBC.

    And although a narrow majority remains confident in Mr. Obama’s goals and overall direction, 45% say they do not have confidence, a number that has been growing since the inauguration less than two months ago. With three-quarters saying that they expect the economy to get worse, it is hard to see these numbers improving substantially.

    There is no real appetite for increasing taxes to pay for an expanded health-insurance program. Less than half would support such an idea, which is 17% less than the percentage that supported government health insurance when Bill Clinton first considered it in March of 1993.

    While voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in Washington, the fact is that they do not believe Mr. Obama has made any progress in improving the impulse towards cooperation between the two parties. Further, nearly half of voters say that politics in Washington will be more partisan over the next year.

    Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose giving bankers any additional government money or any guarantees backed by the government. Two-thirds say Wall Street will benefit more than the average taxpayer from the new bank bailout plan. This represents a jump in opposition to the first plan passed last October. At that time, 45% opposed the bailout and 30% supported it. Now a solid majority opposes the bank bailout, and 20% think it was a good idea. A majority believes that Mr. Obama will not be able to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.

    Only less than a quarter of Americans believe that the federal government truly reflects the will of the people. Almost half disagree with the idea that no one can earn a living or live “an American life” without protection and empowerment by the government, while only one-third agree.

    Despite the economic stimulus that Congress just passed and the budget and financial and mortgage bailouts that Congress is now debating, just 19% of voters believe that Congress has passed any significant legislation to improve their lives. While Congress’s approval has increased, it still stands at only 18%. Over two-thirds of voters believe members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping the American people. When it comes to the nation’s economic issues, two-thirds of voters have more confidence in their own judgment than they do in the average member of Congress.

    Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

    All of this is not just a subject for pollsters and analysts to debate. It shows fundamentally that public confidence in government remains low and is slipping. We face the possibility of substantial gridlock along with an absolute absence of public confidence that could come to mirror the lack of confidence in the American economy that the Dow and the S&P are currently showing.

    Mr. Schoen, formerly a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System” (Random House, 2008). Mr. Rasmussen is president of Rasmussen Reports, an independent national polling company.

    Police tactics seek to ‘intimidate people and prevent lawful dissent’

    1

    By Linda Catt |

    It comes as no surprise to me to read that “Police are targeting thousands of political campaigners in surveillance operations and storing their details on a database for at least seven years” (Revealed: police databank on thousands of protesters, 7 March). As a regular protester, I have long decried to a seemingly deaf world the ham-fisted and sinister surveillance techniques described in your article, even ensuring that my comments are recorded by police cameras.

    So while I am pleased to read that “Liberty, the human rights group, is challenging the police surveillance tactics in a judicial review at the court of appeal”, this action is long overdue.

    You say that “Overt surveillance by police forward intelligence teams (FITs) or evidence gatherers (EGs) is designed to record potential criminal activity and gather useful intelligence.” But to me it seems clear that it is designed to intimidate people and prevent lawful dissent.

    While these techniques were “Pioneered by the Met’s public order branch in the late 1990s”, Sussex police have also made great efforts to advance them, particularly against the people who protest against the US defence company ITT/EDO in Brighton. Through determined perseverance, I have had complaints about intrusive and prolonged filming by Sussex police EGs upheld, including when I was followed and filmed for two and a half hours during an anti-arms-trade march, even though my yellow tabard clearly indicated that I was a legal observer for the protest. This continued well after the march had ended, and even extended to waiting for me outside shops and a cafe.

    When the boot is on the other foot however, it is another matter. Twice I have had a camera snatched from me by police officers when I tried to film their actions in public, with one officer even trying to delete the footage. Although an EG had filmed the latter, my Data Protection Act request for video footage could only uncover stills of everything but the offending moment. I was told that my next port of call would be the National Public Order Intelligence Unit in London, which in itself has sinister undertones.

    I have already had an “of interest to public order unit” Sussex police marker placed against my vehicle on the Police National Computer for attending three peaceful and lawful protests outside ITT/EDO, resulting in a stop and search of my vehicle under the Terrorism Act 2000 in London in July 2005.

    It therefore seems a logical development that the process of criminalising innocent protesters has been extended to secretly storing their data on Crimint, a database about criminal activity. Superintendent David Hartshorn asserts that the police, “in terms of intelligence, have to justify what we are able to keep”. But it would appear that this justification can be pretty flimsy when Hartshorn believes it is reasonable for people like me who have no criminal record to be kept on such databases because we are “seen on a regular basis” at demonstrations.

    I have just reread the tiny printed flyer Sussex police rarely give out at demonstrations entitled “Why are you filming me?” Absent from the reasons stated – which it maintains are in compliance with privacy rights under the Human Rights Act – is the transfer of images to Crimint. I look forward to seeing the government account for this in court.

    More calls for BT Phorm ban

    0

    BT must be stopped from deploying technology that uses people’s personal internet communications to make money from advertisers, the government was told this week.Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokeswoman, asked in the Lords for the government to delay the rollout of interception-based online advertising until its legality had been established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

    She told Computer Weekly that Ofcom, the Information Commissioner, the Home Office and the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) were all passing the buck. Phorm could normalise a level of snooping not even attempted by the Home Office’s stalled Interception Modernisation Programme. Other ministers have praised Phorm for its enterprise.

    Opponents of the Phorm deep packet inspection technology brand it illegal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee said Phorm breached a fundamental principle of the internet: that the lower TCP/IP stacks were as sacred as the contents of people’s written letters.

    Phorm CEO Kent Ertugrul accused critics, including Sir Tim Berners-Lee, at a Parliamentary side meeting, of “neo-Luddite entrenchment”. He claimed Phorm used technology to fix the same privacy problem it created. US Congress has already called a halt on interception advertising.

    Richard Clayton, a Cambridge academic who has analysed Phorm’s system, said it was entirely illegal.

    City police refused to prosecute BT for its Phorm trials last year. The CPS is considering whether to allow a private prosecution. Phorm might be permitted by section 3.3 of RIPA, which allows interception of communications without a warrant when necessary for the provision of a telecoms or postal service.

    Mark Ballard

    FBI Declines 2 Of 3 Information Requests

    0

    A private study said the FBI tells two out of every three Freedom of Information Act requesters that it can’t find the records they requested.

     

    The study by the National Security Archive, a private group that publishes declassified government documents, said that failure rate is five times higher than other major federal agencies.

     

    The Archive awarded the FBI its Rosemary Award for the worst Freedom of Information Act performance by a federal agency.

     

    The award is named for former President Richard M. Nixon’s secretary Rose Mary Woods who’s known for claiming to have accidentally erased 18 1/2 minutes of a White House tape recording during the Watergate era.

     

    The award is given annually around Sunshine Week, when journalism organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

     

    An FBI spokesman said the reason for the huge number of no-records responses is that “it’s become a cult phenomenon to ask the FBI for records.”

    Obama Administration Declares Proposed IP Treaty a ‘National Security’ Secret

    0

    By David Kravets |

    President Barack Obama came into office in January promising a new era of openness.

    But now, like Bush before him, Obama is playing the national security card to hide details of the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated across the globe.

    The White House this week declared (.pdf) the text of the proposed treaty a “properly classified” national security secret, in rejecting a Freedom of Information Act request by Knowledge Ecology International.

    “Please be advised the documents you seek are being withheld in full,” wrote Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House’s Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

    The national security claim is stunning, given that the treaty negotiations have included the 27 member states of the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand, all of whom presumably have access to the “classified” information.

    In early January, the Bush administration made the same claim in rejecting (.pdf) a similar FOIA request by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    If ratified, leaked documents posted on WikiLeaks and other comments suggest the proposed trade accord would criminalize peer-to-peer file sharing, subject iPods to border searches and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers’ communications.

    In his first days in office, Obama publicly committed himself to transparency, instructing government agencies to err on the side of public access and divulge information whenever possible under the Freedom of Information Act. Obama recently released a trove of documents relating to the Bush administration’s rational for torture of enemy combatants and other abuses.

    At the same time, though, Justice Department lawyers have been arguing in court that the “state secrets privilege” should bar lawsuits over the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program.

    Iraq ‘shoe-thrower’ sentenced

    0

    An Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at George Bush, then US president, has been given a three-year jail sentence after pleading not guilty to assaulting a foreign head of state.The sentencing of Muntadher al-Zaidi, 30, by the Central Criminal Court in Baghdad on Thursday, was announced by Al-Baghdadiya television, his employer.

    The journalist, who became a hero to many Iraqis after the December 14 incident, arrived at the court under a heavy police escort.

    Judge Abdulamir Hassan al-Rubaie said he had taken into consideration that al-Zaidi is young and it was his first offence, the defence lawyers said.

    Packed courtroom

    There was standing room only at the courtroom on the edge of Baghdad’s Green Zone as some 200 family members, reporters and lawyers crowded in.

    Al-Rubaie later cleared the court before returning his verdict.

    Asked if he was innocent, al-Zaidi responded: “Yes, my reaction was natural, just like any Iraqi (would have done).”

    Bush was speaking on December 14 at a joint news conference in Baghdad with Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, when al-Zaidi hurled his shoes at him.

    The shoes narrowly missed Bush, who later brushed the incident aside.

    As well as throwing the shoe, al-Zaidi shouted “It is the farewell kiss, you dog”, before security forces wrestled him to the ground.

    He later said he had been beaten and tortured in custody.

    Shoe-hurling is considered an especially grave insult in the Arab and Muslim world and al-Zaidi had risked up to 15 years in jail on the charge of aggression against a foreign head of state.

    ‘Prisoner of war’

    After the verdict on Thursday, al-Zaidi’s 25-strong defence team emerged from the courtroom to scenes of chaos. Several family members screamed: “It’s an American court … sons of dogs.”

    One of his brothers, Uday, said the decision was political.

    “This is a political court. Muntadhar is being treated like a prisoner of war. He is not a normal prisoner … This decision has been taken by the prime minister’s office.”

    Al-Zaidi shouted “Iraq, long live Iraq” after the verdict was read out, Yahia Attabi, a defence lawyer, said.

    “We expected the decision because under the Iraqi criminal code he was charged with assaulting a foreign leader on an official visit.”

    Appeal planned

    Attabi said al-Zaidi will appeal the decision.

    The family said they would not only appeal but also press ahead with plans to bring torture charges against Bush, al-Maliki and his bodyguards at a human rights court abroad.

    Ehiya al-Sadi, the chief defence lawyer, had argued that his client’s motives were “honourable”.

    “He was only expressing his feelings. What he could see was the blood of Iraqis at his feet when he watched the US president speaking about his achievements in Iraq.”

    Al-Sadi also argued that although Iraqi law considered it an attack on a visiting head of state, “[al-Zaidi’s] throwing of the shoe did not cause any injury or damage … His goal was to insult Bush for the pain Iraqis have suffered”.

    Al-Zaidi’s account

    The trial opened on February 19 but was adjourned to determine the nature of Bush’s December visit.

    Al-Zaidi told the court last month that he had been outraged and was unable to control his emotions when Bush started speaking to the media.

    “I had the feeling that the blood of innocent people was dropping on my feet during the time that he was smiling and coming to say bye-bye to Iraq with a dinner.

    “So I took the first shoe and threw it but it did not hit him. Then spontaneously I took the second shoe but it did not hit him either. I was not trying to kill the commander of the occupation forces of Iraq.”

    FDA Scientists Accuse Agency of Corruption, Intimidation

    0

    A group of nine FDA scientists has sent letters to top politicians, accusing agency managers of intimidating and coercing scientists into changing or suppressing scientific data. In October, the scientists sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In early January, they sent another to then-president-elect Barack Obama.

    The medical device review process, in particular, has been “corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk,” the letter to Obama reads.

    For example, the FDA continues to approve the use of certain mammography computer-aided detection devices for breast cancer screening, over repeated objections from agency doctors and scientists that there is no clinical evidence that the devices work as advertised.

    According to the scientists, FDA employees are regularly pressured to conform to their managers’ agendas for medical devices, and are discouraged from raising safety concerns that management does not want to hear. The most recent letter alleges that employees who fail to follow the party line are often threatened with disciplinary action.

    “There is an atmosphere at FDA in which the honest employee fears the dishonest employee,” the second letter says.

    The letter writers say that although they have complained directly to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach and Assistant Commissioner for Accountability and Integrity Bill McConagha, many of the most delinquent managers have since been promoted or otherwise rewarded. No one has been disciplined.

    The nine scientists have called for a fundamental restructuring of the process for evaluating and approving medical devices, and for increased protection for government whistleblowers.

    The FDA has come under increasing criticism in recent years, with both Democrats and Republicans accusing it of suppressing its scientists’ safety data in order to approve products for the benefit of industry. Leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee have written to von Eschenbach, saying that the scientists’ letter provided “compelling evidence of serious wrongdoing.”

    David Gutierrez

    Sources for this story include: online.wsj.com.

    Memo told Blair that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat

    0

    By Paul Waugh |

    Intelligence experts explicitly warned Tony Blair’s aides that Britain was not in “imminent danger of attack” from Saddam Hussein, a confidential memo revealed today.

    The row over claims that the Government “spun” its way into war with Iraq is likely to be reignited after the release of the document by the Cabinet Office.

    The memo, released after a long-running Freedom of Information battle, shows Mr Blair’s officials knew seven years ago that the threat from Saddam was not immediate.

    Despite the warning, the Government’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction included a claim that Baghdad was ready to launch an attack within “45 minutes”.

    Lord Hutton cleared the Government in 2004 of the charge that it tried to manipulate intelligence to pave the way for war.

    But today Whitehall released a memo from former Cabinet Office defence expert Desmond Bowen, who later won promotion to policy director at the Ministry of Defence, which shows he disagreed Saddam posed an immediate threat.

    The September 2002 memo, written to then Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett and copied to Alastair Campbell, provides comments on an early draft of the government dossier on Iraq.

    Mr Bowen wrote: “The question which we have to have in the back of our mind is ‘why now?’ I think we have moved away from promoting the idea that we are in imminent danger of attack and therefore intend to act in a pre-emptive self defence.”

    Another email published today underlines ministers’ focus on how to get their message across in the media.

    A memo from then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s office stresses the dossier had to be shown on the Sky News video “wall”.

    The email from Mr Straw’s private secretary Mark Sedwill suggests the dossier needed a “very simple table”.

    Mr Sedwill wrote: “This should be brief enough to get onto the Sky wall ie no more than 5 bullets.”

    Another email, apparently from an intelligence official, says a part of the dossier on chemical and biological weapons would be “likely to give a misleading impression”.

    A further email, from unnamed officials, says “there is nothing we can point to that we know for sure is going to the BW [Biological Weapons] programme”.

    Mr Blair published the WMD dossier in September 2002, which critics believe paved the way for war the following spring.

    An inquiry by Lord Butler found blunders in its compilation, with the “45 minutes” claim based on unreliable evidence.

    A separate “dodgy dossier” was published in early 2003. It was discovered to have sections copied off the internet.

    Landlord wins battle to keep CCTV out of his pub

    1

    By Georgina Littlejohn |

    A landlord has won the right not to install CCTV cameras in his pub after he argued that it would threaten drinkers’ civil liberties.

    Nick Gibson was told by police that he would have to install the security cameras when he applied for a licence for the Draper’s Arms in Barnsbury Street, Islington.

    But after the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened, the police dropped their case and Mr Gibson was granted his licence.

    The office told the Metropolitan Police that the blanket introduction of CCTV in pubs “raised serious privacy issues” and added: “We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime and can help to reduce crime.

    “However we are concerned at the prospect of landlords being forced into installing CCTV in pubs as a matter of routine in order to meet the terms of a licence.”

    A police spokeswoman said the force would still continue to call for the installation of CCTV as a proviso for the granting of all future licences.

    US: Cluster Bomb Exports Banned

    0

    Legislation signed into law on March 11, 2009 by President Obama will make permanent a ban on nearly all cluster bomb exports by the United States, Human Rights Watch said today. The United States should review its stance on joining the international treaty prohibiting cluster munitions in light of this action, Human Rights Watch said.

    “This permanent export ban is a major turnaround in US policy,” said Steve Goose, arms division director at Human Rights Watch. “It brings Washington into closer alignment with international opinion on this terrible weapon.”

    Congress included the export ban in an omnibus budget bill (HR 1105) that passed the Senate on Tuesday. The legislation states that cluster munitions can only be exported if they leave behind less than 1 percent of their submunitions as duds. Cluster submunitions often fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that act like landmines and pose danger to civilians. The legislation also requires the receiving country to agree that cluster munitions “will not be used where civilians are known to be present.” Only a very tiny fraction of the cluster munitions in the US arsenal meet the 1-percent standard.

    This export ban was first enacted in a similar budget bill in December 2007, but that law mandated it for only one year.

    “The passage of this measure is yet another indication that the president should initiate a thorough review of US policy with respect to cluster munitions,” said Goose. “If it is unacceptable for foreign militaries to use these weapons, why would it be acceptable for the US military to use them?” 

    US policy on cluster munitions was last articulated in a three-page policy directive issued by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in July 2008. The directive described cluster munitions as “legitimate weapons with clear military utility.” Under the policy, the US will continue to use cluster munitions and, after 2018, will use only munitions with a tested failure rate of less than 1 percent.

    In December 2008, a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team said that the next president would “carefully review” the new treaty banning cluster munitions and “work closely [with] our friends and allies to ensure that the United States is doing everything feasible to promote protection of civilians.” 

    On February 10, Human Rights Watch joined leaders from 66 other national nongovernmental organizations in signing a joint letter calling on President Obama to join the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Human Rights Watch co-chairs the Cluster Munition Coalition, which it helped found in November 2003. It is also a founding member of the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines and Cluster Bombs.

    “The export ban moves the US one step closer to the position taken by nearly 100 nations – including its closest NATO allies – that have signed the treaty banning cluster munitions,” said Goose. “A US decision to sign would certainly signal President Obama’s commitment to multilateral diplomacy.”

    The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions was opened for signature in December. It prohibits the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions, and provides strict deadlines for clearance of affected areas and destruction of stockpiled cluster munitions. A total of 95 states have signed the convention, including most NATO members and other close US allies. The Bush administration chose not to participate in the development or negotiation of the convention, which was modeled on the 1997 treaty banning landmines.

    While the historical record is incomplete, the United States has transferred hundreds of thousands of cluster munitions containing tens of millions of unreliable and inaccurate submunitions to at least 28 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Egypt, Denmark, France, Greece, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, South Korea, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

    Several of these states have joined the Convention on Cluster Munitions and are in the process of destroying their stockpiled cluster munitions. Cluster munitions exported by the US have been used by other states in Lebanon, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, and Western Sahara.

    Cluster munitions can be fired by artillery and rocket systems or dropped by aircraft and typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of tiny bomblets over an area the size of a football field.

    Human Rights Watch

    Knife crime figures ‘were fiddled’

    0

    Ministers have been accused of “fiddling the figures” after new statistics undermined claims made in a notorious Home Office press release.

    The data, put out last year despite protests from NHS statisticians that it had not been fully checked, purported to show the number of knife crime victims treated by doctors in ten knife crime hotspots fell by 27%.

    But newly published NHS data, issued after the statistics were verified, showed the actual fall between July and September was 18% and the annual decline was only 8%.

    Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said: “We now see the full extent of the government’s fiddled figures. Ministers should stop spinning and take decisive action to deal with the scourge of knives.”

    Ministry of Justice figures also released on Thursday showed the number of offenders given jail terms for knife offences shot up by nearly a quarter. Figures for October to December showed average sentence lengths also soared, by 38% to 26 weeks.

    Justice Secretary Jack Straw said the figures showed the Government’s “tough” approach was working. He said: “This sends a very important message to knife criminals and would-be knife carriers to pack it in.”

    But critics pointed out that fewer than one in five knife criminals was given an immediate jail term.

    In the last three months of last year the courts dealt with 6,704 knife offenders and only 1,386 were given an immediate custodial sentence. And more criminals – a total of 1,706 – were given cautions than put behind bars.

    The figures also showed a modest fall of 2% in the total number of knife offences committed across England and Wales in the period compared with a year earlier. But in the ten Tackling Knives Action Plan (TKAP) areas – which were given millions of pounds of Government money – there were only 43 fewer offences committed – a fall of less than 1%.

    The sentencing changes follow a Court of Appeal ruling last May which said knife carriers should be given longer jail terms. Sentencing guidelines for the courts, which were changed following the judgment, set the basic sentence for knife possession by adults at 12 weeks in prison.

    Ananova

    UN experts to investigate secret U.S. jails

    0

    Two UN human rights experts said on Tuesday that they would conduct a global investigation of secret detention centers used by the United States and other countries in their counter-terrorism efforts.

        The yearlong investigation is aimed not only to clarify facts, but also to ensure that such secret jails would not be used in the future, according to Manfred Nowak, UN envoy for torture, and Martin Scheinin, UN envoy for human rights and counter-terrorism.

        Addressing the UN Human Rights Council, the two experts described secret jails as “one of the most horrendous practices” adopted by intelligence services.

        There was “credible” evidence that the United States had transferred terror suspects for interrogation at secret detention centers in the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Asia, they said.

        In many cases states receiving detainees had “reportedly engaged in torture and other forms of ill-treatment,” they said.

        Scheinin welcomed U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, but he said scrutiny of the U.S. counter-terrorism policy would not be relaxed.

        “We will not let the United States off the hook simply because of the change in administration,” he said.

        He also stressed those investigations of abuses at the Guantanamo Bay prison should continue until everything was revealed.

    FBI terrorist watch list hits 1 million entries

    1

    By Patrick Martin |

    The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center acknowledged this week that there are more than 1 million names on its official terrorist watch list, a number that suggests the vast scale of the police-state measures undertaken by the US government on the pretext of waging a “war on terror.”

    It would be preposterous to suggest that these 1 million people are actually terrorists–in that event, Al Qaeda would have more troops than the US Army. Moreover, since an estimated 50,000 of those named are US residents, most of them citizens, this would mean hundreds of potential car bombers or airplane hijackers live in every major American city.

    There is no legal restriction on who can be placed on the watch list, nor is there presently any legal right to have your name removed from the list once it appears. According to a 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office, an individual may be nominated to the list if they are subject to an ongoing counterterrorism investigation, or if the individual is the subject of a preliminary investigation “to determine if they have links to terrorism.” The second category potentially includes the entire population of world.

    The result has been daily acts of harassment and injustice, as individuals whose names supposedly match those who are alleged terror suspects suffer dire consequences: they can be stopped from boarding an airplane, denied entry into the US at a border, or denied a visa or other government permit.

    Among the well-publicized cases, Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa, is on the watch list, as well as Evo Morales, currently president of Bolivia, and the late Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq, while he was being held in a US prison in Iraq. Thousands of Americans who share common names with supposed terrorists–Robert Johnson, Gary Smith, John Williams, David Nelson, Jim Robinson–have been stopped from boarding planes or otherwise targeted.

    The list includes at least one US senator, Edward Kennedy, and three members of Congress, John Lewis, Loretta Sanchez and Don Young, as well as a former US Attorney and an army sergeant flying home from deployment in Iraq. Particularly sinister are cases like those of James Moore, author of a critical biography of Karl Rove, entitled Bush’s Brain, and CNN reporter Drew Griffin, placed on the list in May 2008, shortly after he did a series of investigative reports critical of the Transportation Security Administration.

    According to a report Wednesday by USA Today, the FBI claims that 33,000 entries were removed last year in an effort to purge outdated information and remove people cleared in investigations. The agency also argued that the 1 million entries represent “only” 400,000 unique individuals, with the balance consisting of duplications due to misspellings, variant spellings and conflicting demographic information.

    The FBI statement to USA Today confirms, eight months later, the estimate made public by the American Civil Liberties Union, which calculated, based on previous TSA figures about the growth rate of the watch list, that the total had reached the 1 million mark in July 2008.

    The year-by-year increase has been staggering: 158,374 in June 2004, 288,000 in May 2005, 754,960 in May 2007 and an admitted 1,000,000 in March 2009, if not earlier. As an ACLU statement observed sarcastically, “Clearly, terrorists stand poised to replace suckers in P.T. Barnum’s old adage, ‘there’s one born every minute.’ ”

    The watch list is completely ineffective for its purported purpose of protecting the American public from terrorist attacks. While thousands of individuals have been “positively matched,” according to the government, “the vast majority” of such matches result in the individual being released.

    Moreover, as the ACLU pointed out last year, the names of actual terrorists are frequently withheld from the list provided to frontline screeners for the TSA. “That is because the government is afraid of revealing that those terrorists are even on the list,” the organization wrote. “It has long been known that the government was withholding certain names from the airlines, but the Justice Department’s inspector general seems to indicate that such withholding has also taken place with respect to other screeners, such as customs officials, State Department consular officers, local police, and others.”

    The watch list is more than just an example of the imbecility of the police mind, however. There is a definite political purpose, to accustom the American people, as well as millions of people overseas who may visit the United States, to the most intrusive surveillance and harassment when they travel.

    While Obama took office claiming that his government would do away with some of the worst features of the Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties, there has been no presidential directive to reform, let alone eliminate, such abominations as the million-strong terrorism watch list.

    The House of Representatives passed a bill last March requiring the Department of Homeland Security to create an Office of Appeals and Redress, giving individuals whose names appear on the watch list a formal procedure for getting off it, but it is not certain that even this minimal gesture will ultimately pass the Senate and become law.

    Instead, the executive branch is moving ahead with even more draconian information-gathering on travelers, under the new Secure Flight program, devised under Bush but being implemented under Obama. Under Secure Flight, the TSA, not the airlines, will check passenger names against watch lists, and only passengers cleared by the TSA will be given boarding passes.

    Passengers will be required to supply considerably more personal data, including their birth date and sex, at the time they book their seats, and this data must exactly match their personal ID presented at the time they check in. That requirement takes effect soon on domestic flights and by late 2009 on international ones. The TSA will thus gain access to the personal information on all airline passengers, some 2 million people each day. Officially, this information can be retained for no more than seven days, but there is no way to enforce that provision.

    Federal authorities now claim that more information must be collected to avoid the repetition of “mistakes” like the identification of well-known public figures like Senator Kennedy and Congressman Lewis as potential terrorist threats. In other words, they are using the absurdities of the previous “anti-terror” efforts to justify even more reactionary and anti-democratic measures.

    1 in 50 Children in US is Homeless

    2

    By Cynthia Hubert |

    In and out of classrooms, sleeping in shelters, shielded by parents, homeless children can seem invisible to society at large.

    A national study released Monday finds that one in 50 children in America is homeless. They’re sharing housing because of economic hardship, living in motels, cars, abandoned buildings, parks, camping grounds or shelters, or waiting for foster care placement.

    “That is something that I don’t think most people intuitively believe to be true,” said Ellen Bassuk, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and president of the National Center on Family Homelessness.

    The national center last did such a report 10 years ago, and numbers of children without a permanent place to sleep are growing.

    In Sacramento County, where debates over homeless issues have hit a pinnacle in recent months, school districts counted more than 6,000 children without stable housing during the last school year, a number that has been rising steadily since 2002.

    The national center’s study, “America’s Youngest Outcasts,” shows that California had 292,624 homeless children, the 10th largest population in the nation, during the time of its count, the 2005- 2006 school year. The group counted 1.5 million homeless kids across the country, about 200,000 more than the figure it reported a decade before.

    Bassuk said family and child homelessness is a “relatively new problem,” largely the result of more families splintering and becoming impoverished. “Many more of these families are headed by females, and are going to be more subject to market forces,” she said. “They tend to be a lot poorer.” She also cited a lack of affordable housing and a dearth of social programs geared toward families and children.

    As the economy has wilted and foreclosures have soared since 2006, homeless numbers have almost certainly increased, researchers say.

    In Sacramento County school districts, 6,165 youngsters, including those too young to attend classes, were without homes during the 2007-2008 school year, said Hilary Krogh, coordinator of the county Office of Education’s Project TEACH program for homeless children.

    The number has increased every year since 2002-2003, when area districts counted 3,773 homeless infants through high schoolers, Krogh said. She works with homeless liaisons within each school district to identify homeless children and help them get services.

    Sacramento’s rising numbers are mirrored throughout the state, Krogh said. The Folsom Cordova Unified School District counted 682 homeless youths within its boundaries last school year, a startling 31 percent increase over the previous year, said district liaison Charlene Hunt.

    “We are not unique,” said Hunt. “Our numbers are going up, and 2009 is going to be a particularly challenging year for everyone.”

    The National Center on Family Homelessness ranked all 50 states on their rates of homeless children, the health of the children and their educational achievements. It ranked California 40th overall, reflecting such factors as policy and planning efforts to deal with the issue as well as numbers of homeless children. Texas, ranked 50th, got the worst overall report card, while Connecticut got the best.

    Joan Burke at Loaves & Fishes services for the homeless in Sacramento sees the plight of wayward children every day.

    “These children really are, in many ways, the hidden homeless,” Burke said. “They are doubling up with family members, staying with friends, living in hotels. It’s very difficult to get an accurate count of them.”

    Twenty or more children attend school each day at Mustard Seed on the Loaves campus on North C Street.

    Homelessness is “very, very difficult on children,” said Burke. “They have lost their whole known world. They no longer have their neighborhood friends. They may have left a pet behind. Their parents are very stressed. They’re in a new school. It’s overwhelming for them.”

