May 19, 2010

Why the Human Rights Act means we can’t deport Abid Naseer

Posted in Politics, War on Terror at 11:59 pm by David Gould

The HRA simply allows breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights to be adjudicated in Britain rather than Brussels. The ECHR was arguably British to begin with and we were the first signatory in 1953.
So scrapping the HRA makes no difference – we would also have to leave or be expelled by the ECHR.

The ECHR has a prohibition on torture. As we all know, the Labour administration was complicit in extraordinary rendition – the act of getting round one’s anti-torture laws by flying people to another country and having them tortured there.

I suspect what Justice Mitting said was politically inspired and designed to rock the coalition. His hands were not quite so tied as he implied. He could simply have agreed to the deportation and had his ruling quashed by the Law Lords (which is now called the Supreme Court).

It is also worth noting that the police investigation was massively botched. This is the one you may remember Bob Quick resigning for after his notes were photographed by a photojournalist. Amazingly, the Manchester police did not know they needed evidence to hold the suspects longer than 14 days.

So, the options are:
1. Scrap the HRA and get expelled from the ECHR, or
2. Don’t botch the investigation/prosecution, don’t encourage extraordinary rendition, and minimise the problem by working under the HRA, working towards convictions and using control orders where necessary.

In my opinion, even weak control orders are effective. Most terrorists may be stupid but they’re still not going to trust their big attack to someone who’s obviously being watched by MI5. And if they do, they’ll be stopped.

Keystone cops aside, Abid Naseer, whilst under surveillance, is of no great threat to this country.

Having said that, there is a clear distinction between deportation and extraordinary rendition. An independent appointee could be trusted with the facts and arrange safe passage, fake papers & monitor the situation.

The HRA and ECHR didn’t stop our own Govt aiding in extraordinary rendition and lying about it for years. They have not been punished – indeed one of the main instigators is favourite to become the next Labour leader. The prohibition on torture would be much more useful if Minsters were subject to prompt investigation (by the House of Lords), had to testify under oath and faced prison for breaking the prohibition.

To me, the way forward is clear. Work within the HRA until we have a constitution which provides better protection.

I found this article one of the better ones.

Advertisements

December 17, 2006

The Murky Career of Dame Elisa Manningham-Buller

Posted in War on Terror at 3:26 am by David Gould

Amusingly, the newspapers have started to assume that “a good day to bury bad news” means the bad news is probably worthy of further investigation.

The Daily Mail decided to link Dame Elisa’s resignation with an apparent exclusive that Haroon Aswat’s bomber friends were “photographed and recorded on several occasions”.

My suspicions about Dame Elisa were aroused when she timed her speech (about 1600 terrorists in Britain who MI5 weren’t arresting for some unspecified  reason & giving up our rights) to precede Blair’s recent offensive on ID cards.

MI5 have a surveillance database very much like the ID database Blair is trying to build ie a series of identity numbers which link to your records in other databases.

Now, Manningham-Buller was appointed just after the Govt started talking about ID cards in July 2002.

She was not a universally popular choice. In particular, question marks remain over her management of the highly dubious official account of the Lockerbie bombing.

Blair promised to re-open the Lockerbie investigation, but broke that one too. The Libyan, Megrahi, who was one of two prosecuted is looking set for a retrial after, amongst other things, a Scottish former police chief testified that the CIA planted evidence incriminating Megrahi.

On the fateful Pan-Am 102 flight, the dead included Major Charles Dennis McKee, one of America’s top spies, and 4 other members of his team who were trying to co-ordinate a rescue of American hostages in Lebannon.

Pan-Am hired their own private investigators headed by none other than former Mossad agent Juval Aviv, upon whom the lead assassin “Avner” is based in Spielberg’s 2005 film, Munich (you can’t make this up).
Aviv uncovered a plot involving the Iranians, the Syrians and a drug-dealing CIA unit…

Time magazine cover story – Pan Am 103, Why Did They Have to Die?


