| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2005 06:40:38 AM |
| Object: |
OT: WE'VE GOT THE FUCKIN' GOODS, PEOPLE! |
Sorry to yell, but *holy* *fucking* *******.
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan had openly
broken the law and published the secret documents on torture.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/
Read it and download it quickly before it's censored from the web.
There's also this little tidbit on his site:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay12.html
So much for "I'm not close to Kenny-boy".
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
EAC's chief cook and brainwasher
-----
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,
it's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
- George W. Bush, US President
"From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow
more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30
populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable
regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries,
caused the end of life for several million people, and
condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."
- William Blum
"The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the
non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God."
- 15-year-old fundamentalist fan of the books
.
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: WE'VE GOT THE FUCKIN' GOODS, PEOPLE! |
31 Dec 2005 01:00:36 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism,
<>
wrote
on 31 Dec 2005 04:40:38 -0800
<1136032838.846586.153140@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
Sorry to yell, but *holy* *fucking* *******.
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan had openly
broken the law and published the secret documents on torture.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/
Read it and download it quickly before it's censored from the web.
There's also this little tidbit on his site:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay12.html
So much for "I'm not close to Kenny-boy".
The question is: is he close to being impeached? :-)
(hope, hope)
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, -- which will make him the 3rd Prez thus "honored"
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: WE'VE GOT THE FUCKIN' GOODS, PEOPLE! |
01 Jan 2006 03:33:24 PM |
|
|
On 31 Dec 2005 04:40:38 -0800, wrote:
Sorry to yell, but *holy* *fucking* *******.
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan had openly
broken the law and published the secret documents on torture.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/
Read it and download it quickly before it's censored from the web.
December 29, 2005
Damning documentary evidence unveiled. Dissident bloggers in
coordinated exposé of UK government lies over torture.
Help us beat the British government's gagging order by mirroring this
information on your own site or blog!
Constituent: "This question is for Mr Straw; Have you ever read any
documents where the intelligence has been procured through torturous
means?"
Jack Straw: "Not to the best of my knowledge... let me make this
clear... the British government does not support torture in any
circumstances. Full stop. We do not support the obtaining of
intelligence by torture, or its use." - Foreign Secretary Jack Straw,
election hustings, Blackburn, April 2005
I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael Wood
gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to use
intelligence acquired by torture... On behalf of the intelligence
services, Matthew Kydd said that they found some of the material very
useful indeed with a direct bearing on the war on terror. Linda
Duffield said that she had been asked to assure me that my qualms of
conscience were respected and understood. - Ambassador Craig Murray,
memo to the Foreign Office, July 2004
With Tony Blair and Jack Straw cornered on extraordinary rendition,
the UK government is particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of
our complicity in obtaining intelligence extracted by foreign
torturers.
The British Foreign Office is now seeking to block publication of
Craig Murray's forthcoming book, which documents his time as
Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The Foreign Office has demanded that Craig
Murray remove all references to two especially damning British
government documents, indicating that our government was knowingly
receiving information extracted by the Uzbeks through torture, and
return every copy that he has in his possession.
Craig Murray is refusing to do this. Instead, the documents are today
being published simultaneously on blogs all around the world.
The first document contains the text of several telegrams that Craig
Murray sent back to London from 2002 to 2004, warning that the
information being passed on by the Uzbek security services was
torture-tainted, and challenging MI6 claims that the information was
nonetheless "useful".
The second document is the text of a legal opinion from the Foreign
Office's Michael Wood, arguing that the use by intelligence services
of information extracted through torture does not constitute a
violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.
Craig Murray says:
In March 2003 I was summoned back to London from Tashkent specifically
for a meeting at which I was told to stop protesting. I was told
specifically that it was perfectly legal for us to obtain and to use
intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers.
After this meeting Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office's legal adviser, wrote to confirm this position. This minute
from Michael Wood is perhaps the most important document that has
become public about extraordinary rendition. It is irrefutable
evidence of the government's use of torture material, and that I was
attempting to stop it. It is no wonder that the government is trying
to suppress this.
First document: Confidential letters from Uzbekistan
Letter #1
Confidential
FM Tashkent
TO FCO, Cabinet Office, DFID, MODUK, OSCE Posts, Security Council
Posts
16 September 02
SUBJECT: US/Uzbekistan: Promoting Terrorism
SUMMARY
US plays down human rights situation in Uzbekistan. A dangerous
policy: increasing repression combined with poverty will promote
Islamic terrorism. Support to Karimov regime a bankrupt and cynical
policy.