    School director Angela Hassell said children who find themselves homeless “don’t trust easily,” and often have trouble focusing on school work because they are consumed with the trials of daily living.

    The national report makes a raft of recommendations for federal and state policy planners to deal with the issue. Among other things, it calls for programs that would give needy people better access to affordable housing, increases in nutrition programs for homeless youngsters, expanded health services for needy families, and improved access to early childhood education for homeless youngsters.

    “The very first thing we need to do is make sure that people realize that we do have a problem, and focus more planning efforts on families and kids,” said Bassuk.

    Sacramento city and county leaders are working with churches, advocacy groups and others to improve services for homeless people, officials said.

    They are discussing a legal tent city where the homeless could live without fear of being arrested and would have access to basic services such as garbage pickup and running water. Mayor Kevin Johnson, among other leaders, has expressed strong interest in the idea.

    Oprah Winfrey’s television show recently featured a sprawling tent city near the Blue Diamond almond processing plant in a show on the “new faces” of homelessness.

    City Councilman Rob Fong, meanwhile, has launched a “Faith and Homeless Families Initiative,” a pilot program in which local churches agree to “adopt” homeless families and provide rental assistance, financial management tools and mentoring. The program will serve families that, in better economic times, were employed and had permanent housing.

    Also, the city and county are set to get nearly $5 million in federal stimulus funding for a variety of programs that serve the homeless.

    “Maybe this report, along with a new president and a new mayor who seem willing to tackle tough issues, is reason for hope,” said Burke of Loaves & Fishes. “Maybe people will start to realize that this is a problem all around the country, including right here in Sacramento.”

    Phorm is like a “TV camera in your room”

    0

    Sir Tim Berners-Lee has compared BT’s decision to roll out Phorm as like “allowing them to put a television camera in your room”. Sir Tim was speaking at the House of Commons, during a heated debate about the commercial use of data on the internet. The debate was organised by Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson, Baroness Miller, and was attended by several high-profile politicians.

    Berners-Lee said he was firmly opposed to any form of commercial traffic monitoring by ISPs. “What’s at stake is the integrity of the internet as a communications medium,” he argued. “It’s important there should be no snooping on the internet.”

    He compared the kind of deep-packet inspection deployed by Phorm and others to reading people’s letters. “It’s opening the envelope and looking inside,” he said. “It’s the internet equivalent of wire tapping.”

    “To allow someone to snoop on your internet traffic is to allow them to put a television camera in your room – except it [web snooping] will tell them a whole lot more about you than the television camera,” he later added.

    Berners-Lee said he wasn’t convinced by Phorm’s claims that the data is anonymised. “We use it [the internet] without thought that a third party will know what we’ve just clicked on,” the world wide web creator argued. “That information is very sensitive. I feel it should just not be collected.

    “Once it exists it can be used later for other purposes. All sorts of nasty things you can imagine happening. This information is incredibly valuable. There will be huge commercial pressure to release it,” he added.

    Furious Phorm

    Sir Tim’s comments drew a furious response from Phorm CEO Kent Ertugrul, who was a member of the audience, but had been declined the opportunity to join the panel of internet experts and politicians.

    “There have been a number of things said that patently misrepresent what we do,” he argued. “We have the strongest privacy protection of everyone on the internet.”

    He then went on to claim that the media wouldn’t survive without the increased targeted-advertising revenue provided by services such as Phorm.

    “The answer isn’t to go into neo-Luddite entrenchment,” Ertugrul argued. “Journalists wouldn’t be here [if we did] because their salaries couldn’t be paid.”

    Berners-Lee attack

    Ertugrul then accused Berners-Lee of speaking from a position of ignorance, claiming the company had invited him to inspect its technology on several occasions, which he had declined.

    That drew an angry response from Berners-Lee. “One of the reasons I haven’t met with you is I didn’t want anything I said to be misrepresented,” he argued.

    “When you make a huge outcry against people who attack targeted advertising – that’s not what we’re here to discuss.”

    “The mistake is the snooping on the internet,” he said.

    More than 1,000 UK police have criminal records

    1

    More than 1,000 serving police officers in Britain have criminal records, figures obtained under freedom of information laws showed on Wednesday.

    Convictions of the 1,063 officers include 77 for violence, 36 for theft and 96 for dishonesty.

    Five of these officers were reinstated by the Home Office after being sacked by their local forces.

    More than half the convictions were for speeding, drink-driving or other motoring offences, according to the figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats from 41 of Britain’s 52 police forces.

    Another 210 officers have been dismissed or been required to resign in the past five years because of their criminal convictions.

    Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesman Chris Huhne said officers convicted of violence or dishonesty should be dismissed immediately.

    “A serving police officer is expected by members of the public to be self controlled and self restrained in the use of force,” Huhne told BBC television.

    “If there is dishonesty, police offices can’t actually do their duty in giving evidence … the defence would completely shred their credibility in court.”

    The Association of Chief Police Officers said there were more than 140,000 officers in Britain and that it was very rare for anyone with a criminal conviction to be recruited.

    “The police service expects good conduct and probity from its officers and staff at all times,” said Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Peter Fahy.

    “Where wrongdoing is alleged, police officers are investigated and action taken as appropriate to each case.”

    Detailed Report On Patriot Act Abuses

    2

    The American Civil Liberties Union released a comprehensive report today examining widespread abuses that have occurred under the USA Patriot Act, a law that was rushed through Congress just 45 days after September 11. In the almost eight years since the passage of the controversial national security law, the Patriot Act has led to egregious government misconduct.

     
    “From the gagging of our nation’s librarians under the national security letter statute to the gutting of time-honored surveillance laws, the Patriot Act has been disastrous for Americans’ rights,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “In the panic following the events of 9/11, our nation’s lawmakers hastily expanded the government’s authority to a dangerous level and opened a Pandora’s box of surveillance.”
     
    The American Civil Liberties Union’s report, “Reclaiming Patriotism,” authored by policy counsel Michael German and legislative counsel Michelle Richardson, was delivered to congressional offices on Capitol Hill, as well as posted to the newly re-launched site www.reformthepatriotact.org. The report is being released in anticipation of the upcoming congressional debate surrounding three Patriot Act provisions due to expire on December 31, 2009. The ACLU has been working within the halls of Congress and the courts to introduce Patriot Act reform legislation. In December of 2008, as a result of an ACLU lawsuit, the gag order contained in the Patriot Act’s National Security Letter (NSL) provision was struck down.
     
    “Reclaiming Patriotism” reveals that in the years since its passage, the Patriot Act has paved the way for the expansion of government-sponsored surveillance including the gutting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and a recent revamping of the Attorney General Guidelines to allow law enforcement to conduct physical surveillance without suspicion. Indeed, over the last eight years, numerous expansions of executive authority have worked in tandem to infringe upon our rights. Only by understanding the larger picture of the combined effects of Patriot Act, the amendments to FISA, the guidelines for physical surveillance and other expansions of power can Congress make an informed, consistent and principled decision about whether and how to amend all of these very powerful surveillance tools.
     
    “The fallout we’ve seen from the Patriot Act being rushed through the legislative process is a dramatic example of the dire need for proper and deliberative congressional oversight,” said Fredrickson. “Congress should use this year’s Patriot Act reauthorization as an opportunity to reexamine all of our surveillance laws. Our lawmakers have, over time, built a massive surveillance mechanism bit by bit. Now is the time take it apart, examine each piece and develop wiser policies.”
     
    To read the ACLU’s report “Reclaiming Patriotism” and learn more about the three Patriot Act provisions up for expiration this year, go to: www.reformthepatriotact.org

    Iran lacks nuclear bomb fuel: US officials

    0

    WASHINGTON (AFP) – Iran has yet to decide whether to build a nuclear bomb and currently lacks the weapons-grade highly enriched uranium needed to do so, top US intelligence officials told lawmakers on Tuesday.

    But Tehran is enriching uranium in defiance of global sanctions and is “mastering” the know-how to build long-range missiles that can carry nuclear bombs to their targets oceans away, said director of intelligence Dennis Blair.

    And most spy agencies believe Tehran will probably be able to produce highly enriched uranium somewhere in the 2010-2015 timeframe, with the US State Department’s apparatus setting the early date at 2013, he said.

    “Although we do not know whether Iran currently intends to develop nuclear weapons, we assess Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop them,” said Blair told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    And he acknowledged that the US view was at odds with that of staunch ally Israel: “The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view.”

    To build a nuclear arsenal, Iran would need a stockpile of highly enriched uranium, would need to be able to build a warhead — a process it froze in mid-2003 and likely has not resumed — and would need long-range missiles.

    US intelligence agencies have concluded that “Iran has not decided to press forward on all three tracks,” Blair said.

    “We are in agreement on this,” Lieutenant Michael Maples, the director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) told the same committee.

    And “Iran will see government revenues decline in 2009 as oil prices remain at low levels. Defense spending will have to be balanced with social programs,” said Maples.

    Maples and Blair noted that Iran was building and acquiring advanced defenses against air strikes — which experts see as a likely path for a military effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

    But doing so is “a separate decision” from whether to build a nuclear weapon, said Blair.

    Blair also warned it will be “difficult” to convince Iran through diplomatic means to give up its nuclear ambitions.

    Tehran might bow to a blend of “credible” incentives and “threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures” but “it is difficult to specify what such a combination might be,” he said.

    His comments came as US President Barack Obama wrestled with how to convince the Islamic republic to halt what the West views as a covert nuclear weapons drive.

    Iran denies the allegations, saying it needs atomic power to generate electricity for civilian use.

    “We assess convincing the Iranian leadership to forego the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult, given the linkage many within the leadership see between nuclear weapons and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons,” Blair warned.

    US intelligence agencies estimate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons design and weaponization activities in late 2003 and that Tehran had not resumed them as of mid-2007, he told lawmakers.

    U.N. report says U.S. rendition policy broke international law

    0

    By Julie Sell |

    LONDON – A U.N. expert is accusing the United States and some of its allies of breaching international law for the so-called extraordinary renditions and subsequent alleged torture of terrorism suspects during the Bush administration’s global war on terrorism, and is launching a probe into the detention of suspects.

    Martin Scheinin, a U.N. special rapporteur and expert on international law, issued his annual report to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Tuesday. While it identifies a U.S. role in masterminding a “comprehensive system” of rendition and detention of suspects as well as creating “an international web” of intelligence sharing, his report notes that it was possible only through collaboration with many other countries.

    Scheinin cites “consistent, credible reports” that countries involved in facilitating extraordinary renditions in various ways included Bosnia and Herzegovina, Britain, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, Macedonia and Pakistan. Suspects then were transferred to “mostly unacknowledged” detention sites in Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Thailand, Uzbekistan “or to one of the CIA covert detention centers, often referred to as ‘black sites,’ ” according to the human rights report.

    Rupert Colville, a spokesman for the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said it was “a fairly major black mark” for any country to be targeted in such a report.

    Being on the list is particularly embarrassing for the British government, which already is stinging from charges of its collusion in the alleged torture of a former detainee at Guantanamo Bay. Officials from both key opposition parties in Britain are calling for an independent judicial inquiry on the matter after detailed accusations of collusion between MI5, a British intelligence agency, and the CIA were made in recent days by Binyam Mohamed, who was held at Guantanamo Bay for more than four years. He was flown back to Britain a few weeks ago after the Foreign Office pressed the Obama administration for his release.

    A spokesman for the Foreign Office said Tuesday that “there’s nothing new” in Scheinin’s claims of British involvement in extraordinary rendition. “When we hear of credible allegations, we’ll follow them up,” he added. It’s the office’s policy not to allow spokesmen to be named in news reports.

    In a speech to the Human Rights Council, which is meeting in Geneva, Scheinin said he planned to conduct a study on the secret detention program worldwide.

    “The United States has indicated that it wants to move forward and turn this dark page in its history, but in other countries this practice or permission of secret detentions – often of people who have been branded as terrorist suspects – is continuing,” Scheinin said. “Before a page can be turned, we have to know what’s on it, in order to move forward.”

    Scheinin also reportedly hopes to interview detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when he visits the United States, although it isn’t clear that he’ll be granted authorization to do so.

    The U.N. report expresses concern about not only active but also passive involvement by state intelligence agencies in interrogations that might have involved torture. It also critiqued the broad powers given to such agencies to collect information on citizens and “compartmentalized oversight” of intelligence services.

    In Britain, Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, whose department oversees the security services, have refused requests to appear before Parliament’s joint committee on human rights to discuss Britain’s involvement in rendition and detention of terrorism suspects, citing an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s Office.

    The Foreign Office spokesman said that the human rights committee didn’t have the authority to require Miliband’s attendance. Rather, he said, Parliament’s intelligence and security committee is “the appropriate parliamentary body to be looking into these issues.”

    Opposition politicians and human rights groups accuse the government of stonewalling.

    “Accountability is not the strong point of this government, particularly on foreign policy,” said Tom Porteous, the director of Human Rights Watch in London, who noted that British admissions of complicity in America’s war on terrorism have emerged slowly, in bits and pieces. With top politicians calling for independent inquiries in recent days, however, “we’ve built up a head of steam,” he added.

    “The sum of it all is a very compelling case of U.K. connivance in counter-terrorism abuses,” Porteus said.

    Pentagon knowingly exposed troops to cancer-causing chemicals, document shows

    0

    By John Byrne |

    A newly leaked military document appears to show the Pentagon knowingly exposed US troops to toxic chemicals that cause cancer, while publicly downplaying the risks exposure might cause.

    The document, written by an environmental engineering flight commander in December of 2006 and posted on Wikileaks (PDF) on Tuesday, details the risks posed to US troops in Iraq by burning garbage at a US airbase. It enumerates myriad risks posed by the practice and identifies various carcinogens released by incinerating waste in open-air pits.

    Because of the difficulties in testing samples, investigators could not prove that chemicals exceeded military exposure guidelines. But a military document released last December found that chemicals routinely exceeded safe levels by twice to six times.

    The leaked report was signed off by the chief for the Air Force’s aeromedical services. Its subject is Balad Airbase, a large US military base about 70 kilometers north of Baghdad.

    “In my professional opinion, the known carcinogens and respiratory sensitizers released into the atmosphere by the burn pit present both an acute and a chronic health hazard to our troops and the local population,” Aeromedical chief Lt. Colonel James Elliott wrote.

    According to the document, a US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine investigator said Balad’s burn pit was “the worst environmental site I have ever personally visited,” including “10 years working… clean-up for the Army.”

    While the Curtis memo document is a new release to Wikileaks, it was previously disclosed online by the founder and editor of VAWatchdog.org, Larry Scott, in December 2008.

    Military outfits have routinely incinerated garbage in what are called burn pits. At Balad, the trash was hauled by contractors from the engineering giant KBR, a former Halliburton subsidiary.

    Last December, the Pentagon issued a “Just the Facts” sheet about the burn pits to troops. While acknowledging that lab tests from 2004-2006 had found occasional carcinogens, it asserted that “the potential short- and long-term risks were estimated to be low due to the infrequent detections of these chemicals.”

    The sampling reports are classified, according to the Army Times.

    The Pentagon report adds, “Based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance, long-term health effects are not expected to occur from breathing the smoke.”

    Strikingly, however, it does acknowledge that air samples taken in 2007 found particulate matter levels higher than military recommendations in 50 of 60 cases — some two times allowable toxic levels, but others as many as six times.

    The flyer given to troops appears to contradict assertions by the Air Force’s own investigators. In the leaked document, titled “Burn Pit Health Hazards,” Air Force Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight Commander Darrin Curtis expressed shock that troops were knowingly exposed to such risks.

    “It is amazing that the burn pit has been able to operate without restrictions over the past few years without significant engineering controls being put in place,” Curtis wrote.

    “In my professional opinion, there is an acute health hazard for individuals,” he added. In addition to carcinogens, “there is also the possibility of chronic health hazards associated with the smoke.”

    Curtis noted that the chemicals associated with burning plastics, rubber and other common trash items included arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, sulfuric acid and various other chemicals.

    “Just the Facts,” while playing down long-term risks, also identified dioxins among tested samples. Dioxins were also present in Agent Orange, the notorious herbicide used during the Vietnam War. Benzene is known to cause leukemia, and cyanide and arsenic have throughout history been used as poisons to induce death.

    Soldiers complain of chronic conditions

    An Army Times investigation in 2008 found anecdotal evidence of health conditions caused by exposure to the fires.

    “Though military officials say there are no known long-term effects from exposure to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 100 service members have come forward to Military Times and Disabled American Veterans with strikingly similar symptoms: chronic bronchitis, asthma, sleep apnea, chronic coughs and allergy-like symptoms. Several also have cited heart problems, lymphoma and leukemia,” Army Times reporter Kelley Kennedy wrote in December.

    “A lot of soldiers in my old unit have asthma and bronchitis,” a staff sergeant stationed in Iraq in 2005 was quoted as saying. “I lived 50 feet from the burn pit. I used to wake up in the middle of the night choking on it.”

    “I’ve seen four or five cardiologists, but no one can tell me what’s wrong with my heart,” the staff sergeant added.

    “It seems like most of these cases, anecdotally, are people who were exposed heavily to the burn pits and they got sick quickly,” Kerry Baker, legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, said. “There must be some areas that take a hit much harder than others. Everything seems to be pointing opposite to what the Defense Department is saying.”

    Obama lays out Afghanistan war strategy

    0

    By James Cogan |

    The desperation at the heart of the Obama administration’s plans for escalating the war in Afghanistan was laid bare in the president’s interview with the New York Times last Friday.

     

    Asked if the US-led forces were winning the war in Afghanistan, Obama bluntly stated “No”. The answer was the only one that could have been given. The armed insurgency against the US and NATO occupation has vastly expanded over the past several years.

     

    Large areas of the ethnic Pashtun-populated southern provinces of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan are effectively controlled by the Islamist Taliban movement or other anti-occupation forces such as the Hezb-e-Islami movement of warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

     

    The rate of occupation casualties has doubled this year compared with the same period in 2008, with 54 American and NATO dead so far. Attacks on the Afghan government security forces have tripled, according to the US Government Accountability Office. More than 50 Afghan police are being killed by insurgents per month. In many parts of southern Afghanistan, police do not leave their stations.

     

    The resistance is being fuelled by the resentment and hostility of a poverty-stricken population that has already suffered more than seven years of repression and intimidation by US-led forces in Afghanistan and the US-backed Pakistani military over the border. Under conditions in which the Islamists are viewed as the only ones fighting against US attempts to dominate the region, they have continued to attract support.

     

    Taliban-linked cells now appear to be active in all the major cities in Pakistan, raising the danger of a broader war. The US-NATO land supply route through that country is already unreliable, forcing Washington to seek alternatives through Russia and Uzbekistan. Concerns in US military circles over supply lines into Afghanistan have even led to suggestions that China and Iran be asked to assist. Significantly, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has invited Iran to take part in a summit on Afghanistan later this month.

     

    The military reality in Afghanistan is that the occupation force has been unable to suppress an insurgency that has significant popular support. Even with the extra 17,000 US personnel being sent by Obama, there will still be less than 90,000 US and NATO troops and barely 80,000 Afghan government personnel. Given the size, geography and population of the country, military analysts estimate that a force of upward of 500,000 would be needed.

     

    In the tribal region of Pakistan, operations involving over 100,000 Pakistani troops have failed to break the grip of Taliban, close down the safe havens used by Afghan insurgents or stem their cross-border movements.

     

    Within this context, the strategy outlined by Obama hinges on the ability of the occupation forces to replicate what was called the “Awakening” in Iraq during late 2006 and 2007.

     

    Coinciding with the “surge” of 30,000 additional troops that boosted US strength in Iraq to over 160,000, the US commander General David Petraeus was authorised to implement a policy of bribing insurgent leaders and their fighters to cease their attacks. The groups sought out were overwhelming made up of Sunni Arabs. Eventually, over 100,000 joined US-paid militias, especially in the suburbs of Baghdad and the western province of Anbar, and assisted the US military to crush a radical Islamist minority within the insurgency.

     

    Obama told the Times: “If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq.” In Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said, “there may be comparable opportunities”.

     

    The prospect of an Afghan or Pakistani “Awakening,” however, ignores the main factor behind its development in Iraq. While in Anbar province there was conflict between traditional Sunni tribal leaders and Al Qaeda-aligned factions, the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad changed sides because they had been defeated in a vicious sectarian civil war against the Shiite fundamentalist parties that dominated the US-backed government.

     

    Thousands of Sunnis were fleeing the capital to escape daily indiscriminate killings. By ending their resistance, the Sunni insurgents were primarily seeking to win US military protection for their suburbs and communities from the Shiite death squads that operated with impunity within the Iraqi army and police forces.

     

    Even now, the situation remains fragile. The US occupation has created a sectarian divide in Iraq, which primarily benefits the Shiite elite at the expense of the predominantly Sunni ruling stratum who dominated the regime of Saddam Hussein. In the long term, the bitterness and frustration among those who felt they had no choice but to sign up for the Awakening could trigger renewed fighting against US forces and the Shiite-dominated government.

     

    In Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan, there is no obvious reason for the Taliban or Hezb-e-Islami to bow to the occupation or accept the US-backed government, as occurred in Iraq. While they have suffered large casualties at the hands of the far better equipped US and NATO forces, their strategic position is far stronger now than at any time.

     

    Haroun Mir, a former advisor to anti-Taliban Tajik warlord Ahmad Shah Massoud, commented to the British Guardian: “Reconciliation was a great idea in 2003 or 2004, when the government had the upper hand, but now things are all going the Taliban’s way. They are at the edge of Kabul and they have no incentive to join the government’s side.”

     

    A particularly blunt characterisation of the situation in the key province of Helmand was made on March 6 by Sebastian Morley, a former major in the British special forces who resigned from the army in protest over the conduct of the war.

     

    Morley told the Telegraph: “The operations that we are conducting are so worthless. We hold tiny areas of ground in Helmand and we are kidding ourselves if we think our influence goes beyond 500 metres of our security bases. It’s just crazy to think we hold that ground or have any influence on what goes on beyond the bases. We go out on operations, have a punch-up with the Taliban and then go back to camp for tea. We are not holding the ground.

     

    “The Taliban know where we are. They know full well when we have gone back into camp. I don’t think we have even scratched the surface as far as this conflict goes. The level of attrition and casualties is only set to rise. This is the equivalent to the start of the Vietnam conflict. There is much more to come.”

     

    At this point, the political settlement suggested by Obama could only be realised by offering factions of the Taliban or Hezb-e-Islami control over majority Pashtun provinces or ministries in the Afghanistan government. This would mean, however, sidelining their Pashtun opponents who have collaborated with the occupation, in particular those around President Hamid Karzai.

     

    Such a policy is clearly being considered. US recriminations against Karzai’s administration, over its corruption and incompetence, have grown steadily as the military situation has deteriorated. Karzai’s supporters are alleged to have amassed considerable fortunes by plundering state revenue and taking bribes and kickbacks from heroin traders. Most prominently, Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Ali Karzai, has been publicly accused by US agencies of overseeing drug trafficking in the southern province of Kandahar.

     

    The Obama administration has made clear that its priority is to prevent US imperialism being driven out of Afghanistan. It has declared it has a “realistic” assessment of the government needed in Kabul–that is, it has abandoned the Bush propaganda that the US occupation is seeking to transform the country into a “flourishing democracy”.

     

    Moves to weaken and remove Karzai are underway. His term of office ends on May 21. The country’s constitution states that presidential elections must be held 30 to 60 days before the end of the president’s term. However, the electoral commission, backed by the US and NATO powers, has called the poll for August 20, on the grounds that security for a credible poll in much of the country would not be ready before then.

     

    Karzai has legitimately interpreted the decision as a hostile move. He faces demands to step aside for a “caretaker” government after May 21. His decree that the election be held according to the constitution was rejected by the electoral commission last week. He is now insisting that he remain president until the ballot but agitation is continuing for his term to end on schedule.

     

    The most vocal opposition to Karzai is coming from the Northern Alliance–the ethnic Tajik, Uzbek and Hazari warlords that fought alongside US forces in 2001. These are same people that the Obama administration would have to involve in any power-sharing arrangement with the Taliban. Supporters of the Northern Alliance also dominate the officer corps of the Afghanistan army.

     

    Implicitly, Obama’s Afghanistan policy is based creating a new warlord regime to replace Karzai’s. Providing that factions of the Taliban and other Pashtun powerbrokers accept an ongoing US presence in the country, Obama would sponsor the parcelling out of spheres of influence between them and the Northern Alliance strongmen.

     

    This sordid real politik highlights the reactionary and neo-colonial character of the occupation of Afghanistan. Tens of thousands of Afghans and hundreds of foreign troops have lost their lives for no other purpose than securing a base of operations for US imperialism as it seeks to extend its domination over the resource-rich regions of Central Asia and the Middle East.

    Public ‘ready for a radical new agenda’

    0

    NEW Labour politicians are spectacularly “out of touch” with voters’ demands for nationalisation, a new poll reveals on Wednesday.

    A TNS poll commissioned by supporters of the People’s Charter for Change shows that a staggering two-thirds of voters want privatised essential services such as electricity, gas, water, rail and communications brought back into public ownership.

    The government’s policy of throwing unimaginable sums of money at private banks was also found to run completely counter to ordinary people’s views, with a colossal 87 per cent of those asked demanding that ministers support workers threatened with losing their jobs rather than the fat-cat financiers.

    The government’s distance from its own supporters and the wider British public was exposed as prominent union leaders prepared to launch the People’s Charter for Change at Parliament this morning.

    The charter is an initiative to sign up one million people to a vision of a “more just and fairer Britain” where jobs and public services come before wealthy executives and private profit.

    RMT rail workers’ union general secretary Bob Crow emphasised how the poll “shows just out of touch voters feel their politicians are.

    “Public opinion is on the move. Nearly 90 per cent of people want investment in protecting jobs and they do not want the present policy that bails out the banks, where the only people who seem to benefit are the executives who get to keep their bonuses and their pensions,” he insisted.

    Founding supporter of the charter left Labour MP John McDonnell added that the poll was “a referendum on this government’s wrong direction.

    “It is clear that public opinion is way ahead of the present policies that ministers are putting forward. The clear message from these results is that the country is in the mood for a radical new agenda,” he stressed.

    The poll also found that, despite the obvious disquiet among the public at the direction of the country, most voters – 76 per cent – felt that politicians were not interested in hearing alternative views.

    Firefighters’ union leader Matt Wrack pointed out that this was reason enough for those opposed to new Labour to get behind the demands of the People’s Charter.

    “The charter’s principles are clearly in line with public opinion. People should sign up to it and create a voice which no government can ignore,” he urged.

    To read the charter’s full list of demands and sign up to the campaign, visit www.thepeoplescharter.com

    Copyright Morning Star

    CIA Confirms 12 of 92 Videotapes Destroyed Showed Prisoners Tortured

    0

    Heavily redacted government documents filed in a New York federal court Friday afternoon say the CIA destroyed 12 videotapes that specifically showed two detainees being tortured.

        The documents were filed in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. In December 2007, the ACLU filed a motion to hold the CIA in contempt for its destruction of the tapes in violation of a court order requiring the agency to produce or identify all records requested by the ACLU. That motion is still pending.

        On Monday, the Justice Department revealed in court documents that the CIA destroyed 92 interrogation videotapes, which is now the subject of a criminal probe. According to Friday’s court documents, 90 tapes relate to one detainee and two tapes relate to another detainee.

        In a letter filed Friday in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Acting US Attorney Lev Dassin said a complete list of summaries, transcripts or memoranda related to the videotapes would be filed with the court by March 20.

        “The government is needlessly withholding information about these tapes from the public, despite the fact that the CIA’s use of torture – including waterboarding – is no secret,” said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. “This new information only underscores the need for full and immediate disclosure of the CIA’s illegal interrogation methods. The time has come for the CIA to be held accountable for flouting the rule of law.”

        On March 2, the Justice Department said in court documents the CIA destroyed 92 videotapes – far more than previously known – to prevent disclosure of evidence revealing how the agency’s interrogators subjected “war on terror” detainees to waterboarding and other brutal methods.

        “The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed,” said a letter written by Acting US Attorney Lev Dassin and filed in federal court in New York. “Ninety-two videotapes were destroyed.”

        Previously, the CIA had disclosed that it had destroyed two videotapes and one audiotape of harsh interrogations of detainees. The tape destruction has been the subject of a yearlong criminal investigation by John Durham, the Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was appointed special prosecutor last year by Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

        In the March 2 filing, Dassin noted that a stay of a contempt motion filed by the ACLU seeking release of the tapes was allowed to expire on February 28 without a request for a continuation – signaling that Durham’s investigation is now complete.

        In January, Durham had indicated in a court filing that he expected to wrap up his probe by the end of February. The CIA has asked the court to give the agency until Friday to produce a list of all destroyed records, any memos relating to reconstruction of those records, and identification of witnesses who may have watched the videotapes before they were destroyed.

        Dassin’s letter said some information sought by the ACLU may be classified or “protected from disclosure, such as the names of the CIA employees who viewed the videotapes.”

        Dassin said the CIA “intends to produce all of the information requested to the court and to produce as much information as possible on the public record to the plaintiffs.”

        The videotaped interrogations, which were also withheld from the 9/11 Commission, were destroyed in November 2005 after The Washington Post published a story exposing the CIA’s use of so-called “black site” prisons overseas to interrogate terror suspects with techniques that were not legal on US soil.