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

December 4, 2006

7/7 “mastermind”, Haroon Aswat, extradited to the US!?

Posted in War on Terror at 8:13 am by David Gould

Haroon Rashid Aswat, who was widely touted as being the ringleader for the London bombings, is being extradited without facing charges in the UK.

Security sources told newspapers the alleged Al Qaeda planner had up to 20 conversations with Khan and another of the bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, one just hours before the blasts.
It is thought that British-born Aswat entered the UK through Felixstowe, Suffolk, two weeks before the attacks, and left on a flight from Heathrow hours before the carnage.
He was later arrested in a raid at a religious school, or madrassa, in Sargodha, wearing an suicide bomb belt and carrying £13,000 in cash.
A senior Pakistani source told The Times newspaper: “We believe this man had a crucial part to play in what happened in London.” — Daily Mail, 21/7/05

Whilst the British Govt were seemingly unconcerned about questioning Aswat, he was arrested in Zambian where he told questionners that he had formerly been a bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden himself.

In the “narratives” that the terrorised public were fobbed off with, Aswat is mentioned only briefly and not by name: “The press reported later that a known extremist figure and possible mastermind left the UK shortly before the bombings. There is no evidence that this individual was involved.”

So why the apparant cover-up?

Respected anti-crime publication, New Criminologist, along with both French security agents and an FBI agent, verified ex-Justice Dept and terrorist expert John Loftus’ claim that Aswat was an MI6 asset.

The US started chasing Aswat back in 1999 because of his attempts to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon, but were told to keep off by the UK.

“This is the guy [Aswat], and what’s really embarrassing is that the entire British police are out chasing him, and one wing of the British government, MI6 or the British Secret Service, has been hiding him. And this has been a real source of contention between the CIA, the Justice Department, and Britain. He is a double agent.

The CIA and the Israelis all accused MI6 of letting all these terrorists live in London not because they’re getting Al-Qaeda information, but for appeasement. It was one of those you leave us alone, we leave you alone kind of things.”

Exactly the same thing David Shayler said, incidentally.

Is Al-Qaeda’s apparent #2 man in Britain innocent and somehow didn’t know that 2 of his contacts were planning the London bombing – even though he phoned one of them from South Africa on 7/7?

Or is Aswat guilty of being involved with the London bombings? Are we sending the only person we can hold to account for the sole Fundamentalist attack on the mainland out of our jurisdiction?

Why would we do that?

The only possible reason is that the Govt and security services want to bury him under the carpet because they have some awful secret to hide.

Is it merely what we already know, that British Intelligence paid Al-Qaeda to assassinate Gadaffi, and seemingly funded them in Kosovo as well? Or is there something even more damning?


Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

July 5, 2006

An evening with David Shayler

Posted in War on Terror at 12:28 am by David Gould

The first time I saw David Shayler, he was sitting in the garden of The Cube cinema, being interrogated by a transsexual.

Shayler was introducing a new film co-produced by himself and Adrian Connock regarding the unconvincing official investigation into the London bombings.

Shayler talks too much about 9/11 for my liking.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Most of the 9/11 Truth claims require specialist understandings of things like thermite.

If anything is going to reverse people’s assumptions on 9/11, it’s asking where the US airforce was, especially those planes from McGuire airforce base, minutes away from New York.

Anyway, I got invited to the party that followed, finding myself sitting on a garden bench next to a pretty blonde woman.  Shayler sat the other side of me and started talking about why he didn’t need a bodyguard.

The blonde next to me made a sarcastic remark.  I looked at her and she said “It’s OK, he’s my boyfriend.”

So there I was surrounded by Shayler on one side and his delightful partner, Annie Machon, on the other.

Annie is both intelligent and eloquent, and suffers visibly at the way she and especially her partner are treated.  She left MI5 at the same time and for the same reason “Dave” did: it is only because Dave had a higher clearance that he reported that MI6 paid Al-Qaeda £100,000 to kill Colonel Gaddafi in 1996.