DETAIL
The Economist of 7 September states: "Uzbekistan, in particular, has
jailed many thousands of moderate Islamists, an excellent way of
converting their families and friends to extremism." The Economist
also spoke of "the growing despotism of Mr Karimov" and judged that
"the past year has seen a further deterioration of an already grim
human rights record". I agree.
Between 7,000 and 10,000 political and religious prisoners are
currently detained, many after trials before kangaroo courts with no
representation. Terrible torture is commonplace: the EU is currently
considering a demarche over the terrible case of two Muslims tortured
to death in jail apparently with boiling water. Two leading
dissidents, Elena Urlaeva and Larissa Vdovna, were two weeks ago
committed to a lunatic asylum, where they are being drugged, for
demonstrating on human rights. Opposition political parties remain
banned. There is no doubt that September 11 gave the pretext to crack
down still harder on dissent under the guise of counter-terrorism.
Yet on 8 September the US State Department certified that Uzbekistan
was improving in both human rights and democracy, thus fulfilling a
constitutional requirement and allowing the continuing disbursement of
$140 million of US aid to Uzbekistan this year. Human Rights Watch
immediately published a commendably sober and balanced rebuttal of the
State Department claim.
Again we are back in the area of the US accepting sham reform [a
reference to my previous telegram on the economy]. In August media
censorship was abolished, and theoretically there are independent
media outlets, but in practice there is absolutely no criticism of
President Karimov or the central government in any Uzbek media. State
Department call this self-censorship: I am not sure that is a fair way
to describe an unwillingness to experience the brutal methods of the
security services.
Similarly, following US pressure when Karimov visited Washington, a
human rights NGO has been permitted to register. This is an advance,
but they have little impact given that no media are prepared to cover
any of their activities or carry any of their statements.
The final improvement State quote is that in one case of murder of a
prisoner the police involved have been prosecuted. That is an
improvement, but again related to the Karimov visit and does not
appear to presage a general change of policy. On the latest cases of
torture deaths the Uzbeks have given the OSCE an incredible
explanation, given the nature of the injuries, that the victims died
in a fight between prisoners.
But allowing a single NGO, a token prosecution of police officers and
a fake press freedom cannot possibly outweigh the huge scale of
detentions, the torture and the secret executions. President Karimov
has admitted to 100 executions a year but human rights groups believe
there are more. Added to this, all opposition parties remain banned
(the President got a 98% vote) and the Internet is strictly
controlled. All Internet providers must go through a single government
server and access is barred to many sites including all dissident and
opposition sites and much international media (including, ironically,
waronterrorism.com). This is in essence still a totalitarian state:
there is far less freedom than still prevails, for example, in
Mugabe's Zimbabwe. A Movement for Democratic Change or any judicial
independence would be impossible here.
Karimov is a dictator who is committed to neither political nor
economic reform. The purpose of his regime is not the development of
his country but the diversion of economic rent to his oligarchic
supporters through government controls. As a senior Uzbek academic
told me privately, there is more repression here now than in
Brezhnev's time. The US are trying to prop up Karimov economically and
to justify this support they need to claim that a process of economic
and political reform is underway. That they do so claim is either
cynicism or self-delusion.
This policy is doomed to failure. Karimov is driving this
resource-rich country towards economic ruin like an Abacha. And the
policy of increasing repression aimed indiscriminately at pious
Muslims, combined with a deepening poverty, is the most certain way to
ensure continuing support for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. They
have certainly been decimated and disorganised in Afghanistan, and
Karimov's repression may keep the lid on for years – but pressure is
building and could ultimately explode.
I quite understand the interest of the US in strategic airbases and
why they back Karimov, but I believe US policy is misconceived. In the
short term it may help fight terrorism but in the medium term it will
promote it, as the Economist points out. And it can never be right to
lower our standards on human rights. There is a complex situation in
Central Asia and it is wrong to look at it only through a prism picked
up on September 12. Worst of all is what appears to be the philosophy
underlying the current US view of Uzbekistan: that September 11
divided the World into two camps in the "War against Terrorism" and
that Karimov is on "our" side.
If Karimov is on "our" side, then this war cannot be simply between
the forces of good and evil. It must be about more complex things,
like securing the long-term US military presence in Uzbekistan. I
silently wept at the 11 September commemoration here. The right words
on New York have all been said. But last week was also another
anniversary – the US-led overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile. The
subsequent dictatorship killed, dare I say it, rather more people than
died on September 11. Should we not remember then also, and learn from
that too? I fear that we are heading down the same path of
US-sponsored dictatorship here. It is ironic that the beneficiary is
perhaps the most unreformed of the World's old communist leaders.