        The Zubaydah Case

        The Post’s story focused on alleged al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah and the harsh methods that the CIA used on him and other detainees. Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan on March 28, 2002, and was reportedly whisked to a secret prison site in Thailand for interrogation.

        Initially, Zubaydah was somewhat cooperative, but later became tight-lipped when asked about alleged terrorist plots against the United States and the whereabouts of high-level al-Qaeda operatives.

        In July 2002, a meeting was convened at the White House, where former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, Justice Department attorney John Yoo, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s attorney David Addington, and unknown CIA officials discussed whether the CIA could interrogate Zubaydah more aggressively in order to get him to respond.

        It was at this July 2002 meeting that Yoo, Gonzales and Addington gave the CIA the green light to use a wide variety of techniques, including waterboarding, on Zubaydah and other detainees at several secret prisons to “break” them and force them to cooperate with interrogators, according to an account published in Newsweek in late December 2003.

        Less than a month after the meeting, on August 1, 2002, Yoo drafted a memo to Gonzales that was signed by Jay Bybee, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel. That memo declared that President Bush had the legal authority to allow CIA interrogators to employ harsh tactics to extract information from detainees.

        Yoo’s memo – often called the “torture meme” – said Congress “may no more regulate the President’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield.”

        Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, reportedly advised the CIA General Counsel Scott Muller and his deputy, John Rizzo, that the August 1, 2002, legal opinion protected CIA interrogators from prosecution if they used waterboarding or other harsh tactics.

        In February 2005, during his Senate confirmation hearing to become Homeland Security secretary, Chertoff said he provided the CIA broad guidance in response to its questions about interrogation methods, but never addressed the legality of specific techniques.

        Bush Fixated

        In the book “The One Percent Doctrine,” author Ron Suskind said Zubaydah was not the “high-value detainee” the CIA had claimed. Rather, Suskind wrote, Zubaydah was a minor player in the al-Qaeda organization, handling travel for associates and their families.

        However, “Bush was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,” Suskind wrote. Bush asked one CIA briefer, “Do some of these harsh methods really work?”

        Zubaydah was strapped to a waterboard and, fearing imminent death, he spoke about a wide range of plots against a number of US targets, such as shopping malls, the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty. Yet, Suskind wrote, the information Zubaydah provided under duress was not credible.

        According to Suskind, Zubaydah’s captors soon discovered that their prisoner was mentally ill and knew nothing about terrorist operations or impending plots. That realization was “echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President,” Suskind wrote.

        Still, in public statements, President Bush portrayed Zubaydah as “one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States” and added: “So, the CIA used an alternative set of procedures” to get Zubaydah to talk.

        The President did not want to “lose face,” because he had stated Zubaydah’s importance publicly, Suskind wrote.

        Last year, Mukasey appointed US Attorney Durham as special counsel to investigate whether the destruction of the CIA videotapes violated any laws, but did not give Durham the authority to probe whether the interrogation techniques themselves violated anti-torture laws.

        In December 2008, Bush and Cheney both admitted in exit interviews that they authorized the waterboarding of Zubaydah and two other detainees.

        House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers proposed expanding the scope of Durham’s investigation in January, to include a broader review of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.

        Conyers said he urged Attorney General Eric Holder to “appoint a Special Counsel or expand the scope of the present investigation into CIA tape destruction to determine whether there were criminal violations committed pursuant to Bush administration policies that were undertaken under unreviewable war powers, including enhanced interrogation, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless domestic surveillance.”

        The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, will soon conduct a secret investigation into the CIA’s interrogation program to determine whether the methods used against detainees worked, according to published reports.

    Jason Leopold

    ACLU: Md. police kept files on 20 activist groups

    0

    FREDERICK, Md. – The American Civil Liberties Union said yesterday that it had obtained records showing the Maryland State Police kept files on at least 20 groups the police considered potential security threats.

    The list is longer than the approximately one dozen previously disclosed. It includes the anti-war group Women in Black and the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization.

    Sixteen of the groups allowed the ACLU to release the files it obtained through Freedom of Information requests. Those documents are on the ACLU of Maryland Web site.

    Police have acknowledged spying on groups and 53 individuals it wrongly classified as terrorists over a 14-month period in 2005 and 2006. The agency said it opened files on others but halted surveillance once it determined they posed no threat to public safety.

    The groups identified by the ACLU are: ACORN, All Peoples Congress, American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International, Baltimore Coalition Against the Death Penalty, CASA of Maryland, D.C. Anti-War Network, Equality Maryland, Humane League of Baltimore, International Socialist Organization, Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Maryland Citizens Against State Executions, Maryland Coalition to Stop the BGE Rate Hikes, Maryland Green Party, PeaceAction Montgomery and Women in Black.

    AP

    UN expert wants Gitmo probe before camp closes

    0

    By FRANK JORDANS |

    GENEVA — A U.N. human rights expert applauded the Obama administration Tuesday for pledging to turn a page in U.S. history by closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, but said the full extent of abuse at the camp needs to be revealed.

    “Before a page can be turned, we have to know what’s on it in order to move forward,” said Martin Scheinin, who reports to the United Nations on human rights in the international war on terror.

    Scheinin asked to be allowed into the camp to conduct private interviews with the remaining detainees. The Finnish law professor previously visited Guantanamo in 2007 and said interrogation methods used there appeared to violate international law.

    U.S. officials said the new administration looked forward to working with Scheinin and other U.N. experts but made no commitment regarding a further visit to the camp.

    U.S. President Barack Obama decreed on his second day in office that interrogators can only use techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual to question detainees

    “In his statement accompanying the signing of the orders, President Obama pledged that America will confront terrorism ‘in a manner consistent with our values and ideals,'” U.S. charge d’affaires Mark C. Storella told the 47-member rights council.

    In a 26-page report presented to the Geneva-based council, Scheinin repeated his criticism of the techniques used at Guantanamo and other U.S. detention centers, as well as the tacit approval given by other nations who sent intelligence agents to observe detainee interrogations.

    “The active or passive participation by states in the interrogation of persons held by another state constitutes an intentionally wrongful act if the state knew or ought to have known that the person was facing a real risk of torture,” Scheinin said.

    He told reporters afterward that an “intentionally wrongful act” was one that “is in violation of binding norms of international law.”

    Britain, which was named in the report as one of the countries to have sent officials to observe U.S.-run interrogations, said it took the allegations it participated in human rights abuses seriously.

    Britain’s ambassador Peter Gooderham told the council that his country will investigate and, where appropriate, launch criminal proceedings should British agents have participated in or condoned torture.

    No freedom here

    1

    By John Pilger |

    FREEDOM is being lost in Britain. The land of Magna Carta is now the land of secret gagging orders, secret trials and imprisonment.

    The government will soon know about every phone call, every email, every text message.

    Police can wilfully shoot to death an innocent man, lie and expect to get away with it.

    Whole communities now fear the state. The Foreign Secretary routinely covers up allegations of torture, the Justice Secretary routinely prevents the release of critical Cabinet minutes taken when Iraq was illegally invaded.

    The list is cursory – there is much more. Indeed, there is so much more that the erosion of liberal freedoms is symptomatic of an evolved criminal state.

    The haven for Russian oligarchs, together with corruption of the tax and banking systems and of once-admired public services such as the post office, is one side of the coin. The other is the invisible carnage of failed colonial wars.

    Historically, the pattern is familiar. As the colonial crimes in Algeria, Vietnam and Afghanistan blew back to their perpetrators, France, the US and the Soviet Union, so the cancerous effects of Britain’s cynicism in Iraq and Afghanistan have come home.

    The most obvious example is the bombing atrocities in London on July 7 2005.

    No-one in the British intelligence mandarinate doubts these were a gift from Tony Blair.

    And yet “terrorism” describes only the few acts of individuals and groups, not the constant, industrial violence of great powers.

    Suppressing this truth is left to the credible media. On February 27, the Guardian’s Washington correspondent Ewen MacAskill, in reporting President Obama’s statement that the US was finally leaving Iraq as if it were fact, wrote: “For Iraq, the death toll is unknown, in the tens of thousands, victims of the war, a nationalist uprising, sectarian infighting and jihadists attracted by the US presence.”

    Thus, the Anglo-US invaders are merely a “presence” not directly responsible for the “unknown” number of Iraqi deaths. Such contortion of intellect is impressive.

    In January last year, a report by the respected Opinion Research Business revised an earlier assessment of deaths in Iraq to 1.033 million.

    This followed a peer-reviewed study in 2006 by the world-renowned Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, published in the Lancet, which found that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion.

    US and British officials immediately dismissed the report as “flawed” – a deliberate deception.

    Foreign Office papers obtained under the Freedom of Information Act disclose a memo written by the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson in which he praised the Lancet report, describing it as “robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to ‘best practice’ given (the conditions) in Iraq.”

    An adviser to the Prime Minister commented: “The survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished. It is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones.”

    Yet, speaking a few days later, the Foreign Office Minister Lord Triesman said: “The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern.”

    The episode exemplifies the scale and deception of this state crime.

    Les Roberts, co-author of the Lancet study, has since argued that Britain and the US might have caused in Iraq “an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide.”

    This is not news. Neither is it a critical reference in the freedoms campaign organised by the Observer columnist Henry Porter.

    At a conference in London on February 28, Blair’s former attorney general Lord Goldsmith, who notoriously changed his mind and advised the government the invasion was legal when it wasn’t, was a speaker for freedom.

    So was Timothy Garton Ash, a “liberal interventionist.”

    On April 17 2003, shortly after the slaughter had begun in Iraq, a euphoric Garton Ash wrote in the Guardian: “America has never been the Great Satan. It has sometimes been the Great Gatsby: ‘They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things’.”

    One of Britain’s jobs “is to keep reminding Tom and Daisy that they now have promises to keep.”

    Less frivolously, he lauded Blair for his “strong Gladstonian instincts for humanitarian intervention” and repeated the government’s propaganda about Saddam Hussein.

    In 2006, he wrote: “Now we face the next big test of the West: after Iraq, Iran.” This also adheres precisely to the propaganda. David Miliband has declared Iran a “threat” in preparation for the next war.

    Like so many of new Labour’s Tonier-than-thou squad, Porter celebrated Blair as an almost mystical politician who “presents himself as a harmoniser for all the opposing interests in British life, a conciliator of class differences and tribal antipathies, synthesiser of opposing beliefs.”

    Porter dismissed as “demonic nonsense” all analysis of the September 11 2001 attacks that suggested there were specific causes – the consequences of violent actions taken by the powerful in the Middle East.

    Such thinking, he wrote, “exactly matches the views of Osama bin Laden … With America’s haters, that’s all there is – hatred.” This, of course, was Blair’s view.

    Freedoms are being lost in Britain because of the rapid growth of the “national security state.”

    This form of militarism was imported from the US by new Labour.

    Totalitarian in essence, it relies on fear-mongering to entrench the executive with venal legal mechanisms that progressively diminish democracy and justice.

    “Security” is all and it relies on propaganda promoting rapacious colonial wars, even as honest mistakes.

    Take away this propaganda and the wars are exposed for what they are and the fear evaporates.

    Take away the obeisance of many in Britain’s liberal elite to US power and you demote a profound colonial mentality that covers for epic criminals such as Blair.

    Prosecute these criminals and change the system that breeds them and you have freedom.

    This article appeared in the New Statesman.

    The Bottomless Bailout

    0

    By Ralph Nader |

    Does anybody in the federal government know or could know “who, what, where and when” of the massive, complex, vertical, horizontal, global collapse of Wall Street and its planetary tentacles in over 100 countries abroad? Step forward if you exist! Uncle Sam needs you!

    Is the multi-million dollar bailout of this financial mess and house of cards, this phantom wealth mummy hitting air beyond the federal governments’ salvage capability?

    It is relatively easy to announce hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate rescue programs here and hundreds of billions of dollars of guarantees of corporate recklessness there and trillions of dollars of assorted stimulus, loan availabilities and foreclosure prevention initiatives in all directions. Now comes the rubber hitting the road.

    Where are the skilled people to be hired by the federal agencies–the administrators, field implementers, auditors, financial whizzes able to understand the complexity of greed and over-reach; the inspectors, prosecutors and contract negotiators to name a few categories?

    In other words, how are a hurried President Obama and his deputies going to rapidly build up the infrastructure of the federal government itself to advance all these “public works” efficiently and to avoid expenditure disasters amidst a potential orgy of waste, fraud and abuse by the coast to coast recipients?

    So many of the federal government’s functions have been contracted out to corporations and consulting firms under Clinton and the Bushes that there is a serious dearth of skilled civil servants. Moreover, Obama has indicated he wants this work done by an accountable government and not by Halliburton-type outside contractors at greater expense to taxpayers.

    Knowing and doing have to go hand in hand. Some Congressional Committees have finally gotten around to asking the basic questions about what is actually going on inside companies like the giant financial conglomerate AIG. Since the Goliath’s near collapse in September, the federal government has committed $160 billion to keep it from splattering its reckless red ink over small businesses, municipalities, 401(k) plans, policyholders and of course the Fortune 500 big companies led by the omnipresent Goldman Sachs bank.

    At a Senate hearing on March 5, 2009 to review yet another $30 billion in rescue funds, Senators from both parties demanded that the Federal Reserve make public the names of the parties benefiting from all this taxpayer largesse. These include the derivatives trading partners (eg credit default swappers) who have received tens of billions of these dollars passing from Washington through AIG to them.

    Senators Chris Dodd, Richard Shelby and Jim Bunning went after Donald L. Kohn, the vice-chairman of the Fed board of governors who finally promised he would ask the other governors to reconsider their corporate privacy policy under these megabailouts. Don’t hold your breath!

    Surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal editorial writers weighed in three days earlier about this fourth ever-sweeter rescue of AIG. in six months. In an editorial titled “AIG’s Black Box” the Journal thundered: “Perhaps someday the feds will even explain to taxpayers which AIG creditors had to be rescued and why…..try figuring out exactly who benefits when taxpayer money arrives at the insurance giant.”

    Besides rebuilding the federal workforce and finding out what is going on inside casino capitalism begging for bailouts, the Obama Administration is wading into an administrative nightmare that could run through trillions of mis-directed dollars and not turn around a deep Recession plunging toward Depression.

    When dealing with esoteric gambling chips called “derivatives” that are bets on bets on debts on debts, more than astute regulations and prosecutions are needed to punish, disgorge and deter present and future self-paid corporate crooks looting and draining other people’s pensions and savings. What is essential is that the federal surgeons have to know just where to apply their scalpel on the continuum spanning the big predators to the millions of direct and indirect victims.

    So, during the next Congressional hearings featuring government witnesses from the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the securities, insurance and banking regulatory agencies, the Senators should start with four direct questions:

    1. Just what is it that you do NOT understand about what is going on inside this widening Wall Street mess?
    2. Why don’t you understand what you need to know?
    3. How are you going to use your powers to achieve such understanding?
    4. Finally, if these corporations like AIG are too big to fail, too secret to fail and overwhelmingly global in structure and operations, why aren’t you asking other governments to pitch in with their own rescue packages and tell you what they know?

    As one solid small town banker in Indiana put it recently: “If these big companies are too big to fail, then they’re too big.”

    CONSEQUENCES OF SHARING MEDICAL RECORDS

    1

    BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES WARNING OF “STAGGERING” CONSEQUENCE OF SHARING MEDICAL RECORDS

    While the British bill is different than Obama’s it raises similar concerns. The America media has not touched this issue.

    British Medical Journal – The health consequences of the government’s new data-sharing proposals could be “staggering” warns an expert in an editorial.

    Dr Vivienne Nathanson, Director of Professional Activities at the British Medical Association expresses concerns about the Coroners and Justice Bill which, in its current form, appears to grant the government unprecedented powers to access people’s confidential medical records, and share them with third parties.

    Simply it means that laws that currently limit health data sharing could be set aside, says Dr Nathanson. Even the Venereal Diseases Regulations and the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act would not be immune to the potential for removal.

    Health data is not privileged in the manner of legal information, but for many years it has been recognised as special, and as sensitive, she writes. Research shows that patients expect the health professional with whom they share information will hold it in confidence, and share it sparingly and on a need to know basis, usually those also involved in offering them care.

    Yet Dr Nathanson believes that data in the current draft of the bill suggests blindness to the special sensitivity of health data.

    If the current draft legislation goes through with minimal changes, the effect could be to to undermine doctor and patient confidence in the future control of data that neither is willing to record the most sensitive information, she warns.

    Obama’s backsliding on torture

    0

    guardian.co.uk |

    Not long ago, I marched across the gravel of Guantánamo Bay‘s Camp Echo with two overstuffed grocery sacks and tramped up the stairs of the hut where a prisoner sat, shackled and waiting. A guard swung open the grate. I went in, heaved the bags on the table, and greeted Binyam Mohamed with all the brightness I could muster.

    Not that I expected Binyam, the most abused of Reprieve’s thirty clients in Gitmo, to show much jubilation. It is hard to buoy a man who has experienced years of physical and psychological torture. Under the classification rules, I’m not allowed to write a word that Binyam said in reply. I can say that when I bade him farewell and promised to catch him on the outside, he shrugged and smiled a sardonic smile. And perhaps just a spark of hope in his eyes.

    As I glanced back at him in a jumpsuit and chains, I remembered that this man was broken in our name, along with countless others. I had been sure Binyam was to be the first man released by the Obama administration. Yet the government that ruined Binyam’s life seems to be well into the business of forgetting.

    President Obama inherited a human rights debacle of epic proportions. One of his earliest acts, during his very first hours in office, was to signal a change of policy by ordering the closure of Guantánamo. But the administration’s current response now seems to have reverted to the secretive policies of the Bush administration, flouting the principles of open government that he had pledged to revive.

    Yet, not once has the US government admitted where it took Binyam Mohamed between April of 2002 and May of 2004. Of course, our client knows — and we have seen the rendition flight logs and crew registers that bolster his account. There is also a wealth of government documents that would show exactly what was done to Binyam.

    The Bush Justice Department was ordered no fewer than three times to give us, his lawyers, all “exculpatory” information in Binyam’s case; the response was stone-faced secrecy and flat noncompliance. Eventually, and begrudgingly, they handed over a smattering of documents identified as exculpatory by British intelligence.

    I’ve seen these documents, but I can’t tell you what’s in them. The British courts have told us that they confirm Binyam’s account of his torture, but why should the American people depend on the British for this limited access to truth? The British courts have said that the people of a democratic society have a right to know if a government has tortured in their name. They are right.

    There can be no legitimate national security interest in covering up torture. Yet, in Binyam’s lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan, the Obama government argues that the entire case is so secret that it must be thrown out for national security reasons. Only embarrassment for the Bush administration is at stake. So what has the new government to fear?

    Obama speaks primarily of “looking ahead”, rather than back. The fallacy of this position is that it assumes we can know ourselves without ever holding a mirror up; that we can learn from history without knowing what that history was. What really happened to Binyam Mohamed? How many more shared his fate?

    There is a way to rectify all this. First, Obama’s team must change tack on Binyam Mohamed and release evidence of his torture. The President should then appoint a non-partisan commission with the power to compel testimony, the clearance to access top-secret information, and the duty to report to the American public on seven years of torture policy.

    The torture of Binyam Mohamed reflects on us as a people. So does the way we react to our past now. Binyam Mohamed will be wrestling with his demons for the rest of his days. The very least we, as a society, can do now is to look to our own.

    Protesters attack ‘Tory’ welfare Bill

    0

    PROTESTERS staged a demonstration inside the Department for Work and Pensions building in Westminster on Sunday to highlight the opposition to controversial welfare reforms.

    Dozens of activists stormed into the building shouting slogans and saying they were going to occupy the offices.

    The protesters, who were dressed as “bankers,” described the government’s planned legislation as the “welfare abolition Bill” and claimed the measures would virtually abolish welfare for single parents and disabled people.

    A number of unions and Labour MPs are opposed to the Bill, which is due to be debated in Parliament next week.

    One of the protesters, Anne-Marie O’Reilly from Feminist Fightback and London Coalition Against Poverty, said: “Everyone knows that the government’s welfare Bill was designed by ex-banker David Freud.

    “Even if it weren’t for the banks’ track records, the fact that he has recently defected to the Tories should make it clear this Bill needs to be thrown out.

    “They will throw us out of the building today, but we think it’s time they really throw the bankers and their interests out of Whitehall and stop penalising poor people, disabled people and single mothers.”

    Another activist, Alice Robson, said: “The government is bailing out the banks and giving them bonuses whilst cutting welfare benefits for the poor.

    “This Bill does not make sense. The government should be targeting the rich not the poor to pay for their crisis.”

    Copyright Morning Star

    Store banned from displaying First Amendment

    1

    In hearing on sign ordinance forbidding murals and other signage on storefronts, a topic covered here recently, city of Clearwater defends its decision to forbid businesses from posting the words of the First Amendment on their property.

    The St. Petersburg Times reports

    Regardless of whether it’s art or advertising, a federal magistrate on Wednesday set a high legal standard for granting federal protection for the mural on a Clearwater bait shop’s wall.

     

    U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Jenkins was asked to recommend an injunction protecting the mural. City officials say the painting is an illegal sign.

    The American Civil Liberties Union wants Jenkins to recommend an injunction against the city of Clearwater while the ACLU fights for the First Amendment rights of the Complete Angler to preserve a fish mural on the side of its building.

    The shop owner considers it art. The city calls it a code violation.

    “I’m somewhat disappointed in both sides by your arguments. I expected more,” Jenkins said.

    ACLU attorneys James Green and Maria Kayanan railed against Clearwater’s sign ordinance, calling it vague and saying that city planning officials have too much discretion. They noted several exemptions to the ordinance, such as holiday signs, and questioned the city’s judgment on content.

    But Jenkins wanted to hear more legal arguments from the ACLU attorneys and Leslie Dougall-Sides, an assistant city attorney for Clearwater.

    The judge took a 10-minute recess and asked the lawyers to come back with “a higher level of advocacy” for their individual stance.

    “I just really don’t feel that this case has been articulated very well,” Jenkins told them.

    The two sides came back, pressed their cases more fully, and Jenkins adjourned to mull it over.

    The magistrate judge will issue a recommendation on the injunction to U.S. District Judge James Whittemore. Jenkins didn’t say when she would have a decision.

    City officials say the mural at the Complete Angler, which depicts a half-dozen game fish such as grouper and snook, is an unauthorized sign under Clearwater law. They already have imposed a fine of nearly $700 and threatened business owner Herb Quintero with steeper fines if he doesn’t paint over the mural.

    Instead, Quintero covered the mural with a banner displaying the text of the First Amendment. That earned him another citation from the city.

    Under questioning by Green, Clearwater planning director Michael Delk said that if the banner had been of the American flag, Quintero wouldn’t have been cited for an additional violation.

    Delk agreed with Green that both the American flag and the First Amendment symbolize the United States of America. But Delk didn’t elaborate on why an American flag banner might be exempt.

    Meanwhile, Clearwater’s City Hall has been bombarded with e-mails from around the country criticizing the city’s stance. They say things like “Shame on the city of Clearwater,” and “Clearly this is government tyranny,” and “You sound like Gestapo.”

    And those are the printable ones.

    “They’re very abusive, profane, insulting e-mails,” said City Manager Bill Horne. “People are passionate about the First Amendment, and rightfully so. I happen to believe we did the right thing.”

     

    Thanks to Jonathan Turley

    CIA destroyed 12 harsh interrogation tapes

    0

    Court documents show the CIA destroyed a dozen videotapes of harsh interrogations of terror suspects.

    The 12 tapes were part of a larger collection of 92 videotapes of terror suspects that the CIA destroyed. The tape destruction is now the subject of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against the government.

    Heavily redacted papers filed in the case indicate a dozen destroyed tapes show so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

    The CIA’s enhanced interrogation methods are secret, but they once included waterboarding, which simulates drowning. CIA officials have said they held fewer than 100 prisoners at secret sites and used harsh interrogation methods on about one-third of them. Of those, three were waterboarded.

    How IDF troops vandalized Gaza homes

    3

    By Amira Hass |

    GAZA – We had already visited this house, belonging to the Abu Eida family. It is the only one of the family’s nine large houses that remained standing at the eastern edge of the city of Jabalya following Operation Cast Lead. The demolition of the family’s houses and its four cement factories spells the loss of 40 years of hard work.

    One Hebrew word scrawled on a wall tells the story of the 10 days when young Israeli soldiers became the ostensible prison wardens of five people. The youngest is Suheila Masalha, 55; the eldest is her mother Fatma, who is perhaps 85 or 90 or older. The only man is her brother Mohammed, 65, who is paralyzed and dependent on the women of his family. And there were two more women from the Abu Eida family – Rasmiya, 70, who owns the house, and her sister-in-law Na’ama, 56, who is blind.

    “Jail” (“mikhla’a” in Hebrew), wrote the soldiers on the wall of the room where they kept the man and the four women. They did not allow them to use the toilet, but forced them to use all kinds of plastic containers kept in the room, for nine of the days.

    From other graffiti you can conclude that it was the soldiers of the Golani Brigade – who were drafted in August 2007, and in January and March of 2008 – who sketched orientation maps on the walls of nearly every room. For example, “Position: entry. Direction: southeast,” and a few squares that indicated the houses in the area. “Us,” or “We are here,” or just an X marked on square No. 5 – Rasmiya Abu Eida’s house that became an Israel Defense Forces base.

    The soldiers kept kosher, judging by the words “meat” and “dairy” scrawled in red on the kitchen cabinets. Maybe someone was kidding around, or maybe someone thought this was going to be their base for several more months, because they also wrote “Kosher for Passover” on one of the cupboards. Also in red.

    White flags

    The Masalha family lived in a kind of tin shack and raised their sheep near the Abu Eida family (the shack and the sheep were destroyed). On the evening of Saturday, January 3, when the Israeli ground incursion began, they fled the shelling and sought refuge with the neighbors in concrete houses that seemed safer. But the shells and shooting from close range only increased and the children were scared; they cried and screamed and members of the extended family decided to head west, on foot, with white flags.

    The adults carried the children – without suitcases and clothing, and even without ID cards. There was no one to carry Fatma Masalha and her son Mohammed, who remained behind. Na’ama and her sister-in-law Rasmiya decided to stay with the guests who had sought shelter. That was on Sunday, January 4, at around 3 P.M.

    A spacious, well-kept, generously furnished home awaited the soldiers on the following morning, when they arrived. There are other houses like this in Gaza, especially on the agricultural lands in the outskirts, which over the years have become bourgeois areas. These are exactly the places where the signs of shelling and the fires caused by the phosphorous bombs made clear to the civilians that they should leave if they held their lives dear.

    On January 18, when the forces pulled out, similar sights awaited people whose homes had become military bases in their absence. There were bullet-pocked walls, ripped-up sofas and armchairs, smashed televisions and computers, shards of glass and porcelain dishes and broken wooden thresholds. Clothing was ripped up. And there were mountains of very Israeli garbage – empty tin cans, cardboard boxes, empty bags of potato chips and chocolate, and full bags of sugar and raspberry-flavored drinking powder. Everything was kosher for Passover under the supervision of the Chief Rabbinate. And there were Hebrew newspapers, including the January 9 issue of the army magazine Bamahane.

    In one house they left behind lots of unopened canned goods. The local people assumed that commanding army officers had stationed themselves there, as well as in other houses where there was no racist graffiti and family belongings hadn’t been vandalized. Remnants of ammunition and IDF equipment were also found in and around many houses, as well as books of Psalms, the “Wisdom of the Sages” and “Hafetz Chaim,” which is about rabbinical laws concerning slander and gossip.

    Like ants

    In the midst of all of this were plastic bottles of urine and many closed bags – in some houses, olive-colored ones – of excrement. People assumed that the commanders stayed there. There are houses where excrement was smeared on the walls, or where dry piles of it were found in corners. In many cases, the smells indicated that soldiers had urinated on piles of clothing or inside a washing machine. In all the houses the toilets were overflowing and clogged, and there was filth all around. When the Abu Eidas returned to house No. 5 in Jabalya, they discovered pots of urine and excrement in the refrigerator.

    “Like ants, so many of them,” says Na’ama, an Arabic teacher, of the soldiers who came into their home on January 5. She recalls that the soldiers had to be told that Mohammed could not put his hands up, and that they ordered the residents to strip. (Na’ama refused and one soldier made do with prodding and probing; they told Suheila to strip because they thought she was wearing an explosives belt.) The soldiers were amazed that the house was so large – “For just five people” – and kept saying that “this is Hamas money.” They also asked, “Where are the tunnels, where is Hamas, if everyone left why didn’t you leave?”

    The soldiers ordered the five people to go into one room and stay there. They let them take some food: bread, olives, oil, water. They confiscated the mobile phones when they saw Na’ama holding one: “You want to call your brother to come with Hamas, to shoot at us,” said one of the soldiers. “Liar,” they said a lot, as well as “shut up, you donkey,” in broken Arabic. They imitated her mockingly when she said “Ya Rab” (“Oh God”). The five prisoners could not pray, as they were not allowed to clean themselves up before prayer and were forbidden to stand up. They were given two blankets, which were not enough, especially because the windows were smashed and the door was always open. A soldier always sat next to the door aiming his rifle at them. All five still have colds.

