Memo that told Blair aides Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat

March 13, 2009

MI5 to blame for torture – claim…..   G20 deal hopes in the balance…..   Warning over fault on several jets…..   Campaigners lose Stansted battle…..   Last farewell to murdered policeman…..   Questions over ‘blind trust’ use…..   Call to ban sale of ‘e-cigarettes’…..   Hospital injection errors ‘common’…..   Prince reveals Mother’s Day sadness…..   Ailing Jade enjoys time with family…..

Tony Blair

Weapons warning: Tony Blair published the WMD dossier in September 2002 which critics believe paved the way for war

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.

Richard Falk: Israel’s War Crimes

March 13, 2009

Calls for investigation into Gaza attacks

Richard Falk | Le Monde Diplomatique (France),March 12, 2009

Israel blamed its earlier wars on the threat to its security, even that against Lebanon in 1982. However, its assault on Gaza was not justified and there are international calls for an investigation. But is there the political will to make Israel account for its war crimes?

For the first time since the establishment of Israel in 1948 the government is facing serious allegations of war crimes from respected public figures throughout the world. Even the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, normally so cautious about offending sovereign states – especially those aligned with its most influential member, the United States – has joined the call for an investigation and potential accountability. To grasp the significance of these developments it is necessary to explain what made the 22 days of attacks in Gaza stand shockingly apart from the many prior recourses to force by Israel to uphold its security and strategic interests.

In my view, what made the Gaza attacks launched on 27 December different from the main wars fought by Israel over the years was that the weapons and tactics used devastated an essentially defenceless civilian population. The one-sidedness of the encounter was so stark, as signalled by the relative casualties on both sides (more than 100 to 1; 1300-plus Palestinians killed compared with 13 Israelis, and several of these by friendly fire), that most commentators refrained from attaching the label “war”.

The Israelis and their friends talk of “retaliation” and “the right of Israel to defend itself”. Critics described the attacks as a “massacre” or relied on the language of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the past Israeli uses of force were often widely condemned, especially by Arab governments, including charges that the UN Charter was being violated, but there was an implicit acknowledgement that Israel was using force in a war mode. War crimes charges (to the extent they were made) came only from radical governments and the extreme left.

The early Israeli wars were fought against Arab neighbours which were quite literally challenging Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state. The outbreaks of force were of an inter-governmental nature; and even when Israel exhibited its military superiority in the June 1967 six day war, it was treated within the framework of normal world politics, and though it may have been unlawful, it was not criminal.

But from the 1982 Lebanon war this started to change. The main target then was the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in southern Lebanon. But the war is now mainly remembered for its ending, with the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. Although this atrocity was the work of a Lebanese Christian militia, Israeli acquiescence, control and complicity were clearly part of the picture. Still, this was an incident which, though alarming, was not the whole of the military operation, which Israel justified as necessary due to the Lebanese government’s inability to prevent its territory from being used to threaten Israeli security.

The legacy of the 1982 war was Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and the formation of Hizbullah in reaction, mounting an armed resistance that finally led to a shamefaced Israeli withdrawal in 1998. This set the stage for the 2006 Lebanon war in which the announced adversary was Hizbullah, and the combat zone inevitably merged portions of the Lebanese civilian population with the military campaign undertaken to destroy Hizbullah. Such a use of hi-tech Israeli force against Hizbullah raised the issue of fighting against a hostile society with no equivalent means of defending itself rather than against an enemy state. It also raised questions about whether reliance on a military option was even relevant to Israel’s political goals, as Hizbullah emerged from the war stronger, and the only real result was to damage the reputation of the IDF as a fighting force and to leave southern Lebanon devastated.

The Gaza operation brought these concerns to the fore as it dramatised this shift away from fighting states to struggles against armed resistance movements, and with a related shift from the language of “war” to “criminality”. In one important respect, Israel managed to skew perceptions and discourse by getting the media and diplomats to focus the basic international criminal law question on whether or not Israeli use of force was “disproportionate”.