We need to think much more deeply about Central Asia. It is easy to
place Uzbekistan in the "too difficult" tray and let the US run with
it, but I think they are running in the wrong direction. We should
tell them of the dangers we see. Our policy is theoretically one of
engagement, but in practice this has not meant much. Engagement makes
sense, but it must mean grappling with the problems, not mute
collaboration. We need to start actively to state a distinctive
position on democracy and human rights, and press for a realistic view
to be taken in the IMF. We should continue to resist pressures to
start a bilateral DFID programme, unless channelled
non-governmentally, and not restore ECGD cover despite the constant
lobbying. We should not invite Karimov to the UK. We should step up
our public diplomacy effort, stressing democratic values, including
more resources from the British Council. We should increase support to
human rights activists, and strive for contact with non-official
Islamic groups.
Above all we need to care about the 22 million Uzbek people, suffering
from poverty and lack of freedom. They are not just pawns in the new
Great Game.
MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #2
Confidential
Fm Tashkent
To FCO
18 March 2003
SUBJECT: US FOREIGN POLICY
SUMMARY
1. As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy
or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US
pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must
not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.
DETAIL
2. Last year the US gave half a billion dollars in aid to Uzbekistan,
about a quarter of it military aid. Bush and Powell repeatedly hail
Karimov as a friend and ally. Yet this regime has at least seven
thousand prisoners of conscience; it is a one party state without
freedom of speech, without freedom of media, without freedom of
movement, without freedom of assembly, without freedom of religion. It
practices, systematically, the most hideous tortures on thousands.
Most of the population live in conditions precisely analogous with
medieval serfdom.
3. Uzbekistan's geo-strategic position is crucial. It has half the
population of the whole of Central Asia. It alone borders all the
other states in a region which is important to future Western oil and
gas supplies. It is the regional military power. That is why the US is
here, and here to stay. Contractors at the US military bases are
extending the design life of the buildings from ten to twenty five
years.
4. Democracy and human rights are, despite their protestations to the
contrary, in practice a long way down the US agenda here. Aid this
year will be slightly less, but there is no intention to introduce any
meaningful conditionality. Nobody can believe this level of aid – more
than US aid to all of West Africa – is related to comparative
developmental need as opposed to political support for Karimov. While
the US makes token and low-level references to human rights to appease
domestic opinion, they view Karimov's vicious regime as a bastion
against fundamentalism. He – and they – are in fact creating
fundamentalism. When the US gives this much support to a regime that
tortures people to death for having a beard or praying five times a
day, is it any surprise that Muslims come to hate the West?
5. I was stunned to hear that the US had pressured the EU to withdraw
a motion on Human Rights in Uzbekistan which the EU was tabling at the
UN Commission for Human Rights in Geneva. I was most unhappy to find
that we are helping the US in what I can only call this cover-up. I am
saddened when the US constantly quote fake improvements in human
rights in Uzbekistan, such as the abolition of censorship and Internet
freedom, which quite simply have not happened (I see these are quoted
in the draft EBRD strategy for Uzbekistan, again I understand at
American urging).
6. From Tashkent it is difficult to agree that we and the US are
activated by shared values. Here we have a brutal US sponsored
dictatorship reminiscent of Central and South American policy under
previous US Republican administrations. I watched George Bush talk
today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror… removing the
torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov
regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as
peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in
international fora. Double standards? Yes.
7. I hope that once the present crisis is over we will make plain to
the US, at senior level, our serious concern over their policy in
Uzbekistan.
MURRAY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Letter #3
CONFIDENTIAL
FM TASHKENT
TO IMMEDIATE FCO
TELNO 63
OF 220939 JULY 04
INFO IMMEDIATE DFID, ISLAMIC POSTS, MOD, OSCE POSTS UKDEL EBRD LONDON,
UKMIS GENEVA, UKMIS MEW YORK
SUBJECT: RECEIPT OF INTELLIGENCE OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
SUMMARY
1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek
intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad
information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to
confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to
believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.
2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the
question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is
morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our
post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral
standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop
torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the
results.
3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services
they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence
here, but not as in a friendly state.
DETAIL
4. In the period December 2002 to March 2003 I raised several times
the issue of intelligence material from the Uzbek security services
which was obtained under torture and passed to us via the CIA. I
queried the legality, efficacy and morality of the practice.
5. I was summoned to the UK for a meeting on 8 March 2003. Michael
Wood gave his legal opinion that it was not illegal to obtain and to
use intelligence acquired by torture. He said the only legal
limitation on its use was that it could not be used in legal
proceedings, under Article 15 of the UN Convention on Torture.
6. On behalf of the intelligence services, Matthew Kydd said that they
found some of the material very useful indeed with a direct bearing on
the war on terror. Linda Duffield said that she had been asked to
assure me that my qualms of conscience were respected and understood.