    “You’ll come out when we leave,” was the answer given to Na’ama after she asked them to contact the Red Cross. Apparently, one soldier spoke fluent Arabic, another could speak some and others knew a phrase or two.

    Was there anyone among the soldiers who was a little bit nice? “To my regret, no,” Na’ama says. In a number of other houses or neighborhoods people who preferred not to flee encountered some soldiers who were somewhat courteous. In none of the other houses were people forbidden to use the toilet, but the men’s hands were bound for two or three days. There are houses where the captives had no food for two or three days or no water for hours. “We don’t have food either,” said the soldiers in Izbet Abed Rabbo.

    Soldiers broke down doors of grocery stores and helped themselves to candy and snacks. There were some who handed out candy to children; sometimes soldiers asked a child whom they forced to accompany them, as a human shield, to hand it out.

    On the morning of January 14, the Red Cross came to pick up the five inhabitants of the “jail” in house No. 5. A short while beforehand, the soldiers had brought a portable gas burner in so Rasmiya could make hot tea, which they had not let her do before. “Maybe because the officer came,” Na’ama says.

    The IDF Spokesman’s Office said in response that soldiers in Gaza were instructed in advance not to harm personal property unless there was a need to do so for operational purposes. “Not only did the soldiers not prevent the Palestinians from eating,” the office said, “but they shared their army rations with them. The IDF has not received any reports about breaking into grocery stores. Concerning the claims about graffiti, the IDF sees this as a very serious matter, which contradicts the values and norms in which the soldiers are educated.”

    Top US cybersecurity official quits over NSA dominance

    1

    AFP |

    A top US cybersecurity official has quit, complaining in a resignation letter obtained by Wired magazine that US cyber protection efforts are being dominated by the super-secret National Security Agency (NSA).

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed the resignation of Rod Beckstrom, director of the National Cyber Security Center (NCSC), but did not give a reason for his decision to step down.

    “We thank Rod for his service, and regret his departure,” the DHS said in a statement emailed to AFP.

    While declining to confirm the authenticity of the letter published by the online edition of Wired, the department stressed in its statement that it had a “strong relationship” with the NSA.

    “The Department of Homeland Security has a strong relationship with the NSA, and continues to work in close collaboration with all of our federal partners on protecting federal civilian networks,” it said.

    “We look forward to our continued, positive working relationship with all our partners on outreach to the private sector as we strive to further secure our nation’s cyber networks,” the department added.

    Wired, in its “Danger Room” blog, published what it said was a copy of the resignation letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano from Beckstrom, who was appointed to the post a year ago by former DHS secretary Michael Chertoff.

    In the letter, Beckstrom complained that the NCSC had been effectively sidelined by the NSA and warned against putting the surveillance agency in charge of national cybersecurity.

    “NSA effectively controls DHS cyber efforts,” Beckstrom said. “While acknowledging the critical importance of NSA to our intelligence efforts, I believe this is a bad strategy on multiple grounds,” he said.

    Obama lawyers argue to drop Yoo torture suit

    0

    By Bob Egelko |

    President Obama’s Justice Department defended former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo in a San Francisco federal court Friday, arguing that a prisoner formerly held as an enemy combatant had no right to sue Yoo for writing legal memos that allegedly led to his detention and torture.

    “We’re not saying we condone torture,” department attorney Mary Mason said at a hearing on the government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jose Padilla. But any recourse against a government lawyer “is for the executive to decide, in the first instance, and for Congress to decide,” not the courts, she said.

    “You’re not saying that if high public officials commit clearly illegal acts, a citizen subject to those acts has no remedy in this court?” asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White.

    Not unless Congress has expressly authorized a lawsuit, Mason replied. She cited the argument the Justice Department made in Yoo’s case last year, with President George W. Bush still in office, that courts should not interfere in executive decision-making, especially in wartime.

    White did not indicate how or when he would rule.

    Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor now on leave to teach at Chapman University in Orange County, wrote a series of memos on interrogation, detention and presidential powers as an attorney in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003.

    The best-known memo, written to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales in 2002, said rough treatment of captives amounted to torture only if it caused the same level of pain as “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.” It also said the president may have the power to authorize torture of enemy combatants.

    Yoo also advised the Bush administration that the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment of captives did not apply to terrorist suspects classified as enemy combatants.

    A 2001 Yoo memo, made public recently by the Obama administration, said U.S. military forces could use “any means necessary” to seize and hold terror suspects in the United States, without constitutional restrictions.

    Yoo’s memos “left our client in a legal no-man’s land,” said Hope Metcalfe, a Yale Law School teacher who represents Padilla. His suit alleges that Yoo, as a member of Bush’s War Council, helped to devise detention and interrogation policies and knowingly breached constitutional standards in his memos to provide legal cover for those policies.

    Padilla, a U.S. citizen and Muslim convert, was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and accused by the Bush administration of plotting with al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb.”

    Declared an enemy combatant, Padilla was held in a brig for 3 1/2 years before being charged with taking part in an unrelated conspiracy to provide money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. He was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in federal prison. He has appealed.

    Padilla’s lawsuit covers his time in the brig. His lawyers say he was illegally held as an enemy combatant, kept in isolation, confined in painful stress positions for prolonged periods, subjected to sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, and threatened with harm to his family and with transfer to a nation where he would be tortured.

    Obama prohibited most of those methods shortly after taking office.

    Padilla claims Yoo was partly responsible for his treatment. Although government lawyers normally cannot be sued for legal advice, his suit accuses Yoo of stepping outside a lawyer’s proper role and giving advice he knew was unconstitutional.

    Mason, the Justice Department lawyer, said Yoo had no authority over Padilla and merely “gave very general advice about very general problems” for Bush to decide. Any court scrutiny of Yoo’s actions “requires inquiry into the highest levels of the United States government,” she said.

    Padilla has a similar suit pending in South Carolina, where he was held, against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other administration officials.

     

    Who Said Slavery Has Ended?

    0

    Called human trafficking or forced labor, modern slavery thrives in America, largely below the radar. A 2004 UC Berkeley study cites it mainly in five sectors:

    — prostitution and sex services – 46%;

    — domestic service – 27%;

    — agriculture – 10%;

    — sweatshops or factories – 5%;

    — restaurant and hotel work – 4%; with the remainder coming from:

    — sexual exploitation of children, entertainment, and mail-order brides.

    It persists for lack of regulation, work condition monitoring, and a growing demand for cheap labor enabling unscrupulous employers and criminal networks to exploit powerless workers for profit.

    The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines forced labor as:

    “….all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”

    Forced child labor is:

    “(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;”

    “(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;”

    “(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;” and

    “(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.”

    The Free the Slaves.net’s definition is being “forced to work without pay under threat of violence and unable to walk away.” It reports:

    — an estimated 27 million people are enslaved globally, more than at any other time previously;

    — thousands annually trafficked in America in over 90 cities; around 17,000 by some estimates and up to 50,000 according to the CIA, either from abroad or affecting US citizens or residents as forced labor or sexual servitude;

    — the global market value is over $9.5 billion annually, according to Mark Taylor, senior coordinator for the State Department’s Office to Monitor;

    — victims are often women and children;

    — the majority are in India and African countries;

    — slavery is illegal but happens “everywhere;”

    — slaves work in agriculture, homes, mines, restaurants, brothels, or wherever traffickers can employ them; they’re cheap, plentiful, disposable, and replaceable;

    — “$90 is the average cost of a human slave around the world” compared to the 1850 $40,000 equivalent in today’s dollars;

    — common terminology includes debt bondage, bonded labor, attached labor, restavec (or de facto bondage for Haitian children sent to households of strangers), forced labor, indentured servitude, and human trafficking;

    — explosive population growth, mostly to urban centers without safety net or job security protections, facilitates the practice; and

    — government corruption, lack of monitoring, and indifference does as well.

    American Anti-Trafficking Efforts

    US laws prohibit all forms of human trafficking through statutes created or strengthened by the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA) with imprisonment for up to 20 years or longer as well as other penalties.

    In April 2003, the Protect Act was passed (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act). The law protects children and severely punishes offenders when enforced. It’s to prosecute American citizens and legal permanent residents who travel abroad for purposes of sexually trafficking minors without having to prove prior intent to commit the crime.

    The 2000 law (reauthorized in 2005) provides tools to combat trafficking offenders worldwide. It also establishes the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP Office) and the President’s Interagency Task Force to help coordinate anti-trafficking efforts. The State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) also is for victim protection. In addition, various other US agencies are involved, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) through its Rescue and Restore Victims of Human Trafficking public awareness campaign and by identifying victims.

    The Department of Justice handles prosecutions, and along with DHS and the State Department, addresses various trafficking issues through the interagency Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center. Still, enforcement is often is lax or absent, at both federal and state levels, because offenders are powerful and those harmed are the “wretched of the earth,” mostly poor blacks, Latinos and Asians. As a result, the practice is rampant and growing. Below are examples of its forms.

    Farmworker Slavery

    In a March 2004 report, Oxfam America highlighted the growing problem in a report titled “Like Machines in the Fields: Workers without Rights in American Agriculture.” It’s a shocking account of how “Behind the shiny, happy images promoted by the fast-food industry with its never-ending commercials, there is another reality:”

    — nearly two million overworked farmworkers living in “sub-poverty misery, without benefits, without the right to overtime,” a living wage, or other job protections, including for children;

    — in Florida, it’s not uncommon to find instances of workers chained to poles, locked in trucks, physically beaten, and cheated out of pay; it’s pervasive enough for a federal prosecutor to have called the state “ground zero for modern-day slavery” in a New Yorker magazine article;

    — John Bowe, author of “Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy,” calls Florida agriculture “an unsavory world” where workers like Adan Ortiz fear talking about their bosses because he has nightmares that they might “come after me with machetes and stuff;”

    — basic US labor laws exclude farmworkers, including the right to organize; laws like the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRB) and 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); also OSHA protections are lacking; the 1983 Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA or MSPA) provided modest but inadequate relief and none at all when it isn’t enforced; Oxfam reported that, except in California to a modest degree, “state laws perpetuate inequality,” especially in Florida and North Carolina;

    — overall, enforcement at both federal and state levels is lax and has weakened in recent years; most notable are the lack of investigations, prosecutions, and resources allocated for either; in the case of undocumented workers, nothing in the law protects them;

    — many serve as forced labor against their will in a modern-day version of slavery: terrorized by violent employers, watched by armed guards under conditions of near-incarceration, living overcrowded in “severely inadequate” barracks or trailers, often plagued with rust, mildew, filth, broken appliances, sagging or leaky roofs, non-working showers, and multiple occupants being over-charged up to $200 a week by unscrupulous employers; yet workers put up with it because in the words of one: “If we don’t work, we don’t eat;”

    — the commercial power of giant buyers and retailers like Wal-Mart (selling 19% of US groceries) and Yum Brands (the world’s largest fast-food company) squeeze growers and suppliers for the lowest prices;

    — increased competition from imports have had a similar effect, especially in winter months;

    — yet while wages and prices to producers are squeezed, profits are passed up the distribution chain to corporate giants at the top.

    Farmworkers have been punished as a result and are perhaps the poorest and most abused laborers in America. Around half of them earn less than $7500 annually. Lucky ones earn up to $10,000, in either case it’s far below the federal poverty threshold, and their wages have been stagnant since the 1970s.

    Doing some of the worst and most dangerous jobs in America (from exposure to toxic chemicals and workplace accidents), poverty has forced them into sub-standing housing, temporary jobs, increased migrancy, and family separation.

    Besides sub-poverty wages, around 95% get no Social Security, disability, or medical insurance benefits (let alone vacations or pensions) for themselves or their families. Women farmworkers face other abuses like male dominance, sexual harassment, or worse, while at the same time remain primary family caregivers.

    Crop and livestock agricultural jobs exist throughout the country, but over half are concentrated in California, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Washington. Most farmworkers are young (between 18 – 44 or younger), male (about 80%), and Latino. They have little education, and many are recent undocumented immigrants (mostly from Mexico) forced north because of destructive trade laws like NAFTA.

    Organizing efforts have won important victories but not enough to increase workers’ bargaining power under a fundamentally unfair system. So while achievements of organizations like the Coalition of Immokalee Workers in Florida (with over 2000 members) are impressive, they’re no match against agribusiness giants or Wal-Mart.

    Nor can they ameliorate conditions in one of the country’s most hazardous occupations. Farmworker disability rates are three times than for the greater population. Around 300,000 laborers suffer pesticide poisoning annually, and many others endure accidents, musculoskeletal, and other type injuries (some chronic).

    A 1990 North Carolina study found only 4% of workers had access to drinking water, hand-washing, and toilet facilities, a particularly dangerous situation for children and pregnant women.

    Oxfam calls farmworker conditions today the equivalent of a “19th century plantation-style” model relying on field hands, rudimentary equipment, long hours, little pay, no benefits, under a basically “inhumane, anachronistic (system crying) out for reform.” But how when all levels of government turn a blind eye to the worst of abuses, and for the undocumented blame them for their own plight.

    Domestic Servitude in America

    Each year, many thousands, mostly women, arrive in America with temporary visas to work as live-in domestic workers – for the wealthy, foreign diplomats, or other domestic or foreign officials. They come to escape poverty or to earn money to send home to families. Often they’re exploited or victimized by unscrupulous traffickers who hold them in forced servitude, work them up to 19 hours a day, keep them practically incarcerated, pay them $100 or less a month, and often subject them to sexual abuse.

    Undocumented workers have no protection, but even legal entrants have few. Because visas are employment-based, they’re obliged to one employer no matter how abusive, and if leave they lose their immigration status and are deported. As a result, few do or file complaints. Some who do are rarely protected because government agencies are lax in their monitoring and enforcement.

    Live-in domestic workers are also excluded from labor law protections with regard to overtime pay and right to organize, strike, and bargain collectively. In addition, they’re unprotected by OSHA and against sexual harassment under Title VII workplace safeguards as it applies only to employers with 15 or more workers. In cases of foreign employers, they enjoy diplomatic immunity, even from criminal, civil, or administrative prosecutions.

    As a result, special visa domestics endure human rights violations. Employers are immunized while workers are powerless to stop abuses like:

    — assault and battery, including physical beatings and threats of serious harm;

    — limited freedom of movement, including arbitrary and enforced loss of liberty by use of locks, bars, confiscation of passports and travel documents, chains, and threats of retaliation against other family members;

    — health and safety issues, including unhealthy sleeping situations in basements, utility rooms, or other unsatisfactory places; unsafe working conditions endangering health; denial of food or proper nutrition; and refusal to provide medical care and having to work when ill;

    — wage and amount of work concerns – US labor laws afford no protections so long hours, little rest, and low pay are common;

    — privacy invasions – the UN General Assembly’s December 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that “(n)o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence;” it applies to everyone, even live-in domestics on visas; nonetheless violations of ICCPR are common and migrants get no redress;

    — psychological abuse – often highlighting employer superiority and worker inferiority to enforce control and render employees powerless; other abuses include insults, food restrictions, denying proper clothing, and various other demeaning practices; and

    — servitude, forced labor, and trafficking – ICCPR and other international laws and instruments prohibit it, yet don’t effectively define “servitude” as distinguished from slavery; as a result, abusive labor relationships are inevitable; trafficking is specifically prohibited under the UN’s Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the (UN-adopted 2000) Convention against Transnational Organized Crime; nonetheless, the practice is rampant and growing; in the case of migrant domestic workers, abuse is widespread and greatly underreported.

    Sex Slavery in America

    It’s the largest category of forced labor in America and with good reason:

    — it’s tied to organized crime and highly profitable;

    — the demand for sex services, including from children, is high and growing; and

    — the lack of safe and legal migration facilitates it.

    The US Department of Justice (DOJ) states that the average entry prostitution age is between 12 – 14. Shared Hope International documents modern-day sex trafficking and examines conditions under which it exists. It confirms that most victims are underage girls. A congressional finding estimated that between 100,000 – 300,000 children are at risk at any time. A DOJ assessment was that pimps control at least 75% of exploited minors by targeting vulnerable children using violence and psychological intimidation to hold them.

    The Internet is a frequent recruitment tool. Other vulnerable victims are shelter and street youths, including runaways. An estimated 2.8 million children live on city streets, a third of whom are lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home. Familial prostitution is also common and involves the selling of a family member for drugs, shelter, and/or money.

    The market includes prostitution, including with children, pornography, striptease, erotic dancing, and peep shows, often controlled by organized crime. The combination of legal and illegal sex generally is part of a larger portfolio of products and services that include drugs and drugs trafficking.

    Sex traffickers usually recruit victims of their own nationality or ethnicity, and migrant smuggling facilitates it. In addition, state and federal laws too often conflict enough to withhold victim status from the abused, impede prosecutions, and result in too lenient sentences when they occur. Also, rarely are prostitution purchasers (including from children) arrested or prosecuted, and overall, law enforcement agencies face legal and systemic challenges that interfere with their ability or inclination to go after buyers. Society provides few protections for victims, including custodial shelters for young children, and as a result, sex services in America thrive.

    Sweatshops and Factories

    According to the Union of Needle Trades and Industrial Textile Employees, 75% of New York garment factories are sweatshops. The US Department of Labor says over 50% of all US-based ones are, the majority in the apparel centers of New York, California, Dallas, Miami, and Atlanta but others located offshore as well in American territories like Saipan, Guam and American Samoa where merchandise produced is labeled “Made in the USA.”

    Competing with low-wage offshore producers pressures US producers to cut labor costs to a minimum, even by breaking the law, sometimes egregiously through forced labor. Like agriculture and domestic service, the sector is especially vulnerable as it often operates within the informal economy where regulatory enforcement is lax or absent. As a result, worker exploitation persists. Wages are sub-poverty. Overtime compensation is the exception, and work environments generally are poor to hazardous. Workers who complain or try to organize usually are fired and replaced by more amenable ones.

    Starvation wages, long hours, unsafe working conditions, and no protections are standard practice in an industry long known for its labor abuses.

    In 1995, two major scandals made headlines, one at home, the other offshore. On August 2, police raided an El Monte, California apartment complex in which 72 undocumented Thai immigrants were kept in forced bondage behind razor wire and a chain link fence. They’d been there for up to 17 years sewing clothes for some of the nation’s top manufacturers and retailers.

    They were housed in crowded, squalid quarters. Armed guards imposed discipline, pressuring and intimidating them to work every day, around 84 hours a week for 70 cents an hour. Workers were forced to work, eat, sleep, and live in captivity. No unmonitored phone calls or uncensored letters were allowed, and everything bought came only from their captors at highly inflated prices. Seven operators were arrested and later convicted of conspiracy, kidnapping, involuntary servitude, smuggling, and harboring illegal immigrants.

    Also in 1995, National Labor Committee investigators found teenage women, as young as 13, sewing clothing for Kathy Lee Gifford’s Global Fashion plant in Honduras. Pay was from 9 – 16 cents an hour under oppressive working conditions. Forced overtime was imposed to meet deadlines. Only two daily bathroom visits were allowed. Supervisors and armed guards applied pressure and intimidation to work faster on machines that were rust laden and prone to accidents. Attempts by the women to demand their legal rights were thwarted. Merchandise produced was for major US retailers like Wal-Mart.

    American restaurant and hotel workers also work under onerous conditions and are underpaid. In hotels, nearly all housekeepers are women who are required to clean 15 or more rooms a day. Often they must skip meals and rest periods, work off the clock to meet quotas, and have a 40% higher injury rate than service workers overall as a result. According to US Department of Labor figures, they earn an average $8.67 an hour or about $17, 340 annually provided they work full-time.

    Immigrants, mainly women, are especially vulnerable in hotels and restaurants. A June 2005 ACLU press release highlighted one example among many pertaining to a law suit brought by two immigrant waitresses against a New Jersey Chinese restaurant charging sex discrimination and labor exploitation.

    Filed in June 2003, Mei Ying Liu and Shu Fang Chen charged that from May 2000 – November 2001 they were completely controlled by their employers, forced to work an average 80 hours a week, paid no wages or overtime, had to pay a kickback from tips received, faced gender and ethnic discrimination, were housed in an overcrowded, vermin-filled apartment, and were threatened with death when stopped working at the restaurant.

    Guest Worker Trafficking on US Military Bases

    Besides Halliburton’s exploited army of tens of thousands of foreign nationals in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the National Labor Committee (NLC) reported last July that “hundreds of thousands of foreign guest workers – among them 240,000 Bangladeshis – have been trafficked to Kuwait (under false promises of well-paid jobs, and) forced to work seven days a week (11 hours a day) at a US military base” under horrific conditions.

    Stripped of their passports on arrival, they’re housed in overcrowded, squalid dorms with eight workers sharing small 10 x 10 rooms, paid 14 – 36 cents an hour, beaten and threatened with arrest when they complained, forced to use most of their wages for high-priced food, and the case of “Mr. Sabur” is typical. Hired by the Kuwait Waste Collection and Recycling Company to work at the Pentagon’s Camp Arifjan, his job was to clean the base – everything from offices and living spaces to tanks, rocket launchers and missiles.

    He worked an 11-hour shift seven days a week and got a one-hour midnight break for supper. For this, he earned $34.72 a week, far less than he was promised, and he had to pay a Bangladesh employment agency 185,000 taka ($2697) for his three-year contracted job. His family sold everything possible for the money, still came up short, and had to borrow the rest from a neighbor.

    On the job, the Kuwaiti company illegally withheld his first three months wages, forcing him to borrow money to survive. When he asked to be paid, he was beaten, and after an 80,000 worker strike, he was arrested, incarcerated for five days, beaten in prison, then deported to Bangladesh still wearing his torn, blood-stained clothing.

    He was owed but never paid thousands of promised dollars in back wages, and he’s typical. NLC estimates that all 240,000 Bangladeshis have been cheated out of $1.2 billion, and the Pentagon is complicit in the crime. These same abuses are common on US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and likely other offshore locations as well. In the words of one Sri Lankan laborer for a Halliburton subcontractor in Iraq: “They promised us the moon and stars,” but instead gave us dirty work, low pay, long hours, bad food, and for the first three months held us in windowless warehouses near Baghdad’s airport with no money, and for some of them afterwards in tents even worse than the warehouses.

    A Final Comment

    This is the plight of America’s vulnerable and those we exploit abroad, whether in restaurants, hotels, agriculture, domestic work, the sex trade, or on US offshore military bases, and seldom do courts provide justice. It’s America’s dark side along with an appalling record of crimes and abuses, including imperial wars, torture, and looting the national wealth for criminal bankers and the rich at the expense of growing millions in need left wanting at the most perilous economic time in our history. America’s long and disturbing legacy, not at all one to be proud of.

    Stephen Lendman

    Why Did So Few Americans Give a Damn?

    0

    By William Pfaff |

    The documents currently being released by the Justice Department that demonstrate the Bush administration’s view of the president’s constitutional power in a “state of war” tell us things we suspected but didn’t want to know.

    The first seven of these official memorandums issued last week dealt with claimed presidential powers to unilaterally abrogate international treaties; suspend constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and press; and order warrant-less searches, wiretaps and seizures of documents and indefinite imprisonment inside the U.S. without trial or criminal charges. The memorandums claimed that Congress has no overriding authority in these matters.

    The authors of all but one of these documents were John Yoo and Jay Bybee (both then of the Justice Department but now, respectively, a member of the University of California at Berkeley Law School faculty and a federal judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). They were also the authors early in the Bush administration of two special memorandums defining torture much more narrowly than in the United States code of military justice or U.S. civil law.

    They redefined torture to permit what ordinarily is illegal in U.S. military and civil law under the so-called Federal Maiming Statute. This law makes it a crime to disfigure faces and body parts with knives or razors, or to cause blindness, or cut out tongues, or perform other grotesque and gruesome tortures that this column will leave to the consciences of professor Yoo, Judge Bybee and the senior members of the Bush administration who wished to be advised on their exemption from such legal limits.

    Professor Yoo’s view is that the president possesses unchecked authority “in a state of armed conflict.” At the time, this state of armed conflict consisted of a dozen or so stateless persons who had deliberately crashed aircraft into New York and Washington buildings. The two initial memos on torture were withdrawn when they became public.

    The American use of torture has been public knowledge or surmise since very early in President Bush’s war on terror. Not many Americans seemed to take note or to protest at the time. There were individuals who protested; the American Civil Liberties Union was on the job, as were Amnesty International and other American nongovernmental organizations and citizens’ groups. They were mostly ignored. Questions were asked in Congress, but little ensued.

    This was the amazing thing, really. Very few people among the American public seemed to care–except Fox television executives, who recognize a commercial opportunity when it hits them between the eyes.

    Fox began a drama in which each program was devoted to the American president’s torturer doing whatever had to be done to thwart a new threat to the American republic. The hero would apply one of the tortures pronounced legally OK for Americans to use, until the terrorist, gasping or screaming, blurts out where the nuclear bomb has been planted.

    This turned out to be one of the most popular programs on the air. It seems that President Bush himself watched. People in the torturing business joked that they got some good ideas from the program.

    What if 65 years ago in Germany entertainment radio had broadcast a popular program in which SS and Gestapo officers tortured American OSS officers, or captured American or British airmen, to extract vital information from them at any cost? Adolf Hitler himself might have tuned in. He had decreed that Allied commandos in military uniform should be treated as terrorists rather than as soldiers.

    The final thing I will say about this is that many or most of the documents now being issued on how President Bush might ignore the U.S. Constitution had to do with domestic surveillance and the (illegal) use of American military forces against the American public.

    That probably would have begun in a small way. “Troublemakers” disappearing here and there. Protest groups rounded up and sent to camps. Possibly a day would have come when some conference of lawyers, or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, or Americans for Democratic Action, or the Cato Institute, or some political pressure group like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, did something that seriously annoyed the White House.

    If a battalion of military police took over the hall and the participants “disappeared,” it would certainly have made the newspapers, if the newspapers still reported such things. But considering the precedent of the American popular reaction to torture, what else would have happened? Possibly there would have been a popular new television program about the subversive forces at work in America, and how patriots should deal with them.

    Visit William Pfaff’s Web site at www.williampfaff.com.

    Panetta: No one to be punished for interrogations

    0

    Panetta: No CIA employees to be punished as a result of Senate review of harsh interrogations

    CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency employees who took part in harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects are not in danger of being punished.

    Panetta delivered that message to CIA employees in an e-mail Thursday, reiterating what he told Congress last month. He said then that he would oppose prosecutions of any CIA employee who adhered to their legal guidance on interrogations.

    He sent the message after the Senate Intelligence Committee announced its review of the CIA’s interrogation and detention program under President George W. Bush.

    The committee will look at how the CIA decided whom to interrogate, whether it told Congress the truth about the program and whether it was legal. It will also try to determine whether the harsher methods the CIA used elicited valuable intelligence.

    AP News

    Probe exposes firms’ blacklist scandal

    0

    By James Tweedie |

    THE Information Commissioner’s Office revealed shocking evidence on Friday of “rampant” blacklisting of workers in the construction industry.

    An eight-month investigation by the office has revealed that major construction firms broke data protection laws by paying for information on their employees.  

    Deputy Information Commissioner David Smith said that details of around 3,000 workers were held by shadowy blacklisting firm the Consulting Association in paper files and a card index database.

    Up to 40 construction companies had sent the company lists of people that they were considering hiring to work on building sites. They would then receive details from the files over the phone.

    The documents contained descriptions such as “ex-shop steward, definite problems” and “Irish ex-army, bad egg,” while others related to workers who had raised concerns over health and safety issues on sites, such as asbestos removal.

    On February 23, members of the authority raided the Droitwich offices of the firm, which was run by Ian Kerr. Mr Kerr later ceased trading and has vacated his business address.

    Mr Smith explained: “We are prosecuting the owner of this business, the Consulting Association, because he should have been registered with our office and he wasn’t and that is a criminal offence.”

    He warned that the company’s clients would also be investigated and put on notice that, if they got involved in this “illegal trade” again, they would be prosecuted.

    “What’s so disappointing about this case is that we have got most of the major names in the construction industry there,” Mr Smith.

    “They must have known that they were doing wrong. If not, why run this database underground? It has been going for 15 years.”

    Construction union UCATT highlighted claims that Mr Kerr was formerly employed by the Economic League, a controversial vetting agency which compiled lists of thousands of people whom it considered “subversives” from 1919 to 1993.

    The revelation of widespread blacklisting has huge implications for construction safety, said the union.

    It added that its members and safety representatives have been victimised and dismissed after complaining and blowing the whistle on dangerous sites.

    The government had initially intended to make blacklisting illegal as part of the 1999 Employment Relations Act. But the regulations were never introduced on the grounds that the government believed that blacklisting no longer existed.

    However, testimony given by construction workers to the Morning Star on Friday blew the lid off that argument, suggesting a continuity of the practice from the 1980s to the present day.

    UCATT general secretary Alan Ritchie said: “Our members know from bitter experience of being refused work that blacklisting exists in construction.

    “However, the extent of the practice and the fact that most of the major companies in construction are involved in the practice is truly shocking.”

    Labour MP John McDonnell added: “This latest expose of blacklisting demonstrates that blacklisting is still rampant in some industries. The government must act swiftly now to outlaw blacklisting once and for all.

    “It is widely suspected that the government caved in under pressure from employers’ organisations when I raised this issue last time in Parliament.”

    Were they blacklisted?

    UNITE member Steve Kelly was an electrician on the Jubilee Line extension project for four years.