This way of describing Israeli recourse to force ignores the foundational issue: were the attacks in any legal sense “defensive” in character in the first place? An inquiry into the surrounding circumstances shows an absence of any kind of defensive necessity: a temporary ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had been in effect since 19 July 2008 had succeeded in reducing cross-border violence virtually to zero; Hamas consistently offered to extend the ceasefire, even to a longer period of ten years; the breakdown of the ceasefire is not primarily the result of Hamas rocket fire, but came about mainly as a result of an Israeli air attack on 4 November that killed six Hamas fighters in Gaza.

Continued >>

Canada should bar or prosecute Bush: lawyer

March 13, 2009
Foreign Affairs stays silent on upcoming Calgary visit

As George W. Bush’s St. Patrick’s Day visit to Calgary draws near, the federal government is facing pressure from activists and human rights lawyers to bar the former U.S. president from the country or prosecute him for war crimes and crimes against humanity once he steps on Canadian soil.

Bush is scheduled to speak at the Telus Convention Centre March 17, but Vancouver lawyer Gail Davidson says that because Bush has been “credibly accused” of supporting torture in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Canada has a legal obligation to deny him entry under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The law says foreign nationals who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, including torture, are “inadmissible” to Canada.

”The test isn’t whether the person’s been convicted, but whether there’s reasonable grounds to think that they have been involved,” says Davidson, who’s with Lawyers Against the War (LAW). “…It’s now a matter of public record that Bush was in charge of setting up a regime of torture that spanned several parts of the globe and resulted in horrendous injuries and even death. Canada has a duty.”

In February, Davidson sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other cabinet ministers asking the Canadian government to either bar Bush from Canada, prosecute him once he arrives, or have the federal attorney general consent to a private prosecution by LAW against the Texan. She hasn’t received a response, and concedes she’s fighting “an uphill battle” with “terrific challenges.” Davidson laid torture charges against Bush during his visit to Vancouver in 2004, but a judge quashed them within days.

The federal government is keeping silent on the upcoming visit. “We have no comments to offer on the visit of Mr. George W. Bush to Calgary,” said Foreign Affairs spokesperson Alain Cacchione in an e-mail to Fast Forward. When told about Davidson’s letter, a spokesperson with the Canadian Border Services Agency said “we wouldn’t comment on something like that.”

Davidson is one of many voices around the world calling for Bush’s prosecution. Earlier this year, Manfred Nowak, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, said the U.S. has a “clear obligation” to prosecute Bush and former secretary of defence Donald Rumsfeld for authorizing torture — a violation of the UN Convention on Torture. “Obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this,” Nowak told a German TV station in January.

Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director for Human Rights Watch, says that while there’s legally “all the reason in the world” to prosecute decision-makers in the Bush administration, “it’s a different story” politically. “The Obama administration certainly has not given much in the way of encouraging signals for such a prosecution,” says Mariner, who’s based in New York. “Obama has consistently said that he wants to look forward.” Mariner says that while a U.S. justice department investigation is unlikely, a congressional investigation is more probable — and “that could lead to recommendations for prosecution.”

Mariner’s not expecting a Canadian prosecution against Bush. “Obviously the Canadian government would have to be in favour of it, and that seems rather unlikely,” she says.

Calgary activists, meanwhile, are organizing a number of events for the week of Bush’s visit, culminating in a noontime rally outside the Telus Convention Centre during Bush’s speech. “We want to give him the welcome that he deserves — which is we want him to go back to the States, or we want him arrested,” says organizer Collette Lemieux. Activist Julie Hrdlicka, who visited Iraq twice during the American occupation, agrees. “We need to send a clear message to him that he’s not welcome,” she says.

Lemieux is hopeful that Bush will eventually be prosecuted. “Do I think that it’s going to happen very soon? No,” she says. “But I think that it’s very important that we keep the pressure up…. We have to make it clear that there’s accountability.”

The Plaza Theatre, meanwhile, is screening three Bush-themed documentaries for a “Bush Bash Film Fest” the night of the visit. Half the box office proceeds will go to the United Way.

MIDEAST: Border Areas Bombed Again

March 13, 2009

By Adam Morrow and Khaled Moussa Al-Omrani | Inter Press Service

CAIRO, Mar 12 (IPS) – Almost two months after the war on the Gaza Strip, the border area between the battered coastal enclave and Egypt continues to come under frequent Israeli aerial bombardment. Israeli officials say the strikes target cross-border tunnels used to smuggle weapons to Palestinian resistance factions.