7. Sir Michael Jay's circular of 26 May stated that there was a
reporting obligation on us to report torture by allies (and I have
been instructed to refer to Uzbekistan as such in the context of the
war on terror). You, Sir, have made a number of striking, and I
believe heartfelt, condemnations of torture in the last few weeks. I
had in the light of this decided to return to this question and to
highlight an apparent contradiction in our policy. I had intimated as
much to the Head of Eastern Department.
8. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear that without informing
me of the meeting, or since informing me of the result of the meeting,
a meeting was convened in the FCO at the level of Heads of Department
and above, precisely to consider the question of the receipt of Uzbek
intelligence material obtained under torture. As the office knew, I
was in London at the time and perfectly able to attend the meeting. I
still have only gleaned that it happened.
9. I understand that the meeting decided to continue to obtain the
Uzbek torture material. I understand that the principal argument
deployed was that the intelligence material disguises the precise
source, ie it does not ordinarily reveal the name of the individual
who is tortured. Indeed this is true – the material is marked with a
euphemism such as "From detainee debriefing." The argument runs that
if the individual is not named, we cannot prove that he was tortured.
10. I will not attempt to hide my utter contempt for such casuistry,
nor my shame that I work in and organisation where colleagues would
resort to it to justify torture. I have dealt with hundreds of
individual cases of political or religious prisoners in Uzbekistan,
and I have met with very few where torture, as defined in the UN
convention, was not employed. When my then DHM raised the question
with the CIA head of station 15 months ago, he readily acknowledged
torture was deployed in obtaining intelligence. I do not think there
is any doubt as to the fact
11. The torture record of the Uzbek security services could hardly be
more widely known. Plainly there are, at the very least, reasonable
grounds for believing the material is obtained under torture. There is
helpful guidance at Article 3 of the UN Convention;
"The competent authorities shall take into account all relevant
considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the state
concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass
violations of human rights." While this article forbids extradition or
deportation to Uzbekistan, it is the right test for the present
question also.
12. On the usefulness of the material obtained, this is irrelevant.
Article 2 of the Convention, to which we are a party, could not be
plainer:
"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a
threat of war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."
13. Nonetheless, I repeat that this material is useless – we are
selling our souls for dross. It is in fact positively harmful. It is
designed to give the message the Uzbeks want the West to hear. It
exaggerates the role, size, organisation and activity of the IMU and
its links with Al Qaida. The aim is to convince the West that the
Uzbeks are a vital cog against a common foe, that they should keep the
assistance, especially military assistance, coming, and that they
should mute the international criticism on human rights and economic
reform.
14. I was taken aback when Matthew Kydd said this stuff was valuable.
Sixteen months ago it was difficult to argue with SIS in the area of
intelligence assessment. But post Butler we know, not only that they
can get it wrong on even the most vital and high profile issues, but
that they have a particular yen for highly coloured material which
exaggerates the threat. That is precisely what the Uzbeks give them.
Furthermore MI6 have no operative within a thousand miles of me and
certainly no expertise that can come close to my own in making this
assessment.
15. At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of
his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a
confession on the family's links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming
down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin
Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence
services.
16. I have been considering Michael Wood's legal view, which he kindly
gave in writing. I cannot understand why Michael concentrated only on
Article 15 of the Convention. This certainly bans the use of material
obtained under torture as evidence in proceedings, but it does not
state that this is the sole exclusion of the use of such material.
17. The relevant article seems to me Article 4, which talks of
complicity in torture. Knowingly to receive its results appears to be
at least arguable as complicity. It does not appear that being in a
different country to the actual torture would preclude complicity. I
talked this over in a hypothetical sense with my old friend Prof
Francois Hampson, I believe an acknowledged World authority on the
Convention, who said that the complicity argument and the spirit of
the Convention would be likely to be winning points. I should be
grateful to hear Michael's views on this.
18. It seems to me that there are degrees of complicity and guilt, but
being at one or two removes does not make us blameless. There are
other factors. Plainly it was a breach of Article 3 of the Convention
for the coalition to deport detainees back here from Baghram, but it
has been done. That seems plainly complicit.
19. This is a difficult and dangerous part of the World. Dire and
increasing poverty and harsh repression are undoubtedly turning young
people here towards radical Islam. The Uzbek government are thus
creating this threat, and perceived US support for Karimov strengthens
anti-Western feeling. SIS ought to establish a presence here, but not
as partners of the Uzbek Security Services, whose sheer brutality puts
them beyond the pale.