They have been persecuted ever since, including 7 weeks in jail for Dave and an alleged attempt on his life.

They are both charismatic and credible – and thus their story is tragic.  One feels very sympathetic to their case.

Anyway, back to the extraordinary and contradictory coverage of London bombings.

First we’re told that these attacks used “military explosives” and that Netanyahu was warned.

Then we’re told that Netanyahu wasn’t warned and these “clean skin” attacks had the “hallmarks of Al-Qaeda”.

Then we’re told that they used “home-made explosives” and that Haroon Aswat was the suspected ringleader.

Then we’re told that the shooting of JC de Menezes was “linked to the terrorist attacks” and that he vaulted the turnstile wearing both a padded jacket & rucksack.

Then we’re told it was nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

Then we’re told that the 4 7/7 bombers acted alone.

Then we’re told that MI6 had been trailing them but decided to stop.

Then we get the official reports that make no mention of Haroon Aswat’s 20 calls to the bombers, Netanyahu, nor the fact that the Luton train they were supposedly on was cancelled, nor the exact type of explosive that was used.

Then we’re told that the CIA & FBI had been trailing them.

Now we’re being told that the 4 bombers weren’t acting alone and that others will be prosecuted…

Why are all these conflicting reports coming from different groups?

It’s not difficult to see why the Govt won’t give us an independent inquiry.  But when you look at the farce which was Forest Gate and other anti-terror operations, the invasion of Iraq and other attacks on the Muslim world, could we be doing anything more to encourage terrorist activity here in Britain?


Technorati Tags: , , , ,

December 14, 2005

Why would Clarke try to prevent the public from understanding the London bombings?

Posted in War on Terror at 4:48 am by David Gould

After 9/11, Blair started telling us “the rules of the game are changing”Guardian

This was to justify deporting innocent-until-proven-guilty Muslims to be tortured, as well as other totalitarian laws sneaked through under inconspicuous titles:

Civil Contingencies Act = unlimited legal power.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers = unlimited electronic surveillance.
ID Cards = unlimited accumulation and sorting of electronic surveillance (not yet passed).

Whether the threat is conventional or WMD, we need to know if we are dealing with it as well as possible, especially considering the strong criticism of Govt/JIC relations in the Butler report.

It is therefore quite chilling that Charles Clarke today told us that the British public are only entitled to the Govt version of what went on that day. (BBC)

These fundamental questions remain unanswered to any degree of satisfaction:

How much did British Intelligence know ahead of time?

The official answer so far is “nothing”. Now is that absolutely nothing, or nothing indicative?

Or is it a complete lie because many reports indicate they warned the Israeli embassy 6 mins before the first blasts? Further reports indicate that all 4 bombers had been tracked for over a year and one had been linked to a previous bombing attempt.

Further leaks have highlighted Haroon Aswat as a possible mastermind of both London bombings, as well as being a British intelligence asset.

What are the connections to Al Qaeda and 21/7 if any?

Probably the most obvious unanswered question.

Can anyone independently confirm the Government’s story?

Many eyewitnesses report evidence that the explosives were underneath the trains.

Although the bombers must have been caught on many CCTV cameras, authorities have not released any video of the men, only bizarre, easily-forgeable photos.

Further doubts arise from knowing that the only train the bombers could have taken from Luton was cancelled.

August 8, 2005

Gunner Palace

Posted in War on Terror at 4:36 am by David Gould

A group of US army soldiers live in Uday’s palace, complete with swimming pool, collapsed ceiling and piles of rubble. Nearly all male, aged 19-28ish, some black, some white and several talented poets, musicians and comedians. More than even with celluloid heroes of the ‘Nam, you feel a great cameraderie with these people.

Most of them seem to like it there, although of course there are bad days. Not all of them will make it out alive.

The vast majority of Iraqis seem glad they’re there. Obviously, a few are busy firing mortars and RPGs at the palace. And around the Mosques, they don’t seem too friendly.

‘You haven’t got a hope of understanding what it’s like out here’ the soldiers say. This film helps and is certainly entertaining, but I suspect you actually have to be shot at to really understand them.

July 11, 2005

What is Blair hiding?

Posted in War on Terror at 4:57 am by David Gould

The man who lied over WMD, our April 2002 commitment to war and probably the legality of the war is expected to tell Parliament tomorrow that we don’t need to know the truth about the biggest terrorist attack on mainland Britain.

Perhaps some of the truth is already out. Even Yahoo is still reporting that Benjamin Netanyahu was warned by British Police before the blasts occurred.

I can’t see any reason for the Israelis to generate distrust in Blair & our security services.

So is it true and have we been lied to ever since?

My regards to anyone who was or knew someone who was affected by the bombings. Let me know if I can be of any help.

June 24, 2005

Review of “The Fog of War”

Posted in War on Terror at 9:07 pm by David Gould

I have just watched the best documentary I have ever seen, about Robert McNamara, a brilliant man who courted controversy…
The film covers his WWII job of more efficiently bombing Tokyo, to his being made the first president of Ford outside the family, to his recruitment as Secreatary of Defense 5 weeks later by JFK, his deep involvement with the Cuban Missile crisis and his even deeper involvement in the build-up of US forces in the Vietnam War.

In his later years, McNamara is a compelling speaker with an apparent need to impart some lessons of humility that he so painfully learned.

The documentary was made in 2002-2003 and without one mention of Iraq, one gets the impression that McNamara was hoping that what he had learnt, especially from the mistakes he had made, could prevent similar disasters.

In particular, McNamara comments on the US inability in the 60s to persuade allies to agree on the need for conflict.

The “Fog of War” refers to the inability of anyone to effectively manage something as complex as a war. The emotional resonance of the film is helped by an original soundtrack by Philip Glass.

December 18, 2004

Lord Butler comes clean

Posted in War on Terror at 4:07 am by David Gould

Whatever Tony Blair promised Lord Butler to exonerate him on the WMD lies obviously fell short as Butler finally delivered the truth we all knew: that the Iraq Dossier was fudged because it didn’t support the government’s case for war.

He also delivered a blistering attack Blair’s “inner circle” executive style of government:

“I think we are a country where we suffer very badly from Parliament not having sufficient control over the executive, and that is a very grave flaw.We should be breaking away from the party whip. The executive is much too free to bring in a huge number of extremely bad Bills, a huge amount of regulation and to do whatever it likes – and whatever it likes is what will get the best headlines tomorrow.

All that is part of what is bad government in this country.” BBC report on Spectator article

November 3, 2004

Al-Qaeda does not exist

Posted in War on Terror at 10:37 pm by David Gould

Despite the fact we know Blair and Bush have lied to us, I never considered a deception on this scale.

The third part of Power of Nightmares deconstructed every bit of the Al-Qaeda myth.

Now I’m not saying that 19 mostly-Saudi Arabs didn’t hijack 4 planes. Which is why we hunted Afghan and Iraqi Arabs, right?

The name Al-Qaeda was first invented by the US in order to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence.  Bin Laden never used it before 9/11.

Now let’s go through the other attacks supposedly perpetuated by Al-Qaeda.

Anthrax?  Traced to a US military scientist.

Sleeper cells?  No proof.  Not one of the 600+ arrests made in Britain has been convicted of terrorist charges.

Training grounds and underground fortresses in Afghanistan? Never found.

Madrid train bombing?  They’re prosecuting a 16-year old boy from a broken home.

Ricin in London?  Turned out to be wheat germ.

Iraq? Al-Zarqiwi expressed a need to JOIN forces.  Evidence that until recently, the groups were separate.

By creating this myth, we’ve cultivated the fear which allowed Bush to get re-elected, we’ve condoned human rights abuses and promoted a banner to entice disenfranchised people around the world into attacking us.

Some people even question whether Bin Laden is still alive

Next page