Imagine my [complete lack of] surprise: G20 police "used undercover men to incite crowds"

I read in The Observer today that Liberal Democrat MP, Tom Brake, who was involved in the G20 protests in London last month, claims to have seen what he believed to be two plain-clothes police officers go through a police cordon after presenting their ID cards. He's now demanding an investigation into whether the police used agents provocateurs to incite the crowds at the demo.

Honestly, if only more people read my blog! I wrote a post warning about such police tactics over six weeks ago! (Always nice to be proved right, though.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Cheney wants to tell us everything about his role in approving torture...so let's give him enough rope to hang himself!

In the 1992 film 'A Few Good Men' there is a scene where Lt. Daniel Kaffee (played by Tom Cruise) tells his legal team that the key to winning the trial is to get Col. Nathan R. Jessep (played by a snarling Jack Nicholson) to admit that he gave the order for a 'code red' to be carried out against a young Private in his company at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, which subsequently led to his death. When Kaffee's team scoff at the idea that a high-ranking military figure like Jessep will simply confess, he explains his optimism thus:

"I think [Jessep] wants to say it. I think he's pissed off that he's gotta hide from us. I think he wants to say that he made a command decision and that's the end of it...no one's gonna tell him how to run his base."

Do you know who the Jessep character reminds me of? Dick Cheney.

When Cheney casually admitted that he sanctioned torture during an interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl last December, I got the distinct impression that he was just desperate to make it known. Not because he's been carrying a terrible burden of guilt; but because, like Jessep, he was incensed at the notion that he should have to field questions about the decisions he's made. If Barack Obama grew a pair and decided to bring the Bush cabal to trial for their crimes, Cheney wouldn't go into hiding - he'd be front row, centre, with a discernable smirk-cum-snarl painted across his punchable face.

He was at it again recently. When the Obama administration recently published the 'torture memos', who do you think was in the cheerleading section for even more memos to be released? That's right: Dick Cheney! He wasn't running the other way, lying low, or booking a one-way ticket to some South American resort for old war criminals, he was doing everything in his power to secure the release of further memos. Memos he believes will show "how good the intelligence was" that was obtained through torture; namely waterboarding.

Not too long after Cheney's calls for more memos to be released, former FBI agent Ali Soufan - who interrogated Abu Zubaydah for three months in 2002 using traditional methods - wrote in the New York Times that no actionable intelligence was gained from Zubaydah using 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. Furthermore, according to Soufan, such techniques also "backfired on more than a few occasions" (although, these instances remain classified).

Still, Cheney's so desperate to trumpet his involvement in the torture of these men that he's actually trying to make us believe that the intelligence they got was "good"!

But it's worth remembering Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's testimony before a closed-door hearing at Guantanamo Bay in March 2007, where he claimed to have been involved in a plan for a “second wave” of attacks against major US landmarks, which included the Plaza Bank building in Seattle, Washington, as a potential target. However, the Plaza Bank was founded in early 2006 (around three years after his arrest), which made this particular claim an unusual one. Furthermore, his confession to the beheading of journalist, Daniel Pearl, was also unconvincing. In fact, Pearl’s own father said that the facts surrounding his son’s murder “don’t match [KSM’s] story".

It's also worth remembering that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was reportedly waterboarded 183 times in one month. ONE MONTH! And yet that's the best intelligence his torturers could get out of him. When John McCain was told this figure on Fox News, he responded:

"Waterboarding is torture, period. I can assure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear."

For once, McCain's absolutely right. But the fact that torture wasn't really as effective as Cheney believes it was, doesn't matter. He just can't bare the fact that people are daring to question his highly questionable (and morally repugnant) decisions. In his twisted mind, torture works, and he's pissed off that he's got to keep justifying himself to a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.

He's untouchable, unrepentant and seriously unhinged...which is why we need to get him on the stand! I promise you, he won't be able to stop himself from admitting the very darkest aspects of his involvement (with his frugal use of words), so we should give him an ample length of rope and watch what he does with it.

Cheney is up to his neck in lies and torture and death...and yet more lies. It was Cheney's office that cultivated a pro-torture environment post-9/11. And it was he and Donald Rumsfeld who demanded that interrogators find evidence of an al Qaida-Iraq link (which was never found). Furthermore, by May 28, in accordance with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Pentagon plans to release hundreds of photos showing US personnel allegedly abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e. not just a few low-ranking "bad apples" at Abu Ghraib). The shit is still to hit the fan. And when it does, Cheney's face will be so spattered as to be almost unrecognisable.