MURRAY
Second Document - summary of legal opinion from Michael Wood arguing
that it is legal to use information extracted under torture:
From: Michael Wood, Legal Advisor
Date: 13 March 2003
CC: PS/PUS; Matthew Kidd, WLD
Linda Duffield
UZBEKISTAN: INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLY OBTAINED UNDER TORTURE
1. Your record of our meeting with HMA Tashkent recorded that Craig
had said that his understanding was that it was also an offence under
the UN Convention on Torture to receive or possess information under
torture. I said that I did not believe that this was the case, but
undertook to re-read the Convention.
2. I have done so. There is nothing in the Convention to this effect.
The nearest thing is article 15 which provides:
"Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established
to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as
evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of
torture as evidence that the statement was made."
3. This does not create any offence. I would expect that under UK law
any statement established to have been made as a result of torture
would not be admissible as evidence.
[signed]
M C Wood
Legal Adviser
Posted by richard on December 29, 2005 02:22 PM in the category 7 UK
Policy
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/413
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Damning documentary
evidence unveiled. Dissident bloggers in coordinated exposé of UK
government lies over torture.:
» UK Torture Memo - published! from wibbler.com
I've been a little out of the loop with Bloggerheads recently, owing
mainly to the incessant work coming in from my *real* job. But he and
his team of merry men have gone and planted a bomb underneath the
government... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 10:13 AM
» Calling All Bloggers: These Documents need publishing from Loaded
Mouth
A blog called BlairWatch is requesting that these very important
documents be published as much as possible!
[Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 10:23 AM
» Blair's torture lies.... Level 1 completed from Bloggerheads
Craig Murray's damning data release has now featured on DailyKos and
dozens of other sites here and abroad. Every post on the subject (and
there's a wide variety of them by now) urges readers to save a copy
for themselves.... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 11:13 AM
» British Torture Memos from Outside The Beltway
Craig Murray, formerly the UK’s ambassador to Uzbekistan, has copies
of two documents showing that the Blair Government knowingly allowed
“extraordinary rendition” and willingly used intelligence gathered
through torture by the Uzbek... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 12:11 PM
» Documents the government doesn't want you to see from perfect.co.uk
It’s not often you get an email from a former British Ambassador
asking you to contravene the official secrets act: I am in discussion
with the FCO over what I am and am not allowed to publish in my
book.... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 12:29 PM
» The Moral Clarity of The Bush Administration from
democracycellproject
During the 2004 election season, we heard much from the extreme right
side of the Republican Party about how homosexuality was immoral, and
a stain on the soul, and gay marriage will end with box turtles and
people getting married... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 01:53 PM
» Torture? What Torture? from AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring
Blogenfreude
It's Not the al Jazeera Memo But It's Not Bad! BlairWatch asks, we
publish! Here are a couple documents The Poodle doesn't want you to
read. Of course we don't torture! (says Tony). Background: The UK
government has been quick [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 02:15 PM
» Supporting Torture from An Insomniac
Ambassador, with this evidence of UK/US acceptance of information
gained through torture in Uzbekistan, you are really spoiling us...
[Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 02:38 PM
» Blair on torture: ‘La la la, I’m not listening’ from The Matazone
blog
Tony Blair has made a statement about British complicity with the US
policy of ‘extraordinary rendition’ (which basically means sending
people off to countries that can torture people to gain ‘evidence’).
In this he states: ... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 03:12 PM
» Are we encouraging the torture of children? from FatMixx
Too often discussions about extraordinary renditions and torture end
up being completely theoretical. You know the arguments: the ticking
bombs, “they’re terrorists, screw ‘em”, or that torture may be the
only/best way to get... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 04:23 PM
» Calling All Bloggers: These Documents need publishing from
Blairwatch
Background: The UK government has been quick to deny that we practice,
or tolerate the practice of Torture. So it is perhaps not suprising
that they are determined that you should not see the following
documents: http://users.pandora.be/quarsan/craig/te [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 06:36 PM
» CIA used torture after all from Homeland Security or Homeland
Stupidity
Both the U.S. and U.K. governments strongly deny that they use torture
against terrorism suspects captured overseas, but documents recently
released in the U.K. show that the Central Intelligence Agency does
use torture. ... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 07:51 PM
» Bloggers Strikeout On UK Torture Memos from Wizbang
[Note: Check the updates for links to prior publication of these
"exclusives," and follow the listed trackbacks and this followup piece
for more backstory.] Lefty UK bloggers, Blair watchers, and now Daily
Kos are trumpeting their coordinated release (... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 08:44 PM
» Damning documentary evidence unveiled. Dissident bloggers in
coordinated exposé of UK government lies over torture. from
Brokekid.net
I am posting the entire article as is, I don’t want you to miss
anything. Help us beat the British government’s gagging order by
mirroring this information on your own site or blog! Constituent:
“This question is for Mr Straw; Have... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 09:18 PM
» Not DC, Not Confidential - and not vapid from in no particular order
Craig Murray - Damning documentary evidence unveiled. Dissident
bloggers in coordinated expos? of UK government lies over torture. How
interesting. In the week that Vicky's reading the vapid, preening tosh
that passes for insight in DC Confidential (... [Read More]
Tracked on December 30, 2005 09:33 PM
» Complicity from Talk Politics
I don't know. You take a few days off to redesign your blog template
into something altogether more spiffy and all hell breaks loose as
former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, releases a number of
documents, including two that the Foreign ... [Read More]
Tracked on December 31, 2005 01:43 AM
» The UK / Uzbekistan Torture Documents from Progressive Lyceum
We are joining an effort by bloggers all over the world to mirror and
disseminate Craig Murray’s damning memos that prove that the United
Kingdom knowingly received information from the Uzbeks that was
extracted by torture. Craig is risking imp... [Read More]
Tracked on December 31, 2005 03:30 AM
» Murray Publishes UK Torture Documents from Registan.net :: Central
Asia News
According toThe Scotsman, former British ambassador Craig Murray may
have violated Britain’s Official Secrets Act when he published
documents relating to charges that the UK has used evidence obtained
under torture: The Foreign Office can take ... [Read More]
Tracked on December 31, 2005 05:10 AM
» Bush's Legacy: The Torture State from Pacific Views
The worst legacy of Bush is the creation of a torture state.
Obviously, the United States has been travelling down this road for a
while (see School of the Americas and the use of torture in the dirty
wars), but... [Read More]
Tracked on December 31, 2005 06:15 AM
» Eavesdropping and Shadow Projection from Bad Attitudes
I don’t know how to sum up this post. It starts with John Dean finally
weighing in on the current eavesdropping story, and ends with some
Jungian analysis of the tendency to project our shadows onto the rest
of the world, with a bit of British a... [Read More]
Tracked on December 31, 2005 06:25 AM
» Torture, Craig Murray & the Lying Liars' Lies from Anything that
defies my sense of reason....
The lying liars who lie and lie and lie, who cannot do anything other
than lie, who have been proven time and time again to have lied again
and again and again, who know they lie, who know we know they lie, who
know we know they know we know they kno... [Read More]
Tracked on December 31, 2005 08:48 AM
Comments
The misdirected Bush policy is breaching every border of Iraq, just as
the water breached New Orleans. Both are extremely dangerous for the
US and the world. Your bravery, to stand out of the crowd and attempt
to shine the light of justice here, is commendable. Hopefully, the
newly empowered blogoshphere will assist you in your efforts. I hope
this initial effort to get your story out continues.
thanks,
cliff
Posted by: CliffButter [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2005
05:44 PM
Excerpt from Disreputable Lazy Aliens:
"Craig, DLA's everywhere salute you as that rarest of examples in
these cynical times: a principled man. You rock and more power to your
elbow!"
I've published the documents. Should Craig Murray find himself
prosecuted for this, please do not hesitate in contacting me for
(literally) a few quid towards the cost of his defence.
Posted by: edjog [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 30, 2005 09:32 PM
Done. Thank YOU for publishing it and good luck.
Posted by: scarapeya [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 31, 2005 01:50
AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-5513830,00.html
Breaking News: Ex-Ambassador publishes documents.
Mentions your name, done a search on Google and found your website.
Best of Luck Craig, don't let them do a Dr. Kelly.
Posted by: LodestarX [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 31, 2005 03:55
AM
I have published the article on my blog and on my website based in
India (http://www.duniya.in/uzbektorture.html) which is outside the
ambit of the Official Secrets Act and any government gagging order.
Posted by: Daniel [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 31, 2005 03:00 PM
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: WE'VE GOT THE FUCKIN' GOODS, PEOPLE! |
01 Jan 2006 03:18:56 PM |
|
|
On 31 Dec 2005 04:40:38 -0800, wrote:
Sorry to yell, but *holy* *fucking* *******.
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan had openly
broken the law and published the secret documents on torture.
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/
November 28, 2005
Why Torture Doesn't Work
By Brigader General David R. Irvine writing in AlterNet
Remarkably, of the nation's major newspapers, only the Wall Street
Journal has editorialized in support of torture as a useful tool of
American intelligence policy. Regrettably, that position does a huge
disservice to the nation and its soldiers. There are really only three
issues in this debate, and the Journal carefully turned a blind eye to
all three: (1) is torture reliable, (2) is it consistent with
America's values and Constitution, and (3) does it best serve our
national interests?