    As an AEEU shop steward, he was involved in various disputes including unofficial industrial action over pay and conditions and poor health and safety standards.

    He was unable to get work in construction for a year and was forced to take building maintenance work for the next six years.

    In 2007, he returned to the construction industry and, in his first six months, he was sacked from eight different jobs.

    Mr Kelly said: “They told me that they had run out of work, but that was rubbish. But when you’re on bogus self-employment you have no rights whatsoever to an unfair dismissal hearing.”

    UCATT member Terry Renshaw was one of the famous 1972 Shrewsbury construction pickets.

    In 1986, he got a job with painting contractor Bagnalls of Ellesmere Port, which had a contract with oil giant Shell’s Stanlow refinery.

    But, on his first day, immediately after leaving his mandatory safety induction, he found Bagnall’s foreman waiting for him.

    Mr Renshaw recalled: “He told me I had to leave the site.

    “To me, that was a clear indication that Shell had checked up on me while I was doing my induction and linked me to the Shrewsbury pickets.

    “We always knew that there was a blacklist operating because employers would ask for all your personal details and then tell you that there were no vacancies.”

    Top Secret Credit Crisis Bailouts

    0

    Interesting stories are stacking up again so it’s time for some economic potpourri starting with secret dealings by the Fed.

    Fed Refuses to Release Bank Lending Data, Insists on Secrecy The Fed refused yesterday to disclose the names of the borrowers and the loans, alleging that it would cast “a stigma” on recipients of more than $1.9 trillion of emergency credit from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

    Bloomberg sued Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs.

    On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request, expanding the range of when the collateral was posted. It sued Nov. 7.

    In response to Bloomberg’s request, the Fed said the U.S. is facing “an unprecedented crisis” in which “loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects.”

    Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would meet congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.

    In plain English: Bernanke Lied.

    Japan clears cash hand-out bill

    Japan’s parliament has passed legislation to give a cash hand-out to every resident in attempt to boost the recession-hit economy. Most people will get at least 12,000 yen ($121; £86) under the $20bn plan.

    China Considering New Stimulus Measures

    Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is considering new stimulus measures, adding to a 4 trillion yuan ($585 billion) spending plan as the government tries to revive growth in the world’s third-biggest economy.

    Wen will announce “a new stimulus package” in his annual address to the nation’s legislature tomorrow, former statistics bureau head Li Deshui told reporters in Beijing today. He didn’t say whether spending would increase or give further details.

    “The existing stimulus package may not be adequate considering the total collapse of global trade,” said Isaac Meng, a senior economist at BNP Paribas SA in Beijing. “There should be more spending, especially on the social side to cushion unemployment. This is quite urgent.”

    Doting On Animals In Hard Times

    When markets drip tears and For Rent signs appear over products in shops that were once For Sale, people still spend almost as much resources, time and energy as ever on a completely wasteful economic category: pets.

    I once did some consulting for the chairman’s office of A&P and assumed that surely, in tough times, poor people would choose the generic cat food rather than Hill’s Science Diet Culinary Creations cat food. But I was wrong. Consumers would rather buy plain-label generic creamed corn or tomato soup for themselves than subject their four-footed treasures to what they fear will be second-rate grub.

    Ellen DeGeneres promotes her Halo line, with “holistic foods for pets’ total well-being. Highest quality meats, grain and fresh vegetables.” She could be joined by the producers of Haute Canine, the Natural Gourmet Dog Snack and Dandy Doggy Bowser Brittle (with rain-forest nuts).

    Of course there are countless miserable stories of pets abandoned in foreclosed homes, left off from cars in parks and simply ignored once a summer vacation is over. The story is not wholly pretty and contains abundant cruelty, exploitation and heartlessness.

    Nevertheless, for a sense of proportion about broad economic forces, go to a supermarket and watch the purchasers of pet food. Observe elemental mammalian life at work, for it has been around for an endlessly long time and will be present in the future.

    Brown Will Urge World to ‘Seize Moment,’ Unite on Stimulus Plan

    U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown will use a speech to both houses of the U.S. Congress today to urge countries to “seize the moment” following President Barack Obama’s election and agree on new global financial regulations.

    “Now, more than ever, the rest of the world wants to work with you,” Brown, the fifth British prime minister to address Congress, will say, according to extracts of his speech released in advance. “Never before have I seen a world so willing to come together. Never before has that been more needed. And never before have the benefits of cooperation been so far-reaching.”

    Never before has there been so much meaningless political sap.

    Australian Economy Grinds To A Halt

    THE global recession has caught up with Australia’s economy, forcing the first fall in output in eight years and making the Rudd Government revise lower the budget forecasts it made only four weeks ago.

    Wayne Swan said the downturn made it unlikely the economy would achieve the optimistic 1 per cent growth this year forecast by Treasury just four weeks ago.

    The Treasurer said it was likely that revenue would also fall short of the latest forecast, which was itself a $115 billion downward revision from budget. This will push the deficit out from Treasury’s estimate of $22.5 billion.

    However, Mr Swan defended the Government’s actions in launching its first economic stimulus package last October, in the face of criticism from the Opposition that it was spending too much, too soon.

    “There is absolutely no doubt that things in this country would have been far worse had the Government not acted when we did with the economic security strategy announced last October,” he said.

    “If we pull together, if we keep doing whatever is necessary, we can come out of this stronger than ever,” he said.

    Swan needs to get together with Brown, Obama, and Bernanke to sing Kumbaya.

    Hawaii: Teachers union unit files for bankruptcy

    The union that represents Hawaii’s public schoolteachers says the activities and finances of a subsidiary corporation had been “grossly mismanaged.”

    Member Benefits Corp., which filed for bankruptcy Monday, has been shut down. It had managed the Hawaii State Teachers Association’s Voluntary Employees Benefits Association.

    The HSTA decided to dissolve the corporation last year after determining the for-profit subsidiary didn’t fit within the union’s mission.

    The union has told it members the mismanagement was discovered by an outside team of attorneys and accountants that was brought in as part of the process of closing the corporation.

    Bernanke grilled on latest $30B bailout of AIG

    Irritated lawmakers grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke Tuesday over the latest bailout of American International Group, even as the Fed chief warned that an economic recovery hinges on the government’s success in stabilizing shaky financial markets and their major players.

    “I share your concern, I share your anger,” Bernanke told the Senate Budget Committee. “It’s a terrible situation, but we’re not doing this to bail out AIG or their shareholders. We’re doing this to protect our financial system and to avoid a much more severe crisis in our global economy.”

    Bernanke defended the government’s repeated rescue attempts on AIG, saying “the failure of major financial firms in a financial crisis can be disastrous for the economy.”

    Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and others said the identities of banks and other so-called counterparties that do business with AIG and other bailed-out institutions should be made public. Those companies also should have to make some concessions, he added.

    “They ought to … have some kind of consequence,” Wyden said. “The American people are in the dark on this issue, and I think it’s time for some sunlight. I think that the public really wants to know why are these people so important.”

    Sunlight is illegal. Bernanke wants us in the dark. It’s Top Secret.

    Pressure to reveal major AIG counterparties grows

    Calls increased Tuesday to reveal the financial institutions that got almost $40 billion in collateral from American International Group shortly after the government first bailed out the insurer last year.

    AIG almost collapsed in September after ratings agency downgrades triggered demands for billions of dollars in extra collateral from firms that had bought derivative-based protection from the insurer on complex mortgage-related products known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs.

    AIG didn’t have that much money and faced bankruptcy. But it was saved by an $85 billion emergency loan facility from the Federal Reserve.

    By Nov. 5, the insurer had paid out $37.3 billion of that money to counterparties who had purchased a certain type of derivative-based protection from AIG called multi-sector credit-default swaps, according to the company’s third-quarter regulatory filing.

    “AIG has given the counterparties $20 billion. Those people could be just about anybody in the world. Why won’t the Fed disclose who those are?” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke during congressional testimony on Tuesday.

    Bernanke said the counterparties made “legal, legitimate, financial transactions” with AIG and presumed at the time that the contracts would remain private. “That is a consideration we have to take into account,” he added.

    Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., suggested that AIG’s counterparties should have to take a “haircut,” rather than be made whole, because some of them probably didn’t do enough due diligence on whether the insurer was financially strong enough to be selling such protection.

    “In effect, what we’re saying is, consequently, folks who bought these instruments and that, at some point in their process, should have been doing some level of credit analysis of what AIG was selling who didn’t do that credit analysis are going to still come out whole for their lack of appropriate due diligence or responsible behavior,” he said.

    “I’m as unhappy as you are about that, senator,” Bernanke replied. “I just don’t know what to do about it.”

    There are many problems with the handling of AIG but it all starts with the initial decision to do something as opposed to nothing. Government has no business bailing out anyone and the decision is made all the more galling by making everything a secret.

    Note that the Fed is picking winners and losers. There are other creditors of AIG who might have a better claim on its assets than who the Fed is picking. Remember that the Fed promised transparency. Instead, we have gotten noting but lies and secrecy from Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner every step of the way.

    Words cannot begin to express my disgust of the lies and secret shenanigans of the Fed and Treasury.

    © 2009 Mike Shedlock, All Rights Reserved

    George Bush could be next on the war crimes list

    3

    THE HAGUE — George W. Bush could one day be the International Criminal Court’s next target.

    David Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University, said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects.

    Crane is a former prosecutor of the Sierra Leone tribunal that indicted Liberian President Charles Taylor and put him on trial in The Hague.

    Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said the al-Bashir ruling was likely to fuel discussion about investigations of possible crimes by Bush Administration officials.

    Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention that Bush and other officials rejected.

    The prospect of the court ever trying Bush is considered extremely remote, however.

    The US Government does not recognise the court and the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member.

    – AP

    School begins using biometric facial recognition

    0

    By Kim Thomas |

    “Ainsley. Babcock. Bland. Carthorse. Dint. Ellsworth-Beast Major. Ellsworth-Beast Minor.” For some of us, Rowan Atkinson’s monologue of a schoolmaster taking the register conjures up the essence of school life. Not at St Neots Community College in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, however, where traditional methods are being abandoned in favour of hi-tech facial recognition technology.

    The school has 130 sixth-formers, 128 of whom are taking part in a pilot programme that began in January and will run until July. Students register their details by standing in front of a camera, part of a unit that also includes a processor and a keypad. The camera takes a photograph and establishes a “reference point” for the face, which is the mid-point between the eyes. From that, it takes measurements relating to the nose, upper lip and cheeks, and converts those numbers to a unique biometric, which it then encrypts.

    When students check in or out of school, they enter a pin on to the keypad and look at the camera. The measurements from the photograph are matched against the student’s biometric identifier, and the time of arrival (or departure) is stored in the unit’s internal computer. The whole process takes less than two seconds.

    But why? After all, the low-tech method of calling the register has worked very well for generations. Scott Preston, deputy principal at St Neots, says the system offers an easy way of gathering accurate data about sixth-form attendance, so students can claim the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) – a government grant for poorer students in post-16 education.

    Science lesson

    The construction industry has used facial recognition systems for years to prevent employees fraudulently clocking in for colleagues, but the technology has only recently become accurate enough to justify wider use. The key innovation made by Aurora, which supplies the St Neots system, is the use of infrared light when taking the pictures, which means accuracy is unaffected by lighting conditions. “Because it splashes a consistent light over the face, it doesn’t matter whether it’s pitch black or bright sunlight,” says Hugh Carr Archer, Aurora’s chief executive.

    While facial recognition doesn’t yet match the accuracy rates of iris recognition (which has a failure rate of one in several million), Carr Archer believes it does far better than most biometric technologies currently on the market. It makes no difference if the subject is wearing glasses or has grown a beard. He claims the technology can even cope with the changing bone structure of growing children, though this has not yet been fully put to the test.

    Biometrics technologies are now widespread in schools: an estimated 1 million children have had their fingerprints taken for activities as mundane as borrowing library books or paying for school dinners. This rapid growth is down to the efforts of “enterprising small companies”, according to Simon Fance, project officer at the United Kingdom Biometrics Institute.

    Because biometrics are a useful way of controlling access, they are being adopted by other organisations, such as nurseries. At UK borders, passport officials are being replaced by cameras that check travellers’ faces against the image held in their passports. One of the concerns for civil liberties campaigners is the blurry line between access control and surveillance: in Newham, east London, face recognition has been used in conjunction with CCTV as a means of identifying criminals in a crowd.

    The dystopia envisaged by campaigners is one where the state holds increasing amounts of data on its citizens, which can then be easily matched to unique biometric identifiers. David Clouter, a parent activist from the pressure group Leave Them Kids Alone, regards the use of biometrics in schools as “a disproportionate response to a nonexistent problem” and believes it is a “giant softening-up exercise for the next generation to accept biometric identity in some form”. Children will get so used to offering their fingerprints or staring into a camera that they won’t challenge it when the state asks them to do it: “Every traffic warden, every minor official, will go round fingerprinting everybody. And people won’t see it as out of the ordinary, which it most certainly is.”

    Vital statistics

    The other issue worrying Clouter is that schools hold large quantities of data on children – not only names, addresses and dates of birth, but information on attendance, library-borrowing habits and attainment, raising the possibility that a single biometric could be used to access huge amounts of personal data held on different systems, including ones held by other authorities: “The more biometric information floating around in insecure places like schools, the more chance there is of it being left on memory sticks or sent somewhere on a CD and lost,” he says.

    Carr Archer argues that security concerns are misplaced when it comes to the system used by St Neots. Even if the encryption were to be broken, he says, Aurora’s method of taking measurements is proprietary, so the data couldn’t be used elsewhere (although that could of course change if the Aurora technology becomes widely adopted). Preston is equally confident: “The box is a one-stop shop. There is a network connection that enables you to produce reports, but in terms of getting into the data and misusing it, you’d have to take the box off the wall.”

    If the St Neots pilot is successful, Aurora will market it to other schools, though they have yet to decide a pricing model. Currently, the units cost a hefty £4,000 each (though St Neots isn’t being charged anything). In the meantime, schools’ enthusiasm for biometric technologies shows no sign of abating. Clouter and his colleagues can expect to be busy for some time yet.

    The Case for Prosecuting Bush Officials

    0

    By Daphne Eviatar |

    The Senate Judiciary Committee’s “Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry” convened this morning to consider Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) proposal for a sort of “truth and reconciliation” commission.

    The hearing was full of all the predictable, lofty statements from illustrious supporters about why a commission would further the American people’s understanding of our nation’s past and true values, and also demonstrate to the world our commitment to truth and justice – most of which I agree with. But what was most surprising was that the Senate Republicans and their witnesses, in the process of ripping apart the idea, made the strongest case I’ve heard yet for why the Department of Justice should prosecute former senior officials of the Bush administration.

    Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking committee Republican, after noting his previous support for judicial review of the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program, referred to the recent disclosures of Office of Legal Counsel memos as potentially supporting the case for prosecutions.

    “You’ve had some rather startling disclosures, with the publicity in recent days about unusual–to put it mildly–legal opinions” to justify broad executive actions, including homicide. “They’re all being exposed now,” he said, and noted that a forthcoming report from the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department will likely expose even more. They’re “starting to tread on what may disclose criminal conduct,” he said.

    Rather than going off “helter-skelter” and conducting a “fishing expedition,” said Specter, “it seems to me that we ought to follow a regular order here … If there’s reason to believe that these justice department officials have given approval for things that they know not to be lawful and sound, go after them.”

    The witnesses called to present the Republican opposition to Leahy’s proposal made the same point.

    David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations and now a partner at the law firm Baker & Hostetler, said a truth commission “is a profoundly bad idea, a dangerous idea, both for policy and for me as a lawyer for legal and constitutional reasons.”

    Objecting that Congress would be improperly delegating its oversight power, and that witnesses would be called out for criminal conduct without the right to defend themselves in a trial, he said: “this is to establish a body to engage in what in essence is a criminal investigation of former Bush administration officials,” and that “the subject matter areas, which such a commission would investigate — among them the interrogation and handling of captured enemy combatants and the gathering of electronic intelligence — are heavily regulated by comprehensive criminal statutes, and ensures that the commission’s activities would inevitably invade areas traditionally the responsibility of the Department of Justice.”

    Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University who also opposes Leahy’s idea, similarly insisted that in the United States, where we have a fully developed legal system, prosecutions – not truth commissions – are the appropriate course. A truth commission is something that countries like South Africa and Chile have had, not something we should do here, he said. “In those countries they had to have commissions because they couldn’t have prosecutions. Peace was really in doubt in those countries … they had to trade off prosecutions for peace. We’re not in that situation. If people think we need to have prosecutions, we should have prosecutions.”

    Proponents of the truth commission idea, meanwhile, while not ruling out the idea of prosecutions, saw a truth commission as serving a different, and broader, purpose. But it was surprising that, at a hearing cautiously called to discuss “a nonpartisan commission of inquiry,” we heard the strongest case yet for the prosecution of former Bush administration officials – being made by Republicans.

    Iran Plans War Crimes Trials for Israelis

    0

    By Robert Mackey |

    On the same day that the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan on war crimes charges, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, opened an international conference in Tehran that will press Interpol to help Iranian prosecutors arrest 15 Israeli leaders on war crimes charges related to the recent war in Gaza.

    Meanwhile, discussions are reportedly continuing in The Hague on the question of the international court’s authority to open an investigation of its own into actions carried out in Gaza, since the territory is not part of any internationally recognized state.

    The Iranian state broadcaster Press TV reports today that the conference, “which is to focus on Israeli war crimes in Gaza,” brought together “legal experts, politicians and religious figures” for two days to “discuss ways to bring Israel’s top political and military leaders to trial over the atrocities committed in Gaza.” Press TV says that “discussion on a series of documents, which Iran recently sent to Interpol, implicating 15 Israeli officials, are also expected to be on the agenda.”

    Iran’s Fars News Agency reports that “80 delegations from five world continents” are at the conference, including leaders of Hamas.

     

    On Sunday, Reuters reported that Tehran’s chief prosecutor, Saeed Mortazavi, had drawn up charges against 34 Israeli commanders and 115 individuals concerning their actions during the Gaza campaign. Mr. Mortazavi told Reuters that the charges included “war crimes, invasion, occupation, genocide and crimes against humanity.”

    Mr. Mortazavi also reportedly said that his office had “completed our investigation” of “15 individuals who were among those criminals” and had “asked Interpol to arrest these suspects.”

    According to a report by Press TV on Monday, the people Interpol was asked to help detain include: “Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, Chief of the General Staff of the I.D.F. Gabi Ashkenazi, and Attorney General Menachem Mazuz.”

    Despite the very long odds against Interpol acting on this request, Mr. Mortazavi’s boss – the country’s chief prosecutor, Ayatollah Qorban-Ali Dori-Najafabadi – is proceeding with elaborate plans for trying at least some of these Israeli officials in absentia. According to The Tehran Times Iran’s prosecutors will not be deterred by not having any Israelis in custody, and the case against them “will soon be heard in a symbolic trial in Tehran.”

    Half a world away from the Islamic Republic of Iran, officials at the International Criminal Court in The Hague are also considering the possibility of opening an investigation of Israeli actions during the war in Gaza.

    Last month Katrin Bennhold reported on The Lede’s sib-blog DealBook that the international court was “looking into a request by the Palestinian Authority” to investigate Israeli actions during the war in Gaza. Soon after that, Marlise Simons of The New York Times quoted Béatrice Le Fraper, an aide to the international court’s chief prosecutor, saying that the prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, “has agreed to explore if he could have jurisdiction in the case.” Still, as Ms. Simons reported, “accepting jurisdiction would not automatically set off a criminal investigation.”

    This week, though, Peter Beaumont of The Guardian reported that the court “is considering whether the Palestinian Authority is ‘enough like a state’ for it to bring a case” and “is examining every international agreement signed by the P.A. to decide whether it behaves – and is regarded by others – as operating like a state.”

    Although Ms. Le Fraper told Ms. Simons last month that court officials were “still very far from any decision” on the matter, Mr. Beaumont reported this week, citing an unnamed source at the court, that it would decide whether it can investigate actions in Gaza within “months, not years.”

    Even if the court decides that the Palestinian Authority has standing as a state under international law, another sticking point would be that, as Ms. Bennhold wrote, Israel “never signed up to the I.C.C., which means the court has no jurisdiction over anything that happens on its territory.” Israel does not claim Gaza as its territory, though, and as Ms. Bennhold noted, “the Palestinians argue that following Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza they have sovereignty over the narrow strip, and last month handed the court an official letter recognizing its jurisdiction there.”

    No matter what the court eventually decides about Gaza, of course, since Israel has not signed the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty that created the court, it is hard to imagine a scenario under which any Israeli government would actually hand one of its citizens over to stand trial in The Hague.

    Obama ‘siding with Bush over Israel’

    1

    IRAN’S supreme leader accused US President Barack Obama on Wednesday of following the same path as the Bush administration with his “unconditional” support for Israel.

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Mr Obama had spoken of change during his campaign but supported Israel’s three-week offensive against the Gaza Strip earlier this year that killed almost 1,500 Palestinians.

    At the time, Mr Obama mostly deferred to Mr Bush when asked for his position, saying that there could only be one US president.

    But he supported Israel’s right to defend itself from Palestinian rocket attacks during the campaign.

    And speaking in Jerusalem on Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underlined Washington’s “unshakeable support for Israel.”

    Addressing a Gaza solidarity conference in Tehran, Mr Khamenei said: “The new US president speaks of unconditional commitment to defend Israel’s security. This means the same wrong path as the Bush administration.”

    He said that Israeli leaders should be put on trial for the Gaza offensive, which ended with a shaky ceasefire in mid-January.

    Iran’s judiciary has asked Interpol to issue arrest warrants for 15 Israeli officials in connection with the onslaught.

    Copyright Morning Star

    De Menezes coroner slams police conduct

    0

    THE coroner in the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest made damning criticisms on Wednesday of the way the police had investigated his killing.

    Coroner Sir Michael Wright highlighted a string of flaws at Scotland Yard after officers’ accounts of the shooting were sensationally rejected last year.

    The Rule 43 report that he sent to Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith expressed his concern that officers had been allowed to work on their accounts together “for a period of many hours” after the shooting at Stockwell underground station in July 2005.

    Mr Wright complained: “There was a stark difference between their experience and the treatment of civilians, who were required to give their accounts promptly and independently.

    “Officers were not cross-examined on the basis that their evidence was the product of independent recollection.”

    His report follows a three-month inquest at the Oval cricket ground, which ended in December after jurors dismissed Scotland Yard’s claim that the killing had been lawful.

    The jury accepted the evidence of passengers that officers had not shouted “armed police” before opening fire and it disputed police claims that the innocent Brazilian had walked towards officers before being killed.

    It concluded that six police failings had caused or contributed to Mr de Menezes’s death.

    But the Justice4Jean campaign group warned that the report had failed to tackle the “shoot-to-kill” debate.

    “If an armed officer has no intelligence or other information that tells him that the suspect has the means to detonate a bomb, he must issue a challenge or we risk repeat killings by the police.

    “A proper public debate about the ‘shoot-to kill’ policy is now long overdue.”

    Copyright Morning Star

    Phorm – one year on

    1

    By Darren Waters |

    The controversial targeted advertising firm Phorm is to hold a second open Town Hall meeting, a year after it first met with the public to discuss plans to roll the technology out to Internet Service Providers.

    Phorm works by doing deals with ISPs which allow it to scan and categorise certain web pages a user visits and then to allocate targeted adverts to users when they visit websites that have signed up to the technology and which align with those categories.
    So far BT has committed to rolling out the technology, known as Webwise to consumers.

    Phorm is controversial because some feel that monitoring users’ web surfing habits is an invasion of privacy, while others feel that the way Phorm works breaks the law.

    The company itself believes that targeted advertising can benefit the web industry as a whole and wrestle some power back from ad firms like Google and put it into the hands of smaller enterprises. For ISPS, Phorm believes it represents a potentially powerful new revenue stream.

    The firm says the new meeting “follows on from last year where we engaged with the concerned, the curious and the enthusiasts”.

    I was at that meeting and while there were plenty of the first and some of the second, I certainly don’t recall any of the third group.

    The second meeting will take place at the London School of Economics on 7 April at 6.30pm.

    So what has happened to Phorm over the last 12 months?

    After controversy erupted over BT’s trialling of the technology without informing customers, quite a lot has happened:

    March

    Phorm hits the headlines. And two privacy professionals give their first assessment of the technology.

    The creator of the web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, says he opposes web tracking technology.

    April

    BT is accused of conducting illegal trials of Phorm on its users.

    The Information Commissioner in the UK says Phorm must be ‘opt in’.

    Phorm bosses meet with the public to explain the technology and foster discussion.

    BT says it will start further trials of Phorm ‘very soon’. But nothing happens for a further five months.

    June

    Dr Richard Clayton, a respected computer expert, says BT should be prosecuted for carrying out its first trials of Phorm without user consent.
    July

    Users hand a dossier of evidence to City of London police saying Phorm carried out ‘illegal’ trials with BT.

    August


    The EU steps into the Phorm debate
    and asks the UK government to clarify if the technology breaches European data laws.

    September

    BT finally starts a small trial of Phorm. This time it informs customers and asks them to take part in the trial.

    The UK government says Phorm can be rolled out in the UK, following questions from the EU. But any future deployments of the system must be done with consent and made easy for people to opt out.

    The City of London police close the file on Phorm, saying no criminal offence had been committed.

    December

    Four of the directors stepped down from the firm, following what the Guardian called a disagreement over the direction of the business.

    The UK chief executive of Phorm also steps down, reports The Guardian.

    Thai army chief denies existence of secret American prison

    0

    Thai army chief General Anupong Paochinda on Wednesday strongly denied reports that a secret United States prison existed in Thailand where suspected terrorists were held.

       The denial followed a report in the Bangkok Post newspaper that documents supplied to the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that a secret jail existed in Thailand, where some suspects were tortured for information.

       ‘I can say 1 million per cent that a secret jail like this has not existed in Thailand,’ General Anupong said.

       The US Justice Department has admitted that 92 tape recordings of aggressive CIA interrogations – far more than previously known – were destroyed after news reports of CIA torture in secret prisons appeared four years ago, news reports said earlier this week.

       In November 2005 the Washington Post newspaper and ABC News ran stories saying that prominent terrorist suspects linked to al-Qaeda were brought to Thailand on ‘rendition’ flights and were subjected to aggressive interrogation, including so-called ‘water boarding.’

       Thai authorities denied these accusations at the time. Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said Wednesday he thought it was ‘impossible’ for such a prison to have existed even at the height of the US ‘war on terror,’ but added he would check with the relevant authorities since he was not in office during this period.

       Federal prosecutors have admitted that 92 videotapes on interrogations made and stored in Thailand were destroyed on the orders of the then CIA head Jose A Rodriguez, the Bangkok Post said.

       The suspect al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was flown to Thailand after his capture in Pakistan in March 28, 2002, according to the Washington Post’s 2005 story.

    Asia-Pacific News

    BUSH’S LAWYERS GAVE GREEN LIGHT TO ILLEGAL SPYNG

    By Michael Isikoff |

    In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.

    Many of the actions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2001, memo to then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s chief lawyer, William Haynes, were never actually taken.

    But the memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel–along with others made public for the first time Monday–illustrates with new details the extraordinary post-9/11 powers asserted by Bush administration lawyers. Those assertions ultimately led to such controversial policies as allowing the waterboarding of terror suspects and permitting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens–steps that remain the subject of ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. The memo was co-written by John Yoo, at the time a deputy attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo, now a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of the central figures in those ongoing investigations.

    In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” Yoo wrote in the memo entitled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States.”

    This claim was viewed as so extreme that it was essentially (and secretly) revoked–but not until October of last year, seven years after the memo was written and with barely three and a half months left in the Bush administration.

    At that time, Steven Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel throughout Bush’s second term, concluded that Yoo’s statements about overriding First Amendment freedoms were “unnecessary” and “overbroad and general and not sufficiently grounded in the particular circumstance of a concrete scenario,” according to a memo from Bradbury also made public Monday.

    Kate Martin, the director for the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington think tank, said the newly disclosed memo by Yoo and Robert Delahunty, another OLC lawyer, was part of a broader legal reasoning that gave President Bush essentially unfettered powers in the war on terrorism. “In October 2001, they were trying to construct a legal regime that would basically have allowed for the imposition of martial law,” said Martin. (Yoo, also a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, did not respond to a request for comment. Gonzales’s lawyer, George Terwilliger, said he had not yet had a chance to review the newly released memo and also declined to comment.)

    The Big Lie of Recession Politics: ‘Shared Sacrifice’

    0

    By Shamus Cooke |

    It’s everywhere you look and in every speech you listen to. Every time a politician or businessmen talks about the recession, an almost in-synch, repetitive mantra can be heard: “Shared sacrifice, equality of sacrifice, hard choices.” Oh my.

    There must be something to it, since EVERYBODY seems to be regurgitating the phrase in harmony. Even union bureaucrats have caught the shared sacrifice fever, using it to subdue their members in contract negotiations.

    Obama himself has turned this once-extinct phrase into the linchpin of his economics policy: “We will, each and every one of us, have to compromise on certain things we care about but which we simply cannot afford right now.”

    Obama has used this reasoning to reduce the wages of auto workers, while also talking about so-called “entitlement programs” like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    When asked about how this applied to the 28 new helicopters planned for the White House – costing $11.2 billion – Obama gave a heroic lead to the American people, saying that he “could do without them.”

    Likewise, corporate CEO’s are being asked to give up their corporate jets, and they too are making brave sacrifices.

    Examples like these are then shown to workers, who are told to share in the sacrifices, since “these are hard times.”

    The worker, however, isn’t immediately sold on the idea. Haven’t wages and benefits gone down for decades, while the workload has gone up? Are these not sacrifices?

    “No,” we are told, “this is a deep recession, and if you do not agree to work for less, the company will fail and you will lose your job.”

    This scare tactic IS effective. And conversations like these are taking place all over the country in an attempt to scare workers into submission.

    The phenomenon of shared sacrifice is equally infectious to public workers, becoming immediately relevant because of the budget crises affecting nearly every state. The Governor of Oregon, in preparing to unveil his anti-worker budget proposal, first announced a pay cut for himself and thousands of state managers.

    The next step, of course, was asking public workers to share in the sacrifices being made. The difference between the two, however, is that the Governor and the bosses make significantly more than workers, and while the Governor might enjoy a bit less luxury in his life, the workers may have to forego daycare for their children, or paying the electric bill.

    The point is that workers need sacrifice nothing. The last “boom” of the economy was based not only on fantasy prices for homes, but the cheap price of labor. During the boom the working class resorted to ever-more debt to maintain their standard of living, while the rich got richer than anyone had ever dreamed possible.

    It is the rich and corporations who now need to sacrifice, and the rest of us who need to demand it. Taxes for the rich need to be raised substantially. Now!

    Otherwise, the wages and benefits of workers, not to mention benefits for the unemployed, elderly and disabled will go down instead.

    The solution is commonsense, but the corporate two-party system functions not on sense but on subservience to powerful interests. Naming these powerful interests and organizing around the demand that they pay for the recession is the task of the day.

    CIA destroyed terror interrogation tapes

    0

    By Alex Spillius |

    The revelation that far more tapes had been destroyed than previously acknowledged came in a letter filed by US government lawyers in New York.

    The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking more details of the Bush administration’s terror interrogation programmes following the September 11 attacks.

    “The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed. Ninety two videotapes were destroyed,” said the letter written by Lev Dassin, the acting US attorney.

    Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.

    “The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court’s order,” she said in a statement.

    The tapes also became a contentious issue in the trial of the September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, after prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then after the trial was over, acknowledged two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.

    The investigation found that the CIA’s videotapes included interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, once a senior aide of Osama bin Laden and held at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre, and another high-ranking member of the terrorist network. They were destroyed, in part, to protect the identities of the interrogators at a time the Justice Department was debating whether the tactics used during the sessions – which are believed to have included the “water boarding” torture technique of partial drowing – were illegal.

    The letter to Judge Alvin Hellerstein said the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents, and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.

    But the agency’s lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel that viewed the tapes.

    “The CIA intends to produce all of the information requested to the court and to produce as much information as possible on the public record to the plaintiffs,” the letter stated.

    OLC Authorized Pentagon to Ignore Bill of Rights On U.S. Soil

    0

    By Daphne Eviatar |

    In an October 2001 memo released on Monday, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel John Yoo advised the Pentagon’s top lawyer that the president may not only deploy the military within the United States, but it may ignore the Bill of Rights in the process of doing so. Yoo and special counsel Robert Delahunty wrote to Defense Department general counsel William Haynes that the president has “ample constitutional and statutory authority to deploy the military against international or foreign terrorists operating within the United States,” and that the use of military force “need not follow the exact procedures that govern law enforcement operations.”

    Although the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil, Yoo concluded that “[a]lthough the situation is novel … we think that the better view is that the Fourth Amendment would not apply in these circumstances. Thus, for example, we do not think that a military commander carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell would be required to demonstrate probably cause or to obtain a warrant.”

    This memo appears to have formed the legal basis for the Bush administration’s domestic warrantless wiretapping program, which at least one federal judge has since concluded was unconstitutional.

    Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, reads it as extending beyond the Fourth Amendment, however.

    “This takes the position that the Bill of Rights does not constrain the military in its operations inside the United States,” Jaffer told me this afternoon. “The president can disregard the constitution during wartime, not just on foreign battlefields, but inside the United States. We had not seen a memo saying that before.”

    Of the nine memos released today, at least two – this October one written by Yoo, and another written by Bybee regarding extraordinary rendition – were responsive to earlier ACLU requests for OLC memos in the context of ongoing FOIA cases.

    But many more memos the ACLU has requested still have not been released.

    “There are still dozens of memos being withheld,” said Jaffer. “We’re hoping that this is a first installment.”

    While the memos reveal the legal groundwork that was laid for the Bush administration’s conduct in its “war on terror”, much of which appears to have been illegal, they still don’t answer the critical question that many Bush critics want to know.

    “The obvious question that’s raised by these memos is, what conduct did the administration authorize on the basis of the legal reasoning in these memos?” Jaffer said. “That’s a question that has not been adequately answered.”

    Update: After further reading of this memo, I have to update it with some more astounding quotes from John Yoo, who insists that not only the Fourth Amendment, but the First Amendment right to free speech may be overridden by the President in wartime:

    “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” writes Yoo. Yoo then reaches back to a 1931 Supreme Court case to support this idea, which said that “’When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.’ . . . No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.”

    Now, no one today would argue that an American has a right to publish secret details about U.S. troop movements in Iraq, either; but the First Amendment already accounts for those sorts of exigencies. For John Yoo to take from that that the President may actually override free speech and press rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment goes beyond stretching it – it’s just a blatant, and deliberate, misreading of the law. After all, John Yoo – Harvard and Yale grad, Berkeley Law prof – is no dummy.

    Meat workers’ action to hit high streets

    0

    By Paul Haste |

    A THREATENED strike by meat workers fighting to prevent a jobs slaughter could leave Britain’s supermarket shelves empty this Easter.

    More than 2,300 abattoir workers and meat packers across Britain began voting in a strike ballot on Tuesday in response to their bosses’ proposals for savage job cuts.

    Huge multinational food corporation Vion announced the redundancies in January, yet union Unite was hopeful of preserving at least some jobs, pointing out that the company had seen its profits soar 33 per cent to £200 million last year.

    But Unite joint general secretary Tony Woodley revealed on Tuesday that Vion executives had been stone-walling union negotiators, refusing to even discuss the plans to slash 900 jobs at several meat plants in Britian.

    Some 200 workers’ livelihoods at Vion’s site in Cambuslang, near Glasgow, will be ended and as many as 500 jobs will be axed at an abbatoir in Haverhill in Suffolk, while more posts will go at the firm’s Welsh Country Foods subsidiary.

    “Vion’s tactics have been appalling and underhand,” Mr Woodley stormed, exposing executives’ moves to short-circuit the legal 90 days’ notice period for redundancies by telling some workers that their jobs would be axed by the end of March.

    “This company wants 900 loyal members of staff out of the door before they have time to think, and they will not even discuss these job cuts with the union,” he stressed.

    Mr Woodley said that as a result, “Unite has no choice but to ballot its members for strike action.”

    A vote for a strike at a company where Unite activists recently won a hard-fought, two-year campaign to organise the workers, could hit meat supplies to all the major supermarkets, including Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencer, within weeks.

    Unite national secretary for food workers Chris Kaufman urged Vion bosses to “stop the clock ticking on redundancy notices” and “explore all options to avoid the cuts” at the negotiating table.

    He pointed out that the company’s profits were healthy and accused Vion of using the recession as an excuse to sack workers.

    “There is an element of opportunism in this,” Mr Kaufman suggested.

    We Came an Inch from Martial Law, Bush Justice Department Memos Reveal

    1

    By Matthew Rothschild |

    It turns out that some of our most paranoid fears about the Bush Administration had a basis in reality.

    The Bush Justice Department, if you can call it that, issued legal opinions in late 2001 asserting that the President had the authority to use the military within the US against suspected terrorists, and that he could use the military to barge into your home without a warrant.

    “The warrant and probable cause requirements . . . are unsuited to the demands of wartime and the military necessity to successfully prosecute a war against an enemy,” said an October 23, 2001, memo.

    The authors were John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general, and Robert Delahunty, who was special counsel at the Justice Department. And they sent the memo to Alberto Gonzales, then the counsel to the President.

    Domestic eavesdropping without a warrant was also OK, according to Bush lawyers at Justice.

    They also said the President could unilaterally abrogate treaties, and that Congress had no say-so over the treatment of detainees.

    Yoo and Delahunty clearly contemplated waging war here at home.

    “Efforts to fight terrorism may require not only the usual wartime regulations of domestic affairs, but also military actions that have normally occurred abroad,” said the Yoo-Delahunty memo.

    It contemplated using the U.S. military in the United States for “attacking civilian targets, such as apartment buildings, offices, or ships where suspected terrorists were thought to be; and employing electronic surveillance methods more powerful and sophisticated than those available to law enforcement agencies.” And it recognized that these actions could be “involving as they might American citizens.”

    It said the decision to use the military this way lies entirely in the President’s hands. “It also bears emphasizing again that it rests within the President’s discretion to determine when certain circumstances . . . justify using the military to intervene.”

    Yoo and Delahunty also proposed shelving the First Amendment.

    “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” they wrote.

    This was an “Everything Must Go” fire sale from the Bill of Rights.

    And we’re just lucky we somehow managed to escape without getting too singed.

    Now Senator Leahy is proposing a Truth Commission.

    We need that–and prosecutions–if we are to find out not only just how close we came to a fascist government over the last eight years but also how to prevent that slide in the future.

    The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis

    0

    By William K. Black 

    As a white-collar criminologist and former financial regulator much of my research studies what causes financial markets to become profoundly dysfunctional. The FBI has been warning of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud since September 2004. It also reports that lenders initiated 80% of these frauds. When the person that controls a seemingly legitimate business or government agency uses it as a “weapon” to defraud we categorize it as a “control fraud” (“The Organization as ‘Weapon’ in White Collar Crime.” Wheeler & Rothman 1982; The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One. Black 2005). Financial control frauds’ “weapon of choice” is accounting. Control frauds cause greater financial losses than all other forms of property crime — combined. Control fraud epidemics can arise when financial deregulation and desupervision and perverse compensation systems create a “criminogenic environment” (Big Money Crime. Calavita, Pontell & Tillman 1997.)

    The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence. To understand the crisis we have to focus on how the mortgage fraud epidemic produced widespread accounting fraud.

    Don’t ask; don’t tell: book profits, “earn” bonuses and closet your lossesThe first document everyone should read is by S&P, the largest of the rating agencies. The context of the document is that a professional credit rater has told his superiors that he needs to examine the mortgage loan files to evaluate the risk of a complex financial derivative whose risk and market value depend on the credit quality of the nonprime mortgages “underlying” the derivative. A senior manager sends a blistering reply with this forceful punctuation:

    Any request for loan level tapes is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE!!! Most investors don’t have it and can’t provide it. [W]e MUST produce a credit estimate. It is your responsibility to provide those credit estimates and your responsibility to devise some method for doing so.

    Fraud is the principal credit risk of nonprime mortgage lending. It is impossible to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files. Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed and the images are stored on computer tapes. Unfortunately, “most investors” (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased nonprime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) did not review the loan files before purchasing nonprime loans and did not even require the lender to provide loan tapes.

    The rating agencies never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives. The “AAA” rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk — the risk is equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which finance refers to as “risk-free.” We know that the rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk. A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to heaven. We also know that turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain those profits. If they had reviewed even small samples of nonprime loans they would have had only two choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they were committing, and aiding and abetting, accounting control fraud.

    Worse, the S&P document demonstrates that the investment and commercial banks that purchased nonprime loans, pooled them to create financial derivatives, and sold them to others engaged in the same willful blindness. They did not review samples of loan files because doing so would have exposed the toxic nature of the assets they were buying and selling. The entire business was premised on a massive lie — that fraudulent, toxic nonprime mortgage loans were virtually risk-free. The lie was so blatant that the banks even pooled loans that were known in the trade as “liar’s loans” and obtained AAA ratings despite FBI warnings that mortgage fraud was “epidemic.” The supposedly most financially sophisticated entities in the world — in the core of their expertise, evaluating credit risk — did not undertake the most basic and essential step to evaluate the most dangerous credit risk. They did not review the loan files. In the short and intermediate-term this optimized their accounting fraud but it was also certain to destroy the corporation if it purchased or retained significant nonprime paper.

    Stress this: stress tests are useless against the nonprime problems
    What commentators have missed is that the big banks often do not have the vital nonprime loan files now. That means that neither they nor the Treasury know their asset quality. It also means that Geithner’s “stress tests” can’t “test” assets when they don’t have the essential information to “stress.” No files means the vital data are unavailable, which means no meaningful stress tests are possible of the nonprime assets that are causing the greatest losses.

    The results were disconcertingA rating agency (Fitch) first reviewed a small sample of nonprime loan files after the secondary market in nonprime loan paper collapsed and nonprime lending virtually ceased. The second document everyone should read is Fitch’s report on what they found.

     

    Fitch’s analysts conducted an independent analysis of these files with the benefit of the full origination and servicing files. The result of the analysis was disconcerting at best, as there was the appearance of fraud or misrepresentation in almost every file. 
    [F]raud was not only present, but, in most cases, could have been identified with adequate underwriting, quality control and fraud prevention tools prior to the loan funding. Fitch believes that this targeted sampling of files was sufficient to determine that inadequate underwriting controls and, therefore, fraud is a factor in the defaults and losses on recent vintage pools.

     

    Fitch also explained why these forms of mortgage fraud cause severe losses.

     

    For example, for an origination program that relies on owner occupancy to offset other risk factors, a borrower fraudulently stating its intent to occupy will dramatically alter the probability of the loan defaulting. When this scenario happens with a borrower who purchased the property as a short-term investment, based on the anticipation that the value would increase, the layering of risk is greatly multiplied. If the same borrower also misrepresented his income, and cannot afford to pay the loan unless he successfully sells the property, the loan will almost certainly default and result in a loss, as there is no type of loss mitigation, including modification, which can rectify these issues.

     

    The widespread claim that nonprime loan originators that sold their loans caused the crisis because they “had no skin in the game” ignores the fundamental causes. The ultra sophisticated buyers knew the originators had no skin in the game. Neoclassical economics and finance predicts that because they know that the nonprime originators have perverse incentives to sell them toxic loans they will take particular care in their due diligence to detect and block any such sales. They assuredly would never buy assets that the trade openly labeled as fraudulent, after receiving FBI warnings of a fraud epidemic, without the taking exceptional due diligence precautions. The rating agencies’ concerns for their reputations would make them even more cautious. Real markets, however, became perverse — “due diligence” and “private market discipline” became oxymoronic. These two documents are enough to begin to understand:

    • the FBI accurately described mortgage fraud as “epidemic” 
    • nonprime lenders are overwhelmingly responsible for the epidemic 

       

    • the fraud was so endemic that it would have been easy to spot if anyone looked 

       

    • the lenders, the banks that created nonprime derivatives, the rating agencies, and the buyers all operated on a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy 

       

    • willful blindness was essential to originate, sell, pool and resell the loans 

       

    • willful blindness was the pretext for not posting loss reserves 

       

    • both forms of blindness made high (fictional) profits certain when the bubble was expanding rapidly and massive (real) losses certain when it collapsed 

       

    • the worse the nonprime loan quality the higher the fees and interest rates, and the faster the growth in nonprime lending and pooling the greater the immediate fictional profits and (eventual) real losses 

       

    • the greater the destruction of wealth, the greater the (fictional) profits, bonuses, and stock appreciation 

       

    • many of the big banks are deeply insolvent due to severe credit losses 

       

    • those big banks and Treasury don’t know how insolvent they are because they didn’t even have the loan files 

       

    • a “stress test” can’t remedy the banks’ problem — they do not have the loan files

    EU tells U.S.A: Don’t create new Guantanamo

    0

    By Ingrid Melander

     

    The United States must not allow its Bagram military base in Afghanistan to become a new Guantanamo Bay if it wants European Union help to close the prison on Cuba, EU officials said Thursday.

     

    In one of his first acts in office, President Barack Obama ordered the closure within one year of Guantanamo Bay, where about 245 people are still detained and which has been widely viewed as a stain on the U.S. human rights record.

     

    But Obama has yet to decide what to do about the jail at Bagram, where more than 600 prisoners are held, or whether to continue work on a $60 million prison complex there.

     

    Washington wants the EU to help it close Guantanamo by agreeing to accept discharged prisoners who cannot be returned to their own countries for fear of torture.

     

    But a confidential EU policy paper, obtained by Reuters, said such help would depend on Washington’s overall anti-terrorism policies, including assurances that Bagram or other camps would not become new Guantanamos.

     

    “I would find it very surprising, if the (U.S.) policy remained the same while Guantanamo was closed, to see the EU mobilize itself,” EU anti-terrorism coordinator Gilles de Kerchove told Reuters.

     

    The EU policy paper said: “It would not be in conformity with EU fundamental rights policies to simply transfer Guantanamo elsewhere (i.e. in Bagram) without solving the underlying question of the detention of terror suspects for indefinite time and without trial.”

     

    U.S. RESPONSIBILITY

     

    An EU delegation will travel to Washington in mid-March to discuss the issue. The EU is keen to improve transatlantic ties, damaged by the 2003 war in Iraq, but countries are divided over whether to take in Guantanamo detainees cleared for release.

     

    Some like Spain and Portugal have said they are willing to, while others like the Netherlands have said they are not.

     

    The bloc’s interior ministers agreed Thursday that it would be up to each country to decide if it accepted former inmates but that they would try to arrange some coordination — at least sharing information on these individuals, Czech Interior Minister Ivan Langer told a news conference.

     

    De Kerchove said it would be a long time before EU states got answers from Washington and took any decision.

     

    One condition would be for EU states to be supplied with full information — whether classified or not — on any detainee they considered taking in, Langer said.

     

    U.S. authorities have cleared several dozen prisoners for release, including 17 members of China’s Muslim Uighur minority. But they have remained at Guantanamo because U.S. officials fear they would be tortured if returned to China.

     

    Langer and the EU policy paper said the United States should also take in some of the cleared detainees. “The responsibility of closing Guantanamo is first and foremost that of the United States,” the document said. 

    “The former inmates that could be taken in the EU are those who face no judicial charges, can be freed, cannot go back to their country of origin and want to be transferred to Europe.”

     

    (Editing by David Brunnstrom and Mark Trevelyan)

    Would You Go to Jail to Protest Torture?

    1

    By Sherwood Ross

    Are you ready to go to jail for what you believe? Would you stand up to the Pentagon by engaging in non-violent civil disobedience to protest torture?

    Two men of faith who have done so, who have walked the same road of Mohandas Gandhi and Rev. Martin Luther King, are Franciscan Louis Vitale and Jesuit Stephen Kelly. They were 75 and 58, respectively, when they were jailed.

    They submitted themselves for arrest in November, 2006, as they knelt in prayer in the driveway at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

    Ft. Huachuca has been described as the source of the torture manuals used at the infamous School of the Americas.

    Writing about his experience in “Sojourners,” an ecumenical Christian magazine, Father Vitale says he and Father Kelly had “hoped to deliver a letter opposing the teaching of torture” to those in charge and to speak with enlisted personnel about the base’s “illegality and immorality.”

    Sadly, for the military as well as for themselves, they were arrested and sentenced by a Tucson, Ariz., magistrate to prison for five months. Both have since been released.

    In the Imperial County jail in California, Father Vitale made a discovery, that he had nothing more to fear: “we discover the path of resistance: a vocation that we must follow in the midst of empire to overcome the oppression of our brothers and sisters.”

    “I realize this stance in my solitary cell…as the steel doors clang shut, there is freedom to surrender to God and this universe. There is freedom to be open to the creative call of compassion toward our global community.”

    Apparently, it was difficult for Father Vitale to acknowledge the reality “that ours is a nation that tortures.” He chastises his country because it “has retracted the binding commitment it made when it signed the 1975 U.N. declaration on torture.”

    That Declaration in Article I defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official…”

    Father Vitale was disturbed by the photos he saw of torture perpetrated at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, such as “hangings, electric shock, beatings, waterboardings, and other extreme physical and psychological procedures,” procedures he says were “spelled out in memos emanating from the White House.”

    These tortures have been used in prisons not only in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, but also in prisons to which the U.S. renders prisoners in Syria, Egypt, Morocco, and other countries.

    Father Vitale says he and Father Kelly were motivated to protest at Fort Huachuca by the death of Alyssa Peterson, a young U.S. Army interpreter who was trained there.

    “After just two sessions in the cages, she objected and refused to participate in the harsh interrogation techniques being used—techniques the Army now refuses to describe and records of which have been destroyed,” Fr. Vitale writes.

    “She became distraught and was sent to suicide prevention training, only to commit suicide shortly thereafter,” Father Vitale added.

    Father Vitale says he would like to know why Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast of Fort Huachuca, formerly chief of military intelligence in Iraq stationed at Abu Ghraib “has never been reprimanded nor prosecuted for her command failure to prevent it.”

    He is also concerned that Brig. Gen. John Custer, who succeeded Fast in charge of Fort Huachuca, allegedly integrated “into standard practice” the techniques elsewhere he learned at Guantanamo.

    Father Vitale said when he was in prison he thought about how “Jesus boldly challenged every barrier to the well-being of all, fearlessly breaking the innumerable taboos, customs, and laws that dehumanize, destroy, or diminish human beings, especially the rejected, the feared, the despised. His life and vision has illumined for me the obligation to say ‘no’ to injustice and ‘yes’ to love in action.”

    While he sat in jail, Father Vitale said he felt as though he was in the presence of both God and Christ “who gave his life for the healing and well-being of all.” He wrote in Sojourners, “In my small cell, I have a growing awareness of the communion of saints—and the possibility of a world where the vast chasm of violence and injustice enforced by torture and war is bridged and transformed.” How many of the rest of us can say that?

    Britain admits terror suspects given to US

    0

    By LOUISE NOUSRATPOUR

    DEFENCE Secretary John Hutton admitted on Thursday that British forces in Iraq handed over two terror suspects to the US who were then rendered to Afghanistan for interrogation and possible torture.

    The disclosures contradict government claims that Britain has never been complicit in extraordinary rendition, whereby detainees are transferred to states where torture is legal.

    In a statement to MPs that will reignite the row over torture, shameless Mr Hutton made a feeble apology after revealing that officials knew about the incident in 2004.

    The US has now told Britain that it is not “possible or desirable” to move the two men, who are still in Afghanistan, either back to Iraq or their home countries.

    The incident came to light after a lengthy review of detentions in Iraq and Afghanistan which has thrown up a series of other errors in details previously released to Parliament.

    The allegations first surfaced in February 2008 when former SAS soldier Ben Griffin revealed that hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans captured by British forces in Iraq had been transferred to US detention facilities, tortured and unlawfully removed from Iraq.

    Mr Griffin, who left the British army in 2005 in disgust at the “illegal” tactics of occupation forces, said at the time: “I have no doubt in my mind that non-combatants I personally detained were handed over to the Americans and subsequently tortured.”

    The government responded by obtaining a gagging order in the courts to prevent him from revealing any more.

    Foreign Secretary David Miliband admitted last year that two such flights landed on British territory in 2002 when US planes refuelled on the British dependent territory of Diego Garcia, but ministers have consistently denied any direct British involvement with the practice.

    But the minister is still refusing to disclose documents which lawyers of Binyam Mohamed argue will prove that the former Guantanamo detainee, who was released and flown back to Britain on Monday, had been tortured with the full knowledge of MI5.

    Stop the War Coalition convener Lindsey German wondered what other “war crimes” the government will be forced to admit later after denying now.

    She added: “On top of all of this, US President Barack Obama, while closing Guantanamo, is expanding the notorious Afghan prison Bagram.

    “The only way for Britain to extract itself from torture crimes is to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, stop treating Muslims as suspects who deserve to be tortured and change its warmongering foreign policy.”

    20,000 banking staff to pay for bosses’ errors

    0

    By PAUL HASTE

    MILLIONAIRE Royal Bank of Scotland bosses put the jobs of thousands of low-paid finance workers on the line on Thursday in a last-ditch bid to avoid full-scale nationalisation.

    Admitting the largest-ever corporate loss in history, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) chief executive Stephen Hester made it clear that as many as 20,000 workers would be made to pay with their jobs for management’s greedy irresponsibility.

    But the colossal £24 billion loss, the result of executives racking up £7 billion in bad debt charges and writing off another £17 billion worth of bad business deals, has failed to shame RBS bosses into humility.

    Mr Hester, who is handed an annual salary of £1.2 million, instead insisted on massive cuts to the RBS workforce, boasting that it was his intention to end the livelihoods of thousands of cashiers, tellers and admin workers – many of whom earn as little as £12,000 a year – in an effort to avoid a state takeover.

    The astonishing demand came as the bank prepared to go cap-in-hand to the government for another multibillion-pound handout to try to placate City traders.

    RBS has already soaked up £20 billion of taxpayers’ cash and is relying on the state to insure a staggering £325 billion of bad debts against default – all of which pushes the government’s 68 per cent shareholding to an unprecedented 75 per cent, with full nationalisation the only alternative if these latest plans fail.

    Finance workers’ union Unite leader Derek Simpson tore into RBS bosses for their threat to make staff pay for executive mistakes.

    “These historic and humiliating losses bring into sharp focus just how reckless the RBS former management team have behaved,” he stormed.

    “You cannot have a state bail-out on the one hand while allowing the spectre of thousands of jobs losses to loom over staff on the other. It is time to take control and fully nationalise this bank,” Mr Simpson demanded.

    He insisted that Unite would fight against any compulsory redundancies and called for the Chancellor to “intervene to protect the workers in call centres, branches and back offices who are the victims, not the culprits, of this mess.”

    Scottish Trades Union Congress general secretary Grahame Smith added that many workers at the Edinburgh-based bank were “shocked at the shamelessness and sense of entitlement of those who brought about this crisis at RBS.”

    “Ordinary workers are suffering growing anxiety and insecurity about their future job prospects, while the taxpayer is left exposed to toxic assets totalling billions of pounds,” Mr Smith added.

    “It is worth remembering that, until very recently, the bosses’ vainglorious business strategy was lionised by politicians of every hue and held up as a model for private and public sectors alike.”

    Left Economics Advisory Panel chairman Labour MP John McDonnell stressed that “state control is urgently needed.

    “The Prime Minister needs to take control, end the fat-cat bonuses and nationalise the banks.

    “His credibility is draining fast and swift action is needed if this administration is to survive,” Mr McDonnell declared.

    Communist Party of Britain general secretary Robert Griffiths said: “Any redundancies at RBS should start at the top.

    “There needs to be a clear-out of all senior management involved in the policies that have caused the bank to fail.”

    And Mr Griffiths added that “the government needs to appoint, in consultation with the unions, a new board at RBS to ensure that future policies reflect the needs of homeowners and the workers at the bank.”

    Pentagon moves to impose secrecy on budget talks

    0

    AFP — Senior Pentagon officials have had to promise they will keep the details of the US military budget secret as the Defense Department prepares to make tough cuts on weapons programs, a spokesman said on Wednesday.

    In an unprecedented move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked top military officers and civilian officials to sign non-disclosure forms in which they agree not to reveal deliberations about the politically charged budget.

    “Everybody who’s participating in this process — these are the highest ranking people in this department … were asked to sign an agreement in which they would agree not to speak to any of the matters that they are working on as part of this budget process,” press secretary Geoff Morrell told a news conference.

    “This is highly sensitive stuff involving programs costing tens of billions of dollars, employing hundreds of thousands of people and — and go to the heart of national security,” he said.

    Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were among those required to sign, and Gates himself signed the form, Morrell said.

    “This is to reinforce the message that indeed this is classified material. These are highly secret discussions. And we should remember that, be mindful of it, and honor it,” Morrell said.

    News of the bid to impose secrecy came as President Barack Obama prepares to present his budget request to Congress on Thursday.

    Gates has warned he plans to take a hard look at expensive weapons programs, which enjoy the backing of powerful defense firms and lawmakers in Congress.

    The non-disclosure forms may carry less legal weight than the strict security clearances already governing top officials and officers. But the defense secretary’s step may have been designed more as a symbolic message to curb leaks about sensitive budget negotiations, analysts said.

    Gates is “trying to invoke personal loyalty,” said Michael O’Hanlon at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

    “Gates is trying to send the message that if you do that (leak) you’re actually hurting me and I’ll take it as a personal affront and I’m personally asking you not to do it,” O’Hanlon told AFP.

    Prisoners tortured to death

    0

    By Stephen C. Webster

    The American Civil Liberties Union has released previously classified excerpts of a government report on harsh interrogation techniques used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. These previously unreported pages detail repeated use of “abusive” behavior, even to the point of prisoner deaths.
    Prisoners tortured to deathThe documents, obtained by the ACLU under a Freedom of Information Act request, contain a report by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, who was tapped to conduct a comprehensive review of Defense Department interrogation operations. Church specifically calls out interrogations at Bagram Air base in Afghanistan as “clearly abusive, and clearly not in keeping with any approved interrogation policy or guidance.”

    The ACLU’s release comes on the same day as a major FOIA document dump be three other leading human rights groups. Documents which reveal the Pentagon ran secret prisons in Bagram and Iraq, that it cooperated with the CIA’s “ghost detention” program and that Defense personnel delayed a prisoner’s release to avoid bad press.

    “In both cases, for example, [prisoners] were handcuffed to fixed objects above their heads in order to keep them awake,” reads the document. “Additionally, interrogations in both incidents involved the use of physical violence, including kicking, beating, and the use of “compliance blows” which involved striking the [prisoners] legs with the [interrogators] knees. In both cases, blunt force trauma to the legs was implicated in the deaths. In one case, a pulmonary embolism developed as a consequence of the blunt force trauma, and in the other case pre-existing coronary artery disease was complicated by the blunt force trauma.”

    In a press release, the ACLU summarized the documents as detailing, “[An] investigation of two deaths at Bagram. Both detainees were determined to have been killed by pulmonary embolism caused as a result of standing chained in place, sleep depravation and dozens of beatings by guards and possibly interrogators. (Also reveals the use of torture at Guantánamo and American-Afghani prisons in Kabul).

    “[An] investigation into the homicide or involuntary manslaughter of detainee Dilar Dababa by U.S. forces in 2003 in Iraq.

    “[An] investigation launched after allegations that an Iraqi prisoner was subjected to torture and abuse at ‘The Disco’ (located in the Special Operations Force Compound in Mosul Airfield, Mosul, Iraq). The abuse consisted of filling his jumpsuit with ice, then hosing him down and making him stand for long periods of time, sometimes in front of an air conditioner; forcing him to lay down and drink water until he gagged, vomited or choked, having his head banged against a hot steel plate while hooded and interrogated; being forced to do leg lifts with bags of ice placed on his ankles, and being kicked when he could not do more.

    “[An] investigation of allegations of torture and abuse that took place in 2003 at Abu Ghraib. “[And an] investigation that established probable cause to believe that U.S. forces committed homicide in 2003 when they participated in the binding of detainee Abed Mowhoush in a sleeping bag during an interrogation, causing him to die of asphyxiation.”

    “A large portion of the torture, maiming, and murder of detainees occurred under authority issued under secret rules of engagement in the Pentagon,” wrote Scott Horton, a contributing editor with Harper’s magazine. “Much of this flowed through Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, a figure who has so far evaded scrutiny in the torture scandal and now serves as vice president for strategy of QinetiQ North America, a subsidiary of the United Kingdom-based defense contractor QinetiQ. Even the Senate Armed Services Committee review fails to get to the bottom of Dr. Cambone, his interrogations ROEs for special operations units he controlled, and the death, disfigurement and torture of prisoners they handled. This is one of many reasons why a comprehensive investigation with subpoena power is urgently needed. But full airing of the internal investigations already conducted by the Department of Defense is an essential next step.”

    Jack Straw blocks release of cabinet minutes on Iraq

    0

    By Ann Talbot

    The UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw has vetoed a ruling made under the Freedom of Information Act instructing the government to release the minutes of two key cabinet meetings on March 13 and 17, 2003, when the decision to go to war against Iraq was discussed.

    This is the first time that the government has used its veto to prevent the release of information under the Act, which came into force in 2005.

    “It is a necessary decision to protect the public interest in effective cabinet government,” Straw told the House of Commons. He asserted that “to permit the commissioner’s and tribunal’s view of the public interest to prevail would in my judgement risk serious damage to cabinet government; an essential principle of British parliamentary democracy. That eventuality is not in the public interest.”

    The request for the minutes was made in December 2006, and the Cabinet Office refused to release them. An appeal hearing of the Information Tribunal opened in November 2008. In January of this year it ruled by a majority that it was in the public interest to release the minutes.

    “We have decided that the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the formal minutes of two cabinet meetings at which ministers decided to commit forces to military action in Iraq did not, at the time when the Cabinet Office refused a request for disclosure in April 2007, outweigh the public interest in disclosure.”

    The minutes of cabinet meetings that decided on such a momentous question as going to war presented, the tribunal concluded, “an exceptional case,” which would not create a precedent. Other cabinet minutes and confidential government papers that are normally kept secret for 30 years before being released to the National Archives would not have been affected by the ruling.

    Under these circumstances, Straw’s response underlines the determination of the UK government to keep the process by which it decided to launch a predatory war of aggression entirely secret. Straw has used his veto conscious of the fact that he and other government ministers may yet face war crimes charges for their actions.

    It was at the cabinet meeting on March 17 that the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith gave his opinion that the war against Iraq was legal, after maintaining for the previous year that it would be illegal. Initially, Goldsmith did not believe that United Nations resolution 1441 provided an automatic trigger for war and thought that a second resolution would be necessary if the war was to legal.

    Goldsmith was not alone in this view. The entire Foreign Office legal team had made it clear to Straw, who was then foreign secretary that without a second resolution the war would be illegal. They appealed to Goldsmith for support, and he gave them no indication that he thought 1441 was an adequate basis for war. According to the journalist John Kampfner, Goldsmith sent Prime Minister Tony Blair a memo in January 2003 in which he expressed his concerns.

    Weeks later Goldsmith went to Washington where he met with the US Attorney General John Ashcroft and John Bellinger, senior associate counsel to the president and legal adviser to the National Security Council. On his return from Washington, Goldsmith prepared a 13-page report on the legal case for war. When it was sent to the Chief of Defence Staff Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, he found it equivocal and demanded a more definitive ruling on the legality of the war before he agreed to commit troops.

    On March 17 Goldsmith was called to the cabinet to give his view on the legality of the war. According to accounts leaked to the press by those present, he made a brief statement saying that the war was legal. No questions were permitted and Blair moved on to next business. On the same day a statement was made in the Commons.

    When the attorney general’s advice was later published, it amounted to one A4 sheet of paper declaring the war legal without a second resolution. It contained no explanation of the legal reasoning behind this dramatic change in Goldsmith’s views.

    Guardian journalist Martin Kettle, a long time supporter of Blair, has defended Straw’s decision to veto the disclosure of the minutes of this and the previous meeting. He maintained:

    “Cabinet meetings must be confidential. If they were not, ministers would say what they wanted to be published, not what they believe.”

    The cynicism is breathtaking. On these grounds, of protecting politicians from any exposure of their own hypocrisy and double-dealing, one could argue against the publication of the proceedings of Parliament in Hansard. What Kettle is claiming is the right of ministers to take decisions on grounds that are concealed from the public and that would not stand up to public scrutiny.

    He claims that the publication of the minutes from two cabinet meetings would “have the precisely opposite effect to the one that the supporters of so-called openness affect to support; it would push all important conversations into the margins and the corridors, unminuted and unminutable.”

    This was precisely what the Blair government was already doing by the time it launched its war against Iraq. The Butler Committee, which Blair himself appointed to cover up the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, warned Blair against the practice of “sofa government.” In the run up to the Iraq war too many decisions had been taken in unminuted, informal meetings, outside the official structures, the committee found. This group of hand-picked parliamentarians and security professionals recognized that the government could not maintain the facade of parliamentary rule if it ignored procedures established over generations to ensure the formalities of democracy.

    Kettle proceeds to undermine his own argument for confidentiality by declaring, “Even if the minutes had been published, they would not have told the critics what they want to know. Cabinet minutes name the minister who introduces a discussion, but they do not give details of who then said what.”

    If that is the case there is no reason to suppose that ministers would be inhibited from candidly expressing their views in cabinet meetings even if all the minutes of every cabinet meeting were routinely made available to the public.

    Kettle cannot forbear to crow. The details of who said what, he writes:

    “…remain in the cabinet secretary’s notebooks, which were not covered by the information tribunal’s decision and which the applicants claimed (a claim I doubt) never to want to see. So the minutes would not find the man with the smoking gun, even if there were one.”

    So what is all the fuss about? Straw has resorted to the unprecedented measure of a veto to protect documents that are supposedly worthless to anyone wanting to prove that the government had launched an illegal war.

    If it is indeed the case that there was such a lack of discussion in cabinet, this would itself be a telling piece of evidence. It would mean that, faced with the decision of whether to launch a war, which the majority of expert opinion said was illegal, Labour ministers did not care to probe the reasoning behind a brief opinion from the attorney general that stood in stark contrast to the view he had expressed over the previous year.

    Every minister and civil servant in the cabinet room would have laid themselves open to war crimes charges by failing to query what the attorney general was telling them on March 17. So conscious of this threat were Elizabeth Wilmshurst, of the Foreign Office legal team, and Robin Cook, the leader of the House of Commons, that they resigned rather than be implicated in the government’s action.

    In any event no one can now say for certain what was said at the two meetings because the record, both the cabinet minutes and the cabinet secretary’s notebooks, which should both be made public, instead remain secret.

    Equally conscious of what is involved in Straw’s suppression of the cabinet minutes is the Tory opposition. They were uncharacteristically acquiescent when Straw made his announcement to the Commons. Dominic Grieve, the opposition spokesman, made a few token criticisms for the sake of appearances before admitting that Straw was right to veto the release of the minutes.

    There has been a closing of ranks in Parliament and the media, because the British political elite want to draw a line under Iraq, the millions of dead and maimed, and move on. Reiterating uncritically the very justification for war employed by Blair, Kettle insisted in the Guardian, “What part of the decision to go to war in Iraq do the critics not understand? The war was a decision taken by Tony Blair, his ministers and officials, and backed by the cabinet and the House of Commons. It was taken because Blair wanted to be in lockstep with the Americans, and because he believed that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would be good for Iraq and would prevent Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction. Blair was wrong. But we know that. At some stage, we need to stop scratching the itch.”

    How Credit Unions Survived the Crash – Casino Capitalism

    0

    CounterPunch 

    While the reckless giant banks are shattering like an over-heated glacier day by day, the nation’s credit unions are a relative island of calm largely apart from the vortex of casino capitalism.

    Eighty five million Americans belong to credit unions which are not-for-profit cooperatives owned by their members who are depositors and borrowers. Your neighborhood or workplace credit union did not invest in these notorious speculative derivatives nor did they offer people “teaser rates” to sign on for a home mortgage they could not afford.

    Ninety one percent of the 8,000 credit unions are reporting greater overall growth in mortgage lending than any other kinds of consumer loans they are extending. They are federally insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) for up to $250,000 per account, such as the FDIC does for depositors in commercial banks.

    They are well-capitalized because of regulation and because they do not have an incentive to go for high-risk, highly leveraged speculation to increase stock values and the value of the bosses? stock options as do the commercial banks.

    Credit Unions have no shareholders nor stock nor stock options; they are responsible to their owner-members who are their customers.

    There are even some special low-income credit unions, though not nearly enough to stimulate economic activities in these communities and to provide “banking” services in areas where poor people can’t afford or are not provided services by commercial banks.

    According to Mike Schenk, an economist with the Credit Union National Association, there is another reason why credit unions avoided the mortgage debacle that is consuming the big banks.

    Credit Unions, Schenk says, are “portfolio lenders. That means they hold in their portfolios most of the loans they originate instead of selling them to investors, so they care about the financial performance of those loans.”

    Mr. Schenk allowed that with the deepening recession, credit unions are not making as much surplus and “their asset quality has deteriorated a bit. But that’s the beauty of the credit union model. Credit unions can live with those conditions without suffering dire consequences,” he asserted.

    His use of the word “model” is instructive. In recent decades, credit unions sometimes leaned toward commercial bank practices instead of strict cooperative principles. They developed a penchant for mergers into larger and larger credit unions. Some even toyed with converting out of the cooperative model into the shareholder model the way insurance and bank mutuals have done.

    The cooperative model, whether in finance, food, housing or any other sector of the economy,does best when the owner-cooperators are active in the general operations and directions of their co-op. Passive owners allow managers to stray or contemplate straying from cooperative practices.

    The one area that is now spelling some trouble for retail cooperatives comes from the so-called “corporate credit unions”, a terrible nomenclature, which were established to provide liquidity for the retail credit unions. These large wholesale credit unions are not exactly infused with the cooperative philosophy. Some of them gravitate toward the corporate banking model. They invested in those risky mortgage securities with the money from the retail credit unions. These “toxic assets” have fallen $14 billion among the 28 corporate credit unions involved.

    So the National Credit Union Administration is expanding its lending programs to these corporate credit unions to a maximum capacity of $41.5 billion. NCUA also wants to have retail credit unions qualified for the TARP rescue program just to provide a level playing field with the commercial banks.

    Becoming more like investment banks the wholesale credit unions wanted to attract, with ever higher riskier yields, more of the retail credit union deposits. This set the stage for the one major blemish of imprudence on the credit union subeconomy.

    There are very contemporary lessons to be learned from the successes of the credit union model such as being responsive to consumer loan needs and down to earth with their portfolios. Yet in all the massive media coverage of the Wall Street barons and their lethal financial escapades, crimes and frauds, little is being written about how the regulation, philosophy and behavior of the credit unions largely escaped this catastrophe.

    There is, moreover, a lesson for retail credit unions. Beware and avoid the seepage or supremacy of the corporate financial model which, in its present degraded overly complex and abstract form, has become what one prosecutor called “lying, cheating and stealing” in fancy clothing.

    Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate.

    ***

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090225_getting_warmer/

    Getting Warmer

    By Robert Scheer Truthdig: Freb 24, 2009

    We are lucky to have Barack Obama as president. I write that even though I believe the content of his Tuesday evening speech deserved no more than a B+ / A-, for its failure to seriously address the origins of the banking crisis and for only hinting at the severe military budget cuts required to get close to his goal of reducing the federal deficit by the end of his first term.

    But first the positives, which were stunning, and I am not referring only to his superb delivery, which thankfully is logical and informed and inspires without pandering. The one truly memorable, historically significant line-unfortunately desperately needed because of the shameful actions of his predecessor-was: “. I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States does not torture.”

    That simple declarative sentence justifies my vote for the man, no matter my disagreements with him. It is recognition of the essential vitality of a free society as defined by our Founders through the protections they wrote into the Constitution and which George W. Bush so casually demolished. As Obama put it, “. living our values doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger.”

    Another gift of this speech is the reassertion that government exists to redress our grievances rather than exacerbate them. His is a bold reincarnation of the wisdom of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the Democratic Party had all but abandoned. Obama’s insistence that government rather than just the “free market” should set needed priorities is refreshing and important, particularly in light of his emphasizing the changes needed in education, health care and energy efficiency-the three areas that a short-term view of economic growth systematically neglected since the New Deal.

    So, he was great, and when I was just listening to the speech, I was quite enthralled, as were those around me. But on reading his remarks, I have questions.

    Speaking of the financial crisis, he observed, quite correctly, “. it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.” Then he went on to observe, “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market.” Leave aside that his top economic advisers, particularly Lawrence Summers, were responsible for that gutting. Maybe they have reformed and will now do the right thing.

    But the right thing begins with a recognition that it was deregulation, specifically the ending of all statutory regulation of the “hybrid instruments” that allowed for the exotic financial products that have turned so toxic. Just read the language of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Summers as treasury secretary pushed and which he got then lame-duck President Bill Clinton to sign.

    When Obama stated “I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system,” he missed the point. The system is not outdated; it is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Wall Street bandits. Unless we return to the New Deal-created rules that separated the activities of banks, stockbrokers and insurance companies and put them under tight regulation, we are doomed to a repeat of this meltdown.

    The other problem with the speech is that while Obama made some fleeting references to getting rid of Cold War-era weapons and did promise an end to the Iraq disaster, he once again left open the door to the United States being trapped in an even more treacherous quagmire in Afghanistan.

    At some point, if he is to make good on his promise to cut the deficit by half within four years, he will have to confront the military-industrial complex, which now obtains much larger annual budget allocations than when President Dwight Eisenhower issued his famous warning.

    Currently, military spending makes up 60 percent of the federal government’s discretionary budget. Let me offer one example of why the president must begin to turn swords into plowshares if we are to have a sound economy. That example concerns his bold call for spending $15 billion a year on the entire program to develop alternative sources of energy. Sounds like a lot of money, but it isn’t when one considers that an almost equal amount, $14 billion, for Virginia-class submarines-worthless in fighting landlocked terrorists-was pushed through the Congress in the month before Obama took office.

    The critical test for Obama will be to break that incestuous circle of influence, particularly the clout of the bankers and the war profiteers and the other top lobbies that pay off both parties, and put the public interest first.

    Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate.

    Facebook backtracks on TOS; Privacy changes still coming later

    2

    By Larry Dignan 

    Facebook has reverted to its old terms of service after a backlash from users.

    Over the weekend a ruckus ensued after it was discovered that Facebook changed two sentences to its terms of service. Originally, Facebook allowed users to delete all of their uploaded content and walk away with only archived copies left behind. That clause disappeared meaning that Facebook could continue to use your content after you quit.

    Enter the hubbub. Groups against Facebook surfaced (on Facebook of course). Privacy advocates screamed. The problem: Facebook tweaked its terms without any heads up and gave itself broad rights over user content.

    Facebook retreated a day later.

    In a blog post, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg said:

    A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.

    Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input.

    Going forward, we’ve decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now.

    The key words there are “for now.”

    Zuckerberg said that the next version of the TOS will have a “substantial revision.” However, users will have a say in the crafting of the privacy policy.

    Overall, this approach is better. Facebook has to give users a heads up on privacy changes. While we’re pondering a new TOS and privacy changes here’s what needs to happen everywhere:

    • Privacy policies need to be written in English;
    • Privacy policies need a nutrition label of sorts so I know what’s going on at a glance;
    • Users need to realize they have very little privacy rights in the first place;
    • But users should be given a heads up to privacy policy changes and be allowed to opt out in a certain window.

    Facebook now owns your content – forever

    3

    By Verity Burns

    Facebook has updated its terms of service this month, claiming rights to all content uploaded to the site, even after you delete your account.

    Previously, the terms had read that Facebook’s rights to to any original content you upload expired after you closed your account. This important little paragraph has now been deleted.

    The terms were officially updated on 4 February, however the changes have only just come to light after a blog site highlighted them in an article that has sent the news worldwide.

    The change has caused outrage among users and non-user alike, with many people feeling they should have been alerted to the changes before they went ahead.

    However, Mark Zuckerberg has been quick to respond to the controversy on the Facebook blog under the title “On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information”.

    Zuckerberg offered a simple example to show why the terms of service had to change.

    “When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created–one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message.

    “We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear”.

    Zuckerberg added: “Trust us, we’re not doing this to profit from you, it’s so we are legally protected as we enable you to share content with other users and services”.

    Do you trust Facebook? Let us know what you think about the new changes in the comments section.

    Police will not be prosecuted for Jean Charles de Menezes killing

    2

    By Paul Bond

    The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced Friday that no police officer would face trial for the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. The CPS had reviewed the case following the open verdict given in December by an inquest jury, who rejected the police account of events. De Menezes’s family has announced that they will sue Scotland Yard for damages.

    Jean Charles de Menezes, a young Brazilian electrician, was shot dead on July 22, 2005, two weeks after the July 7 bombings in London that killed 56 people. He was mistaken for one of the failed July 21 bombers and was trailed from his flat by anti-terror officers. They then burst onto a London underground train, pinned Jean Charles down and shot him seven times in the head at point-blank range.

    In the immediate wake of the killing there was a flood of media reports suggesting that de Menezes was a known terror suspect whose behaviour had been suspicious. It was reported that he was wearing a bulky jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and that when challenged by the police at Stockwell station he had leaped the ticket barriers and run onto the train.

    This version of events was revealed to be entirely false. In fact the police had not even clearly identified him as the man they thought they were following, Hussain Osman. He was not wearing bulky clothing, and did not vault the ticket barrier at Stockwell station to evade capture or otherwise. He had, rather, picked up a free newspaper and walked down to the platform before taking a seat on the train. Eyewitnesses said that he was not challenged or warned by the police before being held down and killed.

    There were rapid moves to cover up details of the case and ensure that no one was held responsible. Investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission established nothing. One year after the killing, the CPS ruled out prosecuting any of the officers involved on the grounds that there was “insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.” Instead they brought charges against the Metropolitan Police under the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to provide for de Menezes’s “health, safety and welfare.”

    This prosecution explicitly ruled out consideration of the legality of the killing and heard no evidence from officers or witnesses. It served to prevent a closer examination of “Operation Kratos,” the shoot-to-kill policy adopted previously as part of the “war on terror.”

    Kratos gives Scotland Yard authority to deploy armed squads and, if necessary, to deliver a “critical head shot” to suspected bombers. As emerged during last year’s inquest, police were prepared to take the “critical shot” without the immediate authority of a senior officer “because of the structures that were in place.” In other words, that authority was already laid down at a higher level.

    Although the police appealed against the Health and Safety prosecution, it was little more than a slap on the wrist, as any resultant fines would be borne by the taxpayer. The police were fined £175,000 in 2007, and the CPS resisted calls from the family for a full investigation.

    Last year’s three-month inquest was held under pressure from de Menezes’s family, but the coroner, Sir Michael Wright, laid down restrictions. It was, he insisted, a fact-finding inquest, which could not return a verdict inconsistent with the Health and Safety prosecution. Blanket anonymity was granted to police officers wherever requested.

    Even with these safeguards, the inquest was revealing of the police operation. Eyewitnesses rejected the police version of events on the train, insisting that de Menezes received no warning and that firearms officers did not identify themselves.

    Firearms officers admitted that they wrote their statements after conferring among themselves, and after they knew they had shot the wrong person. No CCTV evidence was supposedly available for Stockwell station, nor was any video surveillance evidence available for de Menezes’s flat. No audio recordings of communication between officers were provided, nor were any records of the briefings given to firearms and surveillance officers. Doubts were also cast on the surveillance log, when it was revealed that an officer had removed a line from his notes which contradicted police claims that Menezes posed a threat.

    Wright attempted to limit the damage as far as possible. He told jurors that he would not allow a verdict of unlawful killing. He supported the argument of the police legal teams that the evidence would only support a lawful killing or open verdict. He also accepted their demand that the scope of the jury’s narrative be limited to a set of specific questions to which they could answer only yes, no, or cannot decide. The family’s lawyers noted that the questions were framed in a “highly offensive: and prejudicial way. They included the suggestion that de Menezes might have been in some way to blame for his death because “his innocent behaviour…may have aroused officers’ suspicions.”

    Wright dismissed the family’s lawyers arguments that there was sufficient evidence to permit consideration of an unlawful killing (murder) verdict in respect of the two policemen who shot de Menezes, and an unlawful killing (gross negligence, manslaughter) verdict in respect of former commander Cressida Dick, presently deputy assistant commissioner, and two other commanders. Wright appealed to the precedent of the Health and Safety trial, which concluded that Dick bore “no personal culpability.”

    Lawyer Gareth Peirce pointed out that the family had highlighted “25 serious and catastrophic failures” on Dick’s part alone. Wright rejected requests that the jury be given a “comprehensive” set of questions and allowed to write a “meaningful” narrative in their own words.

    When Wright ruled out a verdict of unlawful killing, members of de Menezes’s family instructed their legal team to cease participating in the inquest and to challenge the decision through legal review. The family protested in the courtroom, wearing t-shirts saying, “Your Legal Right To Decide” and “Unlawful Killing Verdict.” A gagging order was placed on the press and family to prevent them from publicising the legal challenge and the protest, while Wright gave “the wholly misleading impression that the family’s legal counsel were in agreement with his decisions.” Wright rejected requests to adjourn the inquest pending pursuit of the judicial review and proceeded with his summing up. He also issued the list of questions to the jury, effectively ensuring that the challenge could not succeed.

    The jury’s verdict was still the most damaging outcome to the Metropolitan Police, given these restrictions. By an eight-to-two majority they presented an open verdict, thereby rejecting the police claims that this was a lawful killing. They rejected claims by the officers that de Menezes had been warned, and criticised the police operation. Harriet Wistrich, the family’s lawyer, called for the prosecution of officers for perjury.

    Because of this, the CPS was forced reluctantly to review the inquest evidence. Stephen O’Doherty, a reviewing lawyer, acknowledged that the jury had not accepted the accounts from the two officers who killed de Menezes, identified at the inquest as C2 and C12, and that their evidence had been inconsistent.

    O’Doherty said that he considered whether C2 and C12 had acted in self-defence, as it had been claimed that de Menezes stood and moved towards the officers when they entered the train. O’Doherty also considered whether they lied to the inquest about what was said and done prior to the shooting. He concluded that “although there were some inconsistencies in what the officers said…there were also inconsistencies in what passengers had said,” and that “in the confusion of what occurred on the day, a jury could not be sure that any officer had deliberately given a false account of events.”

    This is a further attempt to exonerate the police, as the inquest had heard that officers had written up statements after discussions. The misleading written statements by police officers are here made equivalent to the recollections of eyewitnesses not heard publicly before. As the jury indicated, they were pretty sure that officers had given false accounts. They rejected C12’s claim that he had shouted “armed police” prior to firing and disputed police claims that de Menezes approached the officers.

    Further, O’Doherty said that he had reconsidered the question of culpability of officers in the police management team and that, “There was no fresh evidence which caused me to change my original decision that there was insufficient evidence to do so.”

    Jean Charles de Menezes’s cousin, Vivian Figuierdo, told the press, “We condemn the CPS decision and reject the logic of their argument. The inquest put the truth out there for all the public to see, but the authorities want us to forget the truth to stop us getting justice. But we will never forget.”

    Afghanistan: Annual report (2008) – protection of civilians in armed conflict

    0

    KABUL AND GENEVA — 17 FEBRUARY 2009 — The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) today publishes its report on the situation of civilians in armed conflict in 2008. This report, compiled by UNAMA’s Human Rights Unit draws on extensive, independent, and impartial monitoring and investigation of incidents involving the loss of life or injury to civilians in conflict zones. The analysis is geared to identifying trends as well as measures needed to pre-empt the loss of life and to enhance the protection of civilians in Afghanistan.

    In 2008, UNAMA recorded a total of 2,118 civilian casualties. The growing death toll, which represents an increase of almost 40 percent on the 1,523 civilian deaths recorded in 2007, is of great concern to the United Nations. This disquieting pattern demands that the parties to the conflict take all necessary measures to avoid the killing of civilians.

    The majority of civilian casualties — 872 (41 percent) — occurred in the south of the country, which saw heavy fighting in several provinces. High casualty figures have also been recorded in the south-east (20 percent), east (13 percent), central (13 percent) and western (9 percent) regions. Fifty-five percent (1,160) of the overall death toll was attributed to anti-government elements (AGEs) and 828 (39 percent) to Afghan security and international military forces (pro-government forces).

    The armed opposition was responsible for 1,160 civilian deaths; this represents an increase of 65 percent over 2007 figures. The vast majority — 85 percent — of those killed by anti-government elements died as a result of suicide and improvised explosive devises.

    2008 saw a distinct pattern of attacks by the armed opposition, in crowded residential and other such areas with apparent disregard for the extensive damage they cause to civilians. Insurgents have also persisted with an intimidation campaign that includes the summary execution of individuals perceived to be associated with, or supportive of, the Government and its allies. Victims include teachers; students; doctors and health workers; tribal elders; civilian government employees; former police and military personnel; and labourers involved in public-interest construction work. Schools, particularly those for girls, have come under increasing attack thereby depriving thousands of students, especially girls, of their right of access to education.

    Air-strikes were responsible for the largest percentage — 64 percent — of civilian deaths attributed to pro-government forces in 2008. Night-time raids, which sometimes result in death and injury to civilians, are of continuing concern and are widely resented in many communities.

    38 aid workers (almost all from non-governmental organisations) were killed in 2008. This is double the number for 2007. A further 147 were abducted. By the end of 2008, “humanitarian space” had shrunk considerably. Large parts of the south, south-west, south-east, east, and central regions of Afghanistan are now classified as an “extreme risk, hostile environment” for humanitarian operations.

    As the conflict intensifies, civilians bear the brunt of the fighting. In addition to the sharp increase in civilian deaths, vulnerable groups are also suffering in terms of destruction of vital infrastructure, loss of income and earning opportunities, and deterioration of access to essential services.

    The United Nations remains deeply concerned at the high cost that the armed conflict is having on civilians. While pro-government forces have instituted a number of changes to tactical directives, more needs to be done to avoid the loss of innocent lives. Afghans are, rightly, calling for greater accountability as well as precautionary measures to safeguard the lives of civilians.

    The United Nations calls on all parties to the conflict, the government of Afghanistan, and the international community to take action to ensure that obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law are observed and that the impact of the conflict on civilians is minimised.

    NOTES TO EDITORS:

    – A full copy of the report in English can be found at www.unama-afg.org

    – Pashto and Dari versions of the executive summary of the report can also be found at www.unama-afg.org

    – Journalists should also refer to the Annual Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan published on 16 February 2009. The Report can be found at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/A.HRC.10.23. pdf

    – For more information media should contact Nilab Mobarez (Pashto, Dari and English) on 0797 662 503 or Dan McNorton (English) on 0700 250 358.

    Ex-MI5 chief: Ministers scare public to pass terrorism laws

    0

    By Paul Waugh

    A FORMER MI5 chief today accused the Government of exploiting fears of terrorism to pass draconian laws as fresh allegations emerged of Britain’s complicity in torture.

    Dame Stella Rimington declared that ministers were playing into the hands of terrorists by curbing civil liberties. In an interview with a Spanish newspaper published today, Dame Stella said that the Government was “frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state”.

    Dame Stella, the first woman director general of MI5, has criticised Labour’s plans for ID cards and for the detention of terrorism suspects without charge for 42 days.

    She told La Vanguardia: “The US has gone too far with Guantanamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification”. She said British agents were “no angels” but insisted they did not kill people.

    Her remarks came amid new claims that senior Whitehall figures devised an interrogation policy for British secret service agents that allowed complicity with torture by other states.

    Evidence of the existence of the secret policy emerged during a High Court case into allegations that British resident Binyam Mohamed had been tortured in Pakistan.

    Mohamed, who is expected to return to Britain after ending a five-week hunger strike in Guantanamo Bay, alleges that an MI5 officer colluded in his mistreatment. Before being questioned by the officer, Mohamed claims he had been hung from leather straps, beaten and threatened with a firearm by Pakistani intelligence officers.

    A British agent, known only as Witness B, acknowledged that Mohamed was in an “extremely vulnerable position” when he questioned him in Karachi in 2002. The terror suspect was then transferred by the US to a secret prison camp in Morocco where he says he endured 18 months of torture. Some of the questions put to him were based on information passed by MI5 to the US.

    In court last year, the MI5 officer conceded that he did not ask whether Mohamed had been mistreated or tortured and did not consider whether his detention without trial was illegal.

    He admitted telling Mohamed that “he would get more lenient treatment if he co-operated” and said that he knew he would be transferred to US custody.

    Evidence on the existence of a Whitehall interrogation policy may emerge from 42 undisclosed documents seen by the High Court and sent to MPs on the Intelligence and Security Committee.

    Photographers protest new antiterror law

    0

    Hundreds of photographers protested outside Scotland Yard in London this morning as a new law which they claim restricts their freedom came into force.

    From today, under section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, “illiciting, publishing or communicating information on members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers which is likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism” will carry a maximum prison sentence of 10 years.

    Photographers fear police will use the law to prevent lawful pictures of protests being taken.

    To mark the law, at least 300 photographers gathered outside Scotland Yard to “exercise their democratic right — and take pictures”.

    The police officers present were repeatedly photographed, but took the protest in good spirit.

    Some photographers wore masks and fancy dress, while others wore stickers that said: “I am a photographer — not a terrorist.”

    Comedian Mark Thomas was at the protest and told Press Gazette: “I am an NUJ member and a citizen — that’s why I’m here.

    “The greater threat isn’t photographers — it’s police breaking the law at protests, denying citizens of their rights.”

    David Hoffman, a photographer with 32 years’ experience, said he now carries shinpads in his bag, claiming he had been kicked by police officers at protests.

    “The police today have been beautiful – but that isn’t always the case,” he said.

    “Recent protests have been very bad. The worst was October last year, at the Climate Rush demo.

    “One copper spent his time kicking my leg. Stood there with his steel toe caps kicking away – and me, a silver-haired man. I’ve still got chunks missing from my legs five months on.

     

    “They want you to think: I won’t cover it next time. They have been using FIT [Forward Intelligence Teams, who use cameras], they have been using intimidation.

    “They have been beautiful today, but it’s the individual officer who’s on his own at a back-street anti-fur protest. He’s less accountable.

    “It’s important the police know they’re being watched and observed. If you don’t see what’s going on, your society’s less democratic.

    “When I started, photographers were seen as representatives of the press, an important part of a public event. But over the last 30 years that has deteriorated.

    “They’re using the law as an excuse to stop photographers when, politically, they don’t want coverage.

    “Animal rights protests, peace marches, of course the poll tax — police are simply saying: We don’t want this in the paper.”

    Marc Vallee, protest co-organiser and a photographer well-known for covering protests, said: “This has been amazing.

    “Photographers are fed up with the way they have been treated for the last few years.

    “They are trying to do their job in a professional way and the counter-terrorism laws are being used against them.

    “I have had colleagues that have come out of the tube station to cover a protest, with press card, and officers have come across and said: I’m stopping you under section 44 [stop and search powers].

    “What is that doing for press freedom?”

    When it was suggested police would not use the law to prevent lawful photography, Vallee said: “It would be wonderful if that were the case – but that hasn’t been the case.

    “They have given us reassurances, and I would he happy if they were right – but history suggests they won’t be.”

    Despite Obama call for open government, Justice resists disclosing Bush secrets

    0

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Despite President Obama‘s vow to open government more than ever, the Justice Department is defending Bush administration decisions to keep secret many documents about domestic wiretapping, data collection on travelers and U.S. citizens, and interrogation of suspected terrorists.

    In half a dozen lawsuits, Justice lawyers have opposed formal motions or spurned out-of-court offers to delay court action until the new administration rewrites Freedom of Information Act guidelines and decides whether the new rules might allow the public to see more.

    In only one case has the Justice Department agreed to suspend a FOIA lawsuit until the disputed documents can be re-evaluated under the yet-to-be-written guidelines. That case involves negotiations on an anti-counterfeiting treaty, not the more controversial, secret anti-terrorism tactics that spawned the other lawsuits as well as Obama’s promises of greater openness.

    “The signs in the last few days are not entirely encouraging,” said Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed several lawsuits seeking the Bush administration’s legal rationales for warrantless domestic wiretapping and for its treatment of terrorism detainees.

    Groups that advocate open government, civil liberties and privacy were overjoyed that Obama on his first day in office reversed the FOIA policy imposed by Bush’s first attorney general, John Ashcroft. The Bush Justice Department said it would use any legitimate legal basis to defend withholding records from the public. Obama pledged “an unprecedented level of openness in government” and ordered new FOIA guidelines written with a “presumption in favor of disclosure.”

    But Justice’s actions in courts since then have cast doubt on how far the new administration will go.

    In a FOIA case seeking access to the rules governing the FBI‘s Investigative Data Warehouse – a computer database containing 1 billion searchable documents about Americans and foreigners – Justice lawyers told a district court here Thursday, “It is not clear that the new guidelines, once issued, will be retrospective to FOIA requests that the agency already has finished processing.”

    They asked the court to rule instead that the FBI has done enough. The bureau has reviewed 878 pages, withheld 76 and released some portions of 802.

    To withhold some material, the FBI cited discretionary FOIA exemptions and ones that require balancing privacy and public interests. David Sobel, attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group that advocates civil liberties in cyberspace and brought the lawsuit, said those decisions might come out differently under the new guidelines.

    The issue isn’t retroactivity, Sobel said. “The issue is whether the new administration is going to devote legal resources to fighting old battles now that the president has announced a fundamental change in the government’s approach to FOIA.”

    Other lawsuits in which Justice’s civil division has expressed opposition to delays until the administration writes its FOIA guidelines and uses them to review Bush decisions:

    – One seeking documents about the Automated Targeting System used by Customs officers to screen all travelers leaving or entering the country.

    –A case seeking records of lobbying by telecommunications companies to get legal immunity for cooperating in warrantless domestic wiretapping.

    – A case seeking Justice’s legal opinions justifying that wiretapping. One of the plaintiff attorneys, Meredith Fuchs, of the National Security Archive, a private group that publishes formerly classified government documents, said, “I’m somewhat surprised they did not take the opportunity to look at these again, but maybe it’s because the administration doesn’t have all its top Justice appointees in office yet.”

    – Three cases seeking Justice legal opinions about detention and interrogation of terrorism detainees. Civil division attorney Caroline Wolverton wrote the ACLU’s Jaffer that Justice would proceed “consistent with the principles” in Obama’s FOIA order “and also with due regard for the legitimate confidentiality interests of the executive branch and the national security interests of the United States.”

    Jaffer called that “a nonresponse response.”

    So far, Justice has expressed willingness to review Bush decisions in two cases, only one because of FOIA changes.

    Only in Sobel’s lawsuit for anti-counterfeiting treaty documents has Justice joined a plaintiff to obtain a court delay to give the administration time to write FOIA guidelines and use them to “review its determinations on the documents at issue.”

    But that case is unusual because Justice is represented by its Office of Information and Privacy, not by the civil division handles which all the other FOIA lawsuits. The information and privacy office provides governmentwide guidance on how to obey the FOIA. Attorneys in these cases worry that the information and privacy office doesn’t have the clout of the much larger civil division and may not control administration policy.

    The civil division has sought a delay to review one case – involving three 2005 Justice legal memos on the definition of “cruel and unusual” interrogation tactics. But its request didn’t mention the new FOIA policy. Instead it said Obama’s Jan. 22 executive order on detention and interrogation might alter the government position.

    Even if the new administration reviews Bush decisions, that’s no guarantee the outcome will change.

    Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration used a different legal tool to preserve secrecy: the state secrets privilege it invoked a record number of times to have lawsuits thrown out. On the same day, however, civil division attorney Douglas Letter cited the state secrets privilege in asking a federal appeals court to uphold dismissal of a lawsuit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations where they would be tortured.

    Three times Letter assured the judges his position had been approved by Obama administration officials.

    “This is not change,” said ACLU executive director Anthony Romero. “President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged” on his promise to end “abuse of state secrets.”

    Experts: U.S. ‘war on terror’ globally eroded human rights

    0

    GENEVA, Feb 16 – Washington’s “war on terror” after the Sept. 11 attacks has eroded human rights worldwide, creating lingering cynicism that the United Nations must now combat, international law experts said on Monday.

     

    Mary Robinson, who was the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights when al-Qaida militants flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001, said the United States caused harm with some of the ways it responded.

     

    “Seven years after 9/11 it is time to take stock and repeal abusive laws and policies,” the former Irish president said, warning that harsh U.S. detentions and interrogations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba gave a dangerous signal to other countries that could easily follow suit.

     

    While new U.S. President Barack Obama has announced he will close Guantanamo to break from the practices of his predecessor George W. Bush, Robinson said sweeping changes needed to take place to ensure Washington abandons its “war paradigm”.

     

    “There has been severe damage and it needs to be addressed,” she told a news conference in Geneva. “We are not more secure. We are more divided, and people are more cynical about the operation of laws.”

     

    Arthur Chaskalson, former chief justice of South Africa, said that the United States should launch an inquiry into its counter-terrorism practices, including acts of torture by individual security and intelligence agents.

     

    Although counter-terrorism issues have faded from the front pages since the change of government in Washington, Chaskalson said such practices have shifted around the world and could keep restricting liberties if they are not confronted head-on.

     

    “We all have less rights today than we had five or 10 years ago, and if nothing happens, we will have even less,” he told a Geneva briefing to launch an International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) report on counter-terrorism and human rights.

     

    The report found that many undemocratic states have referred to U.S. counter-terrorism practices to justify their own abuses, a trend Robinson said was particularly alarming.

     

    She called on the UN Security Council and Human Rights Council to step up their abuse monitoring and to assist poorer nations with police training to better target rights violators.

     

    Counter-terrorism policies worldwide should also be put under the microscope, according to Robinson. “It could warrant a special session of the Human Rights Council,” she said.

     

    The 47-member-state body has previously had special sessions on Israel and the Palestinians, Sudan’s Darfur region, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and high food prices, and will assess the global financial crisis on Friday.

     

    Robinson also questioned the effectiveness of the Council’s universal periodic review, under which every UN member has its rights record assessed on a regular rotation.

     

    “We have looked at some of the universal periodic reviews of countries that we know from our hearings have severely abused human rights in their counter-terrorism measures, and it is a soft review, there is no accountability,” she said. “There is a necessity now for leadership at the United Nations.”

     

    Countries recently reviewed by the Council include China, Russia, Germany, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. Hearings for the ICJ report took place in Bogota, Nairobi, Sydney, Belfast, London, Rabat, Washington, Buenos Aires, Jakarta, Moscow, Delhi, Islamabad, Toronto, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Cairo, and Brussels.

    Pilots want end to ID card plan

    0

    By Nick Heath 

    The government’s controversial ID card project ran into more trouble today, as the scheme was snubbed by both airline pilots and the Scottish government.

    Lawyers for the British Airline Pilots’ Association (Balpa) said they are examining whether there are legal grounds to challenge Home Office plans to force pilots to take up the cards from Autumn this year.

    Pilots are willing to lose their jobs rather than accept an ID card, Balpa told the Home Office in response to consultation over the introduction of the cards, that finished on Friday 13 February.

    The consultation is on the Identity Cards Act Secondary Legislation that will need to be approved by Parliament before ID cards can be issued to airside workers and pilots.

    It comes as the Scottish government supported calls for the government to cancel the UK rollout of the £4.7bn scheme, adding they present an “unacceptable threat to citizens’ privacy and civil liberties”.

    Scottish minister for community safety, Fergus Ewing, said in a statement: “In the midst of a deep recession, with more job losses announced nearly every day, it simply beggars belief that the UK government is pressing ahead with its costly National Identity Scheme.”

    Balpa believes it may be able to mount the legal challenge on the grounds that the Identity Cards Act 2006 gave the ascertain that the take-up of ID cards would be voluntary for UK citizens.

    A spokesman for Balpa told silicon.com: “There is a strong feeling that ID cards do nothing to increase security and that they are not going to be used as guinea pigs in this way.

    “We have our lawyers looking at whether we could mount a legal challenge on the basis that ID cards were introduced on the basis they would be voluntary.

    “This is not the case if you have to take an ID card or lose your job.”

    In its submission to the Home Office, Balpa said that forcing pilots to have ID cards “is an affront to the people who for years have been, and continue to be at the forefront in the battle against terrorist outrages”.

    silicon.com recently revealed that there are no readers in the UK capable of processing the fingerprint and photo stored electronically on the card.

    An Identity and Passport Service spokesman said in a statement: “Balpa have come to us with their concerns and we have spoken to them a number of times about how we can work with industry to resolve these.

    “Identity cards will directly benefit airside workers – not just by improving personnel security but also by speeding up pre-employment checks and increasing the efficiency of pass-issuing arrangements, making it easier for these workers to take up their posts and move from one airside job to another.”

    “Identity cards will be mandatory for all airside workers, just as other pre-employment checks are today, so that the benefits from the scheme can be realised across the aviation sector.”

    A Torture Report Could Spell Big Trouble For Bush Lawyers

    0

    By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek

    But the OPR probe began after Jack Goldsmith, a Bush appointee who took over OLC in 2003, protested the legal arguments made in the memos. Goldsmith resigned the following year after withdrawing the memos, and later wrote that he was “astonished” by the “deeply flawed” and “sloppily reasoned” legal analysis in the memos by Yoo and Bybee, including their assertion (challenged by many scholars) that the president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture.

    An internal Justice Department report on the conduct of senior lawyers who approved waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics is causing anxiety among former Bush administration officials. H. Marshall Jarrett, chief of the department’s ethics watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), confirmed last year he was investigating whether the legal advice in crucial interrogation memos “was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys.” According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials–Jay Bybee and John Yoo–as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time the report was submitted, the sources said. (Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

    But then—Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, strongly objected to the draft, according to the sources. Filip wanted the report to include responses from all three principals, said one of the sources, a former top Bush administration lawyer. (Mukasey could not be reached; his former chief of staff did not respond to requests for comment. Filip also did not return a phone message.) OPR is now seeking to include the responses before a final version is presented to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. “The matter is under review,” said Justice spokesman Matthew Miller.

    If Holder accepts the OPR findings, the report could be forwarded to state bar associations for possible disciplinary action. But some former Bush officials are furious about the OPR’s initial findings and question the premise of the probe. “OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by Justice attorneys]. They’re not constitutional scholars,” said the former Bush lawyer. Mukasey, in speeches before he left, decried the second-guessing of Justice lawyers who, acting under “almost unimaginable pressure” after 9/11, offered “their best judgment of what the law required.”

    But the OPR probe began after Jack Goldsmith, a Bush appointee who took over OLC in 2003, protested the legal arguments made in the memos. Goldsmith resigned the following year after withdrawing the memos, and later wrote that he was “astonished” by the “deeply flawed” and “sloppily reasoned” legal analysis in the memos by Yoo and Bybee, including their assertion (challenged by many scholars) that the president could unilaterally disregard a law passed by Congress banning torture.

    OPR investigators focused on whether the memo’s authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted, according to three former Bush lawyers who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe. One of the lawyers said he was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted. In a departure from the norm, Jarrett also told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year he would inform them of his findings and would “consider” releasing a public version. If he does, it could be the most revealing public glimpse yet at how some of the major decisions of Bush-era counterterrorism policy were made.

    Chávez wins Venezuela referendum

    0

    guardian.co.uk 

    Hugo Chávez‘s ambition to lead Venezuela for decades to come was backed by his people last night as the country voted yes in a referendum to abolish presidential term limits, paving the way for his indefinite re-election.

    Electoral officials said Chávez had won 54% of votes in favour of the amendment to the constitution.

    The victory margin was larger than expected after opinion polls had given him only a slight edge after a controversial campaign that pitted student protesters against police and turned the state into a “red machine” to deliver a yes vote.

    The president said he wanted to run again when his term ends in 2013, with unlimited re-election rights, to protect his self-styled socialist revolution “from enemies at home and abroad”. The vote, he said in a newspaper column, would either safeguard or sabotage a historic process of transformation and liberation that had lit up South America. “It is the dilemma of Shakespeare’s Hamlet: to be or not to be,” he said. The 54-year-old former tank commander has spoken of ruling in Venezuela beyond 2030.

    Fireworks exploded over Caracas and cars and motorbikes sped through the city as the president’s supporters celebrated, honking their horns and chanting: “Heh-ho, Chávez won’t go!” Chávez appeared on the balcony of the presidential palace to sing the national anthem.

    Earlier in the day military-style bugles sounding from government vehicles roused people and queues swiftly formed outside polling stations. Activists in red T-shirts handed flyers with 10 reasons to vote yes. Number one: “Chávez loves us and love is repaid with love.” Number two: “Chávez is incapable of doing us harm.”

    Some families were split over whether to support a charismatic leader popular for spending oil revenues on social programmes but resented for economic problems and concentrating power in his hands. “I am going to support my president. Thanks to him I have free healthcare,” said Marisabel Torres, 56, a housewife in Caracas. Her husband Ricardo, 56, a courier, was voting no. “Chávez has screwed this country enough already.”

    In December 2007 Venezuelans narrowly rejected a similar referendum covering presidential re-election — which would have removed the limit on the number of times a president could stand for office — prompting an opposition slogan for the latest campaign: “No means no.” This time the president widened the scope, to abolish term limits for mayors and governors.

    US Soldiers Investigated Over ‘Fraud’ Bigger Than Madoff

    0

    The Independent 

    In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

    The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff’s notorious Ponzi scheme.

    “I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad,” said one US businessman active in Iraq since 2003.

    In one case, auditors working for SIGIR discovered that $57.8m was sent in “pallet upon pallet of hundred-dollar bills” to the US comptroller for south-central Iraq, Robert J Stein Jr, who had himself photographed standing with the mound of money. He is among the few US officials who were in Iraq to be convicted of fraud and money-laundering.

    Despite the vast sums expended on rebuilding by the US since 2003, there have been no cranes visible on the Baghdad skyline except those at work building a new US embassy and others rusting beside a half-built giant mosque that Saddam was constructing when he was overthrown. One of the few visible signs of government work on Baghdad’s infrastructure is a tireless attention to planting palm trees and flowers in the centre strip between main roads. Those are then dug up and replanted a few months later.

    Iraqi leaders are convinced that the theft or waste of huge sums of US and Iraqi government money could have happened only if senior US officials were themselves involved in the corruption. In 2004-05, the entire Iraq military procurement budget of $1.3bn was siphoned off from the Iraqi Defence Ministry in return for 28-year-old Soviet helicopters too obsolete to fly and armoured cars easily penetrated by rifle bullets. Iraqi officials were blamed for the theft, but US military officials were largely in control of the Defence Ministry at the time and must have been either highly negligent or participants in the fraud.

    American federal investigators are now starting an inquiry into the actions of senior US officers involved in the programme to rebuild Iraq, according to The New York Times, which cites interviews with senior government officials and court documents. Court records reveal that, in January, investigators subpoenaed the bank records of Colonel Anthony B Bell, now retired from the US Army, but who was previously responsible for contracting for the reconstruction effort in 2003 and 2004. Two federal officials are cited by the paper as saying that investigators are also looking at the activities of Lieutenant-Colonel Ronald W Hirtle of the US Air Force, who was senior contracting officer in Baghdad in 2004. It is not clear what specific evidence exists against the two men, who have both said they have nothing to hide.

    The end of the Bush administration which launched the war may give fresh impetus to investigations into frauds in which tens of billions of dollars were spent on reconstruction with little being built that could be used. In the early days of the occupation, well-connected Republicans were awarded jobs in Iraq, regardless of experience. A 24-year-old from a Republican family was put in charge of the Baghdad stock exchange which had to close down because he allegedly forgot to renew the lease on its building.

    In the expanded inquiry by federal agencies, the evidence of a small-time US businessman called Dale C Stoffel who was murdered after leaving the US base at Taiji north of Baghdad in 2004 is being re-examined. Before he was killed, Mr Stoffel, an arms dealer and contractor, was granted limited immunity from prosecution after he had provided information that a network of bribery — linking companies and US officials awarding contracts — existed within the US-run Green Zone in Baghdad. He said bribes of tens of thousands of dollars were regularly delivered in pizza boxes sent to US contracting officers.

    So far, US officers who have been successfully prosecuted or unmasked have mostly been involved in small-scale corruption. Often sums paid out in cash were never recorded. In one case, an American soldier put in charge of reviving Iraqi boxing gambled away all the money but he could not be prosecuted because, although the money was certainly gone, nobody had recorded if it was $20,000 or $60,000.

    Iraqi ministers admit the wholesale corruption of their government. Ali Allawi, the former finance minister, said Iraq was “becoming like Nigeria in the past when all the oil revenues were stolen”. But there has also been a strong suspicion among senior Iraqis that US officials must have been complicit or using Iraqi appointees as front-men in corrupt deals. Several Iraqi officials given important jobs at the urging of the US administration in Baghdad were inexperienced. For instance, the arms procurement chief at the centre of the Defence Ministry scandal, was a Polish-Iraqi, 27 years out of Iraq, who had run a pizza restaurant on the outskirts of Bonn in the 1990s.

    In many cases, contractors never started or finished facilities they were supposedly building. As security deteriorated in Iraq from the summer of 2003 it was difficult to check if a contract had been completed. But the failure to provide electricity, water and sewage disposal during the US occupation was crucial in alienating Iraqis from the post-Saddam regime.

    Britain’s Detention Regime Causes Devastating Impact

    0

    Britain’s Control Orders And Detention Regime Cause Devastating Impact On Families, Report Reveals

    The Institute of Race Relations has published a new report on the devastating impact on family life of Britain’s anti-terrorist control order and detention policy. The report, entitled ‘Besieged in Britain’, has been written by journalist and author Victoria Brittain, co-author with Moazzam Begg of Enemy Combatant: a British Muslim’s journey to Guantánamo and back. Based on her meeting and working with the families of those UK-resident Muslims detained without charge in British prisons, placed under virtual house arrest by Home Office control orders or held at Guantánamo, the report reveals the psychological damage done by extreme denials of civil liberties.

    While Obama’s becoming US president has led to an examination of the last seven years of that country’s anti-terrorist policy, the British government’s anti-terrorist measures of detention without trial and house arrest have remained largely invisible.

    The ‘Besieged in Britain’ report describes how these measures have:

    • caused severe mental health problems induced by extreme stress, isolation and fear;
    • led to suicide attempts;
    • driven men to leave their families and return ‘voluntarily’ to regimes where they face imprisonment and torture.

    Victoria Brittain said: ‘Do we really want our country to be one that holds men under house arrest – some for more than 20 hours a day; allows them only vetted visitors – often just one at a time; confines them to a small geographic area; forbids them internet access; electronically tags them; subjects their homes to random police searches day or night without notice; and keeps the alleged evidence against them secret?’

    The ‘Besieged in Britain’ report appears in the January 2009 edition of Race & Class, a quarterly journal published by the London-based educational charity, the Institute of Race Relations.

    For more information on the Institute of Race Relations, see http://www.irr.org.uk.

    Source: Arun Kundnani
    SAGE Publications UK

    Scottish Ministers ‘completely opposed’ to ID cards

    1

    The Scottish Government today denounced Westminster plans for identity cards as “unacceptable”.

    In a strongly-worded letter to the Home Office, community safety minister Fergus Ewing said the Scottish Government remained “completely opposed” to the scheme.

    He told junior Home Office minister Meg Hillier: “Given the current financial climate, the UK Government should have better uses for the vast sums of money being spent on this scheme, which presents an unacceptable threat to citizens’ privacy and civil liberties, with little tangible evidence to suggest it will do anything to safeguard against crime and terrorism.”

    Mr Ewing’s letter was the Scottish Government’s formal response to a consultation exercise on proposed rules relating to the scheme.

    These set out regulations and a code of practice that has to be in place before the first ID cards can be issued under the Identity Cards Act later this year.

    His letter also sought “clarification” on some of the detail of the proposed regulations – and queried the legality of the national identify register under European human rights rules.

    Mr Ewing said today the overall costs of the scheme could be £4.8 billion UK-wide, rising to £5.11 billion if costs associated with foreign nationals were included.

    “This money could and should be used to pay for much more worthy causes like more teachers, nurses or police officers or more schools and hospitals,” he said.

    “All citizens, including Scots, will be expected to fork out for a card and to enrol on the national identity register when this becomes compulsory in 2012.

    “The initial application fee has been fixed at £30 and that is supposedly a cut-price offer to entice citizens to get one before they become compulsory. How much they will cost from 2012 is anyone’s guess.”

    Citizens would also have to pay to enrol their biometric data, fingerprints and facial image, he said – yet it was “far from certain” that ID cards would help prevent crime and terrorism, and there are “real concerns” at the potential for fraud.

    “Although ID cards are a reserved issue, it is the case that every person in Scotland will be affected,” said Mr Ewing.

    “Only late last year, the Scottish Parliament urged the UK Government to cancel its plans for the National Identity Scheme.

    “Given the current difficult financial climate, the UK Government should have better uses for the vast sums of money being spent on this scheme and ditch this costly, ill-conceived scheme.”

    © All rights reserved

    Rep: Punish Those Who Lie Us Into War

    2

    U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., has introduced legislation that would impose fines or prison time on presidents or executive-branch officials who “knowingly and willfully” mislead Congress to gain authorization to use U.S. military forces.

    Jones, who has repeatedly and publicly regretted his vote to support the war in Iraq, said that he doesn’t know how far the Executive Accountability Act of 2009 will get when it comes to gaining passage. But even if all the bill gets is a springtime hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, Jones says, he thinks that is progress.

    “We’re saying, ‘Mr. President, be sure,'” Jones said in an interview. “Be sure that if you are going to ask us to commit our boys and girls to risk their lives, that all the facts are on the table. … Make sure there are no questions. … Mr. President, you better be sure.”

    Jones’ 3rd District is dotted with military bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in Havelock and Camp Lejeune and New River in Jacksonville. He thinks of the young men and women serving on those bases and others, he said.

    And he rejects the notion that a bill requiring the president to tell the truth about a potential war is an extreme measure.

    “The Constitution says that the Congress shall declare war … but the Congress has been neutered,” he said.

    Jones said his decision to support the Executive Accountability Act is based on history. But it was the Clinton administration, not that of former President George W. Bush, that Jones discussed in the next breath.

    In April 1999, Jones and about 15 other legislators filed a federal lawsuit opposing former President Bill Clinton’s decision to commit troops to Kosovo.

    The lawsuit “never went past the filing stage,” Jones said

    The Executive Accountability Act was introduced last week and is co-sponsored by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat from Hawaii. If passed, the act would apply only to current and future presidential administrations and executive branches.

    The act calls for fines or up to 10 years in prison for leaders found guilty of misleading Congress in order to get authorization to go to war.

    The five-year statute of limitations on prosecuting any such crime would not begin until the end the presidential term during which the alleged crime happened, according to the legislation.

    Jones invoked the words of Abraham Lincoln to explain his own reasoning for supporting the legislation.

    “Lincoln famously said, ‘I have faith in the people. … The danger is, they are misled. Let them know the truth and the country is safe,'” Jones said. “Our country is safest when the people and their elected representatives in the U.S. Congress can make decisions based on hard evidence and facts.”

    © Copyright 2009 Daily News

    Australian troops kill 5 Afghan children

    0

    By Brendan Nicholson

    AUSTRALIAN special forces soldiers have killed five children in an attack on a compound in Afghanistan.

    The tragedy has triggered a strong warning from the Afghan Government that civilian deaths are playing into the hands of the Taliban.

    Afghan ambassador Amanullah Jayhoon said his Government was very concerned that the Australians had not co-ordinated the operation with Afghan security forces.

    The ambassador said 1000 civilians were killed by Coalition forces last year and such killings were eroding support for the Afghan Government.

    “There is no doubt that the Australian troops are doing their best in a very difficult and dangerous place,” the ambassador told the Nine Network.

    The Australian Defence Force chief of joint operations, Lieutenant-General Mark Evans, said the soldiers were involved in an operation in Oruzgan province, southern Afghanistan, in darkness early on Thursday.

    “During the conduct of this operation there was an exchange of fire between our forces and the Taliban,” General Evans said.

    “Tragically, a number of people were killed and wounded during this incident.”

    A suspected insurgent was killed along with five Afghan children. No Australians were hurt.

    Australians operated under strict rules of engagement and set out to avoid civilian casualties at all times, General Evans said.

    “The Taliban operate within the civilian community. We do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties and deeply regret the loss of innocent life.”

    The ADF has launched an investigation, which would take several weeks to complete, he said.