So, if Cheney's itching to reveal all about his role in torture, then let's give him a stage...and the rope. I just know he'll put it to good use.

Read More...

Summary only...

Surprise, surprise...'Easter terror plot' suspects released without charge

The Easter terror plot (you know, the one Gordon Brown said was "a very big terrorist plot") has disappeared like the mountain of foil-wrapped chocolate eggs that briefly passed through our clutches a couple of weeks ago.

The Times has now reported that, much to the embarrassment of the police, nine of the 12 Pakistani nationals who were detained as part of 'Operation Pathway' (in armed, daylight raids on April 8) have now been released without charge. An 18-year-old student had previously been transferred to the custody of the UK Border Agency after only three days in custody.

According to The Times: "[The men] had been detained for 13 out of a possible 28 days but were released because there was no concrete evidence connecting them to terrorist activity." Although, two men are still being questioned under anti-terrorism legislation.

[**UPDATE** According to the AP all 12 men have now been released.]

In spite of the apparent imminence of the attack no bomb-making paraphernalia was ever found, and forensic examination of the suspect's computers also failed to turn up anything incriminating. However, a spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said that searches were still continuing at one property in the Cheetham Hill area of the city. (I sort of get the impression that the police are trying to find anything - simply anything - that will go some way to support their assertion that a large scale terror plot was in the offing.)

The Home Office is seeking to have the men deported "on grounds of national security", which lawyers for some of the men say they will challenge.

Read More...

Summary only...

Is the Iraq war old news? Michael Portillo seems to think so

Armando Iannucci's new film 'In the Loop' was discussed on Newsnight Review last night. Guests included: Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, former Tory politician turned broadcaster, Michael Portillo, and journalist and actress Clemency Burton-Hill.

During the discussion it became quite clear that Portillo didn't have a good word to say about the film, which is perfectly fine. After all, film is a subjective medium. However, one of his reasons for disliking the film (he claimed it was "hopelessly outdated") doesn't sit well with me.

The reason Portillo's objections to Iannucci's satire jar with me slightly is because the main plot line of 'In The Loop' (a big-screen spin-off from BBC 4's 'The Thick of It') is about the political spin and back-room machinations behind an Anglo-American march to war in the Middle East (à la Iraq). But for Portillo, this seems to be a subject too far in the past to be considered relevant and current material for a feature-length satire. “It’s basically about the sexed-up dossier of 2003; that’s six years out of date,” scoffed Portillo.

When presenter Kirsty Wark defended the film by identifying more current issues, such as the recent Damien McBride debacle and Jacqui Smith's porno expenses scandal, Portillo bellowed: "No, ['In The Loop'] has got nothing to do with Damien McBride; this is all ancient, ancient stuff. This is exhumed satire. This is a mouldering body. I think it’s really sad.”

When Wark asked Portillo if there was room for biting satire like 'In the Loop' on Westminster, he said: “Sure, I have no objection to biting satire. But, you know, let it have something to do with something that’s happened within the last six or seven years.”

So, Portillo doesn't mind satire, just as long as it's relevant to something that's happened within the last six or seven years? Maybe I'm missing something here, but haven't we only recently observed the six year anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq? Portillo was one of the MP's that voted to commit British troops to the campaign, so he should be familiar with the timescale. Furthermore, if he considers the Iraq war to be such "ancient" subject matter, then why was he writing about it in The Spectator last month? In his article, which was about the British withdrawal from Basra rather than a reflection on the build-up to war, he criticised the British government for being "more interested in spin than reality" with regards to its commitment to Iraq. It's surprising, therefore, that a film about political spin failed to hit the mark with him.

Is the subject of Iraq passé? Let's see...

Back in March, there were concerns that violence in the Iraq might once again be on the rise. And just over a week ago, the US suffered its worst mass casualties in Iraq for more than a year when a suicide truck bomb exploded outside a police compound in Mosul killing five soldiers. Meanwhile, Gordon Brown is still procrastinating over announcing an Iraq inquiry, which should ensure that the potentially embarrassing report won't be published till after the next general election in 2010. As far as I'm concerned, the Iraq war is still very much a current issue - as is the deception that took us there.

But Michael Portillo simply wasn't having it. Ian Hislop asked him: "But isn’t the Iraq war the most important thing that’s happened in the political lifetime of the people writing those sorts of films?” Portillo's bizarre response was: “Well, why not make a film about the Second World War or the First World War? I mean, it’s quite a long time ago.”

Yes, Michael, you're right. The Great War ended over 90 years ago, and World War II over 63 years ago. That is a long time ago. But Iraq? Six years? Is that history, done and dusted?

I don't think so.

The key figures responsible for taking us into Iraq have walked away unscathed. Tony Blair went on to become the world’s highest-paid public speaker; Alistair Campbell returned to Downing Street in October 2008 as an advisor to the beleaguered Gordon Brown; Geoff Hoon has been busy building up a property portfolio and was appointed Secretary of State for Transport in October 2008; and Jack Straw was appointed as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice in June 2007.

These men still have jobs, and are paid handsomely! But they still have a lot to answer for. I'm sure they're all dying for Iraq to be 'history'. But hopefully, Iannucci's satire will put Blair et al's march to war under the microscope once more.

Read More...

Summary only...

UK Terror Raids: The art of getting a story from A to B

Maybe I'm too cynical, but the big story surrounding the latest UK terror raids smells funny.

Two days ago, the story was all about a very public blunder by Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, Britain's most senior counterterrorism officer, when he sauntered into Number 10 holding a top secret security briefing under his arm, which was snapped by a scrum of eagle-eyed press photographers. As the document contained sensitive information about an ongoing investigation, police and the security services subsequently made the decision to raid several locations across the North West sooner than planned.

OK, that all seems fairly reasonable: a bit of an embarrassing blunder that could have compromised an investigation, followed by a series of arrests and Bob Quick's fairly swift resignation. Now we can all go back to sleep.

But today, the story has become something else. Now we're being told that the raids have foiled an "imminent" Easter terror plot (a "spectacular" according to the Telegraph), which would have seen a "devastating attack" against soft targets in Manchester, such as shopping centres. Prime Minister Gordon Brown referred to it as "a very big terrorist plot". (One has to wonder if this is as big a terrorist threat as the M.V. Nisha, or the thwarted plot to launch a cyanide attack on the Tube, or the desperate search for the "toxic bomb" that followed the bungled Forest Green raid, which security sources were absolutely certain existed.)

Two days after Quick's public display of incompetence, reports about the raids were being peppered with the kind of references that we should all be wearily familiar with. The detained Pakistanis were widely referred to as an al-Qaeda cell (of course it's al-Qaeda!), while the Daily Mail reported the scandal of their Home Office-approved student visa applications with the ridiculous headline "Passport to terror". Meanwhile, The Times' front page headline on Friday sensationally reported the "Scramble to find the Easter bomb factory". (Yep, another day, another bomb factory.)

What's strange, though, is that with such an "imminent" and devastating attack, which is reported to have been planned for as early as Easter Monday, no bomb factory has yet been found. Only five days till zero hour, yet no barrels of peroxide, suspicious devices or explosives have been discovered during "extensive searches" of addresses across the north-west? How quickly were these 'terrorists' planning to assemble these devices for such a big terrorist plot? Furthermore, security staff at the Trafford Centre and officials at Manchester Arndale (the potential targets) said they had not been informed of any threat. Again, with a potentially deadly attack supposedly imminent, is that not a bit strange?

It has also been reported that the detained Pakistanis might have been planning multiple car bombings against so-called 'soft targets'. "Police are said to be examining claims that some of the arrested men had previously visited second-hand car dealerships, as well as 'certain purchases' made by those detained," claimed the Telegraph. (If those "certain purchases" included several copies of Automart and What Car?, it's surely an open and shut case.)

I would never dare suggest that this anti-terror raid is just a fear-mongering smokescreen to divert attention away from the mounting anger over the police's role in the death of Ian Tomlinson. However, the timing of this thwarted terror plot is convenient to say the least. Neither would I suggest that the terror raids might have been sexed up to save the blushes of Bob Quick (i.e. he was a bungling idiot, but at least his incompetence sort of led to a major terror plot being foiled, which could have killed hundreds of innocent Bank holiday shoppers). No, I wouldn't say that.

But let's see where this story goes. Maybe the police will find a massive haul of explosives tomorrow...or a Fiat Uno with a till receipt for a junior chemistry set in the footwell...or a suitcase nuke...or Bisto tin filled with Ricin. If they do, I will happily eat my words.

Read More...

Summary only...