“Israel is still regularly launching air strikes on the border area,” Ibrahim Mansour, political analyst and executive editor-in-chief of independent daily Al-Dustour told IPS. “Such attacks represent a violation of all international rules and agreements, including the Egypt-Israel Camp David peace agreement.”

Throughout the course of Israel’s recent assault on the Gaza Strip (Dec. 27 to Jan. 17), the border zone between Egypt and Gaza was pummelled by hundreds of Israeli air strikes. Sources in the area also say that Egyptian airspace was repeatedly violated by Israeli aircraft during the campaign.

The onslaught officially ended with a unilateral ceasefire announcement by Israel. Since then, however, Israel has continued to strike at targets both inside the Gaza Strip – governed by Palestinian resistance faction Hamas – and along the strip’s 14-kilometre border with Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

“Air strikes on the border zone have continued on and off since the end of Israel’s war on Gaza,” Hatem Al-Bulk, local journalist and political activist told IPS. “Some weeks see as many as three or four strikes on the area.”

The last week has been no exception. According to Israeli daily Haaretz, Israeli aircraft bombed alleged smuggling tunnels on Sunday March 8  in retaliation against three rockets fired into Israel earlier the same day by Gaza-based resistance factions. On Wednesday (Mar. 11) Israeli warplanes again bombed the border area, injuring two Palestinians, according to Palestinian Health Ministry sources.

Local sources near Rafah, which straddles the border between Egyptian Sinai and the Gaza Strip, say the effects of the blasts are frequently felt on the Egyptian side of the divided town.

“Israel is using earth-penetrating munitions against targets in the border zone, explosions from which cause damage on the Egyptian side,” said Al- Bulk, a resident of Al-Arish, located some 40 kilometres west of the border. “Since the beginning of Israel’s assault on Gaza until now, hundreds of homes in Egyptian Rafah have been damaged as a result of Israeli bombardments.

“There are also suspicions that Israel might be using depleted uranium in some of these munitions, which could have a catastrophic effect on the local environment,” added Al-Bulk.

On Jan. 16 – a day before Israel’s unilateral ceasefire – the U.S. and Israel signed a memorandum of understanding with the ostensible aim of combating alleged arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. In general terms, the accord commits Washington to “accelerate its efforts to provide logistical and technical assistance and to train and equip regional security forces in counter-smuggling tactics.”

Egypt, which was not a signatory to the document, quickly rejected it as an infringement of its sovereignty. “We are not bound by anything except the safety and national security of the Egyptian people and Egypt’s ability to protect its borders,” Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit said Jan. 17.

The agreement did not expressly call for international peacekeepers or monitors to be deployed to Egypt’s border with the Gaza Strip. But on the same day, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak felt it necessary to stress Egypt’s refusal of “any foreign presence or monitors” on Egyptian territory. “This is a red line no one will be permitted to cross,” Mubarak said in a televised speech.

Since then, however, Egypt – anxious to prove its capacity for policing its borders – has beefed up security throughout the Sinai Peninsula, while new surveillance cameras have been set up along the border.

“Within the last two months, Egypt has installed advanced surveillance equipment in the area, which it received from the U.S.,” said Al-Bulk. “Egyptian security officers are also receiving training in the U.S. on how to search for and destroy smuggling tunnels.”

Inspections of the sensitive border area by U.S. officials have become commonplace since the end of the recent Gaza crisis.

“An official delegation from the U.S. embassy comes to inspect the border about once every five days. In the last six weeks, there have been roughly eight such visits,” said Al-Bulk. “They examine the Rafah crossing with Gaza, visit the Al-Auja and Kerem Abu Saalim border crossings (with Israel) and are shown tunnels discovered by Egyptian authorities.”

According to Mansour, the new border security measures come as a direct result of pressure on Egypt from Israel and the U.S.

“Israel constantly complains to Washington that Egypt ‘isn’t doing enough’ to thwart arms smuggling into Gaza,” said Mansour. “This translates into constant U.S. pressure on Egypt to tighten security on the border. Egypt is therefore accepting advanced surveillance equipment from the U.S. and allowing regular inspections of the border by U.S. officials in order to prove its commitment to combating smuggling.”