No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces
reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the
claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly
contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have
actually interrogated al Qaeda captives. Exhibit A is the
torture-extracted confession of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda
captive who told the CIA in 2001, having been "rendered" to the tender
mercies of Egypt, that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda to use WMD.
It appears that this confession was the only information upon which,
in late 2002, the president, the vice president, and the secretary of
state repeatedly claimed that "credible evidence" supported that
claim, even though a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency
report from February 2002 questioned the reliability of the confession
because it was likely obtained under torture. In January 2004, al-Libi
recanted his "confession," and a month later, the CIA recalled all
intelligence reports based on his statements.
Exhibit B is the case of Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi deemed a
"high-value" target by the CIA. After being beaten to an extent that
he had several broken ribs, he was subjected to a form of crucifixion
known as "Palestinian hanging." Forty-five minutes later, he was dead,
never having revealed whatever vital, ticking-bomb information his
American interrogator was seeking.
If there is reliable evidence that torture has, in fact, interrupted
ticking time bombs and saved lives, the gravity of the crisis created
by the administration's free-wheeling torture policy demands straight
answers which can be weighed and evaluated by a bipartisan,
blue-ribbon commission whose membership might include interrogators,
jurists, theologians, national security specialists, military leaders,
and political leaders. The damage to our national interests and the
dismal record of war candor by this administration has made "trust us"
an insufficient justification for such a profound change in American
law and moral values.
The Journal claims that Abu Ghraib was an anomaly -- that it has
become a "torture narrative" that erroneously blames the CIA for the
abuses depicted in the infamous photographs. The Schlesinger report
was cited for the conclusion that the perpetrators were merely a group
of sadistic, poorly trained Reservists. This argument, however begs
the question; the rationale for the McCain amendment rests not upon
Abu Ghraib, but upon the cascading stream of documented reports from
other places in Afghanistan and Iraq in which brutal torture has been
either authorized or winked at by several different military and
civilian chains of command.
The Journal further distorts the facts by arguing that techniques such
as waterboarding (which induces the sensation of drowning), leaving
prisoners outdoors in freezing weather, and stress positions which can
cause suffocation and collapse, are not really "torture," but are just
"psychological techniques designed to break a detainee." There is,
certainly, a psychological component to torture, but the real issue is
whether what's done causes severe physical or mental pain or
suffering. Of the crucifixion form of "psychological" pressure which
the CIA worked upon Jamadi, one of the soldiers who cut him down said
he had never seen anyone's arms positioned like that; "[I] was
surprised they didn't just pop out of their sockets."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has endorsed the McCain
amendments, and declared, "In the face of this perilous climate, our
nation must not embrace a morality based on an attitude that
'desperate times call for desperate measures.' There can be no
compromise on the moral imperative to protect the basic human rights
of any individual incarcerated for any reason." Our embrace of torture
is completely inconsistent with our commitment to equal justice and
the rule of law.
The Journal assumes that only the worst of the worst will be subjected
to torture when it comes to ticking time bombs. Not only is that
assumption unfounded, based upon the widespread abuses in Iraq, it was
tried and abandoned by the Israelis. Because it is impossible to
confirm with advance certainty what any suspect actually knows,
ticking bomb torture can be justified in virtually every
interrogation. When Israel experimented with "torture lite,"
supposedly reserved for ticking-bomb circumstances, it was not long
before 85 percent of all Palestinian detainees were being given the
harshest treatment allowed. The capability to finely calibrate torture
has eluded every democratic government which has tried it.
The inescapable fact is that America's standing in the world, and
especially in the Middle East, has never been lower. The price we have
paid for our misdirected torture policies has been incalculable. The
Arab street may not always grasp the finer points of separation of
powers or proportional representation; but everyone, everywhere,
comprehends hypocrisy, and judges us for ours. If the torture
advocates truly believe that the value of violently coerced
information has been worth the plummeting drop in America's world
stature, or that such information is worth the clear and present
endangerment of captured Americans, it's time to justify the claimed
value of torture to the nation in whose name it's being done. Not
assumptions, not generalizations, not, "I can't explain because it's
classified."
The president and vice president wish to chart a course of heretofore
unacceptable savagery toward anyone even suspected of terrorism. If we
are to become a nation where a president may torture anyone he wishes,
it deserves a broad, sober, fact-based national debate.
Brigadier General David R. Irvine is a retired Army Reserve strategic
intelligence officer who taught prisoner interrogation and military
law for 18 years with the Sixth Army Intelligence School. He currently
practices law in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Posted by andrew on November 28, 2005 08:50 AM in the category 5
ExtraRendition
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/344
October 27, 2005
The reality of Britain's reliance on torture
Craig Murray writes today in The Independent on the reality of
Britain's reliance on torture
"Torture means the woman who was raped with a broken bottle, and died
after 10 days of agony"
The Government has been arguing before the House of Lords for the
right to act on intelligence obtained by torture abroad. It wants to
be able to use such material to detain people without trial in the UK,
and as evidence in the courts. Key to its case is a statement to the
Law Lords by the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller. In effect she
argues that torture works. It foiled the famous ricin plot.
She omits to mention that no more ricin was found than is the
naturally occurring base level in your house or mine - or indeed that
no poison of any kind was found. But let us leave that for now. She
argues, in effect, that we need to get intelligence from foreign
security services, to fight terrorism. And if they torture, so what?
Her chief falsehood is our pretence that we don't know what happens in
their dungeons. We do. And it is a dreadful story. Manningham-Buller
is so fastidious she even avoids using the word "torture" in her
evidence. Let alone the reality to which she turns such a carefully
blind eye.
Manningham Buller also fails to mention that a large number of people
have been tortured abroad to provide us with intelligence - because we
sent them there to be tortured. The CIA's "extraordinary rendition"
programme has become notorious. Under it, detainees have been sent
around the world to key torture destinations. There is evidence of
British complicity - not only do these CIA flights regularly operate
from UK airbases, but detainees have spoken of British intelligence
personnel working with their tormentors.
So the UK receives this intelligence material not occasionally, not
fortuitously, but in connection with a regular programme of torture
with which we are intimately associated. Uzbekistan is one of those
security services from whose "friendly liaison" services we obtained
information. And I will tell you what torture means.
It means the woman who was raped with a broken bottle in both vagina
and *****, and who died after ten days of agony. It means the old man
suspended by wrist shackles from the ceiling while his children were
beaten to a pulp before his eyes. It means the man whose fingernails
were pulled before his face was beaten and he was immersed to his
armpits in boiling liquid.
It means the 18-year-old whose knees and elbows were smashed, his hand
immersed in boiling liquid until the skin came away and the flesh
started to peel from the bone, before the back of his skull was stove
in.
These are all real cases from the Uzbek security services which we
viewed as friendly liaison, and from which we obtained regular
intelligence, in the Uzbek case via the CIA.
A month ago, that liaison relationship was stopped - not by us, but by
the Uzbeks. But as Manningham-Buller sets out, we continue to maintain
our position as customer to torturers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria,
Jordan, Morocco and many other places. The key point is that none of
the these Uzbek victims were terrorists at all.
The great majority of those who suffer torture at the hands of these
regimes are not terrorists, but political opponents. And the scale of
this torture is vast. In Uzbekistan alone thousands, not hundreds, of
innocent men, women and children suffer torture every year.
Across Manningham-Buller's web of friendly intelligence agencies, the
number may reach tens of thousands. Can our security really be based
on such widespread inhumanity, or is that not part of the grievance
that feeds terrorism?
These other governments know that our security services lap up
information from their torture chambers. This practical condoning more
than cancels out any weasel words on human rights which the Foreign
Office may issue. In fact, the case for the efficacy of torture
intelligence is not nearly as clear-cut as Manningham-Buller makes
out. Much dross comes out of the torture chambers. History should tell
us that under torture people would choke out an admission that they
had joined their neighbours in flying on broomsticks with cats.
We do not receive torture intelligence from foreign liaison security
services sometimes, or by chance. We receive it on a regular basis,
through established channels. That plainly makes us complicit. It is
worth considering, in this regard, Article 4 of the UN Convention
Against Torture, which requires signatories to make complicity with
torture a criminal offence.
When I protested about these practices within the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, I was told bluntly that Jack Straw and the head
of MI6 had considered my objections, but had come to the conclusion
that torture intelligence was important to the War on Terror, and the
practice should continue. One day, the law must bring them to account.
A final thought. Manningham-Buller is arguing about the efficiency of
torture in preventing a terrorist plot. If that argument is accepted,
then in logic there is no reason to rely on foreign intermediaries.
Why don't we do our own torturing at home? James VI and I abolished
torture - New Labour is making the first attempt in English courts to
justify government use of torture information. Why stop there? Why
can't the agencies work over terrorist suspects?
The Security Services want us to be able to use information from
torture. That should come as no surprise. From Sir Thomas Walsingham
on, the profession attracts people not squeamish about the smell of
seared flesh from the branding iron. That is why we have a judiciary
to protect us. I pray the Law Lords do.
Posted by andrew on October 27, 2005 08:39 AM in the category 5
ExtraRendition
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/266
Read it and download it quickly before it's censored from the web.
There's also this little tidbit on his site:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay12.html
So much for "I'm not close to Kenny-boy".
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