Some commentators say most tunnels are used for smuggling basic commodities that have become increasingly scarce due to the longstanding embargo on the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Ever since the resistance group won Palestinian legislative elections in early 2006, the Gaza Strip has been hermetically sealed, with both Israel and Egypt keeping their borders with the territory tightly shut to people and goods.

“Most of the tunnels are of a commercial nature,” said Al-Bulk. “Some specialise in transporting livestock and poultry and others are equipped with railways to carry heavier goods. But relatively little is known about tunnels allegedly used for arms smuggling.”

“Most of the tunnels are used to transport everyday goods such as food and fuel, in order to offset the depravations of the three-year-old siege,” agreed Mansour. “If the siege was lifted, and Gazans had access to basic supplies, most smuggling activity would evaporate overnight.”

Over the regular Israeli air strikes on the border zone, Mansour questioned the lack of official reaction from Egypt.

“Egypt isn’t raising any objections at all to these regular strikes,” he said. “This raises questions about the covert relationship between Egypt and Israel – and even suggests the possibility that Egypt is tacitly permitting the strikes.”

Binyam blames UK for mistreatment

March 13, 2009

BBC News,  March 13, 2009

Binyam Mohamed

A UK resident freed from Guantanamo Bay has said he would not have faced torture or extraordinary rendition but for British involvement in his case.

US interrogators told him, “This is the British file and this is the American file,” Binyam Mohamed, 30, told the BBC in his first broadcast interview.

He said he wanted to see ex-President George Bush put on trial and, if there was evidence, former UK PM Tony Blair.

The UK says it does not condone torture, but will investigate claims.

The US, which has dropped all charges against Mr Mohamed, says he has a history of making unsubstantiated claims.

BBC News reporter Jon Manel, who conducted the interview at a secret location, said that Mr Mohamed looked “very thin” and claimed to be suffering from health problems.

Mr Mohamed, who spoke to the media against the advice of his psychiatrist because he wanted people to know what happened to him, described his return to the UK last month.

Feelings of happiness and sadness, I still don’t have them. As far as I am concerned, nothing matters
Binyam Mohamed

“I didn’t feel like I was free. Even now I don’t feel that I’m free,” he said.

“It’s been seven years of literal darkness that I have been through. Coming back to life is taking me some time.”

He added: “I don’t have the regular person’s feelings that people have. The feelings of happiness and sadness, I still don’t have them.

“As far as I am concerned, nothing matters.”

The former terror suspect said that the six years and 10 months he spent in detention had left him feeling “dead”.

MI5 involvement

While detained in Pakistan, Mr Mohamed said he was interviewed for three hours by an MI5 officer calling himself John whose role, according to Mr Mohamed, was to support the American interrogators.

“If it wasn’t for the British involvement right at the beginning of the interrogations in Pakistan, and suggestions that were made by MI5 to the Americans of how to get me to respond, I don’t think I would have gone to Morocco,” he said.

“It was that initial help that MI5 gave to America that led me through the seven years of what I went through.”

The MI5 agent who questioned him has previously denied at the British High Court any suggestion that he threatened or put any pressure on Mr Mohamed.

In the ‘dark prison’ I was … dead. I didn’t exist. I wasn’t there. There was no day, there was no night
Binyam Mohamed

During the interview, Mr Mohamed’s lawyer prevented him from answering questions about travel documents he had used to get to Afghanistan and a training camp he attended.

This was because Mr Mohamed’s immigration status is currently under review.

Mr Mohamed said that in July 2002 he was flown to a secret site in Morocco where, he claimed, he was tortured by local officers asking him questions supplied by British intelligence operatives and showing him hundreds of photographs of Muslim men living in the UK.

“The interrogator who was showing me the file would say, ‘This is the British file and this is the American file.'”

Mr Mohamed said that 70% of questions put to him had to have come from sources in the UK.

In the UK, the attorney general is continuing a review into whether to ask police to investigate allegations of British collusion in mistreatment of Mr Mohamed.

His lawyers have previously placed on record claims that the torture included a razor being used to slash his genitals.

Special agent

Mr Mohamed said his mistreatment began soon after he was arrested in Pakistan in early 2002.

In the interview, extracts of which were broadcast on Radio 4’s Today programme, he said he was questioned by a middle-aged man with a ponytail claiming to be “Jim from the FBI”.

Jim reportedly said he was a special agent sent from Washington to ask questions on behalf of the White House.

He asked about Mr Mohamed’s alleged role in a plot to detonate a dirty bomb in the US, which Mr Mohamed said was a “fantasy”.

The former detainee told the BBC he had never been involved in any plots and had not attended terrorist training camps before 9/11.

Asked if he had been an al-Qaeda operative, he replied: “I don’t even know what that means because how am I supposed to be an al-Qaeda operative?

“How do you become an al-Qaeda operative?”

Camp closure

In January 2004, Mr Mohamed said he was taken to a place he calls the “dark prison” in the Afghan capital, Kabul, where he said he almost lost his mind.

He claimed he was put in a dark cell with just a blanket on the floor.

Speakers attached to the walls pumped out music by the American rapper Eminem 24 hours a day for a month.

“In the ‘dark prison’ I was literally dead. I didn’t exist. I wasn’t there. There was no day, there was no night.”

Following his experiences in Kabul, Mr Mohamed signed a confession which he said he agreed to only because he was told he would be flown back to the “dark prison” if he didn’t co-operate.

Shortly after this he was sent to Guantanamo Bay where, he said, guards attacked him for refusing to give his fingerprints.

He claimed abuses at the camp had increased since President Barack Obama announced his intention to close it within a year.

On Thursday, a Home Office spokesperson said: “The government unreservedly condemns the use of torture as a matter of fundamental principle and works hard with its international partners to eradicate this abhorrent practice worldwide.

“The security and intelligence agencies do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment.”

Homage to Gaza’s Martyred Children

March 12, 2009

ICONS OF INNOCENCE

Dom Martin

vittime1.jpeg

urknet.info, March 9, 2009

Death is an awful thought — lachrymose indeed! Yet, the imprint of death on the faces of the children killed in Israel’s 2008/2009 devastating siege on Gaza, dons an angelic aura. They appear asleep in eternity’s embrace — never again to be awoken or traumatized by the apocalypse of sonic booms, DIMES, artillery shells and phosphorous incinerations.

This poem is dedicated to the Children of Gaza, who were deprived the gift of existence and the realization of ordinary bliss.

— Dom Martin

ICONS OF INNOCENCE

Coexistence
Is humanity’s Title Deed
To survival!

In human greed
Comes the revival
Of belligerence!

There’s protectorate
In the electorate
To incorporate error
With power
And power
With terror!

Death is aimed
The mother framed
The cradle claimed!

Survival is maimed
Existence walled
Justice stalled!

*

In eternity’s sanctuary
No obituary!
The children are awake
In ageless play
Watching reincarnation display
A sovereign stake!

*

Death
Has been our annual aid
To date!

Hope
Is Gaza’s yoke
Through our roadblocks!

In Gaza’s carnage
Is the Quartet’s entourage
And the viserage
Of international laws
And outlaws!

Silence, alas
Is the quilt
Of our guilt:
The ballast
Of our conscience
And omniscience!

– Dom Martin

Dom Martin is a surrealist artist, poet and writer. He is the author of GENOCIDE: The New Order of Imperialism (2008) and COEXISTENCE: Humanity’s Wailing Wall (2006). His prophetic imagery of the 2008/2009 Gaza Genocide can be seen at www.propheticimagery.com .

What Israeli Peace Process?

March 12, 2009

By Franklin Spinney | Counterpunch, March 12, 2009

On March 2, 2009, the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now issued a report saying that the Israeli housing ministry plans to build 73,ooo housing units in the West Bank. Peace Now said 15,ooo of these units had already been approved, with another 58,000 awaiting approval. On March 7, 2009, the Guardian reported that a confidential report issued by the EU said Israel continues to annex property in East Jerusalem. It said Israeli housing authorities had submitted plans for 5,500 new housing units (3,000 of which have already been approved) since the Annapolis “peace” conference in November 2007. Readers may recall that the Annapolis conference was supposed to resuscitate George W. Bush’s moribund so-called Road Map to Peace. Assuming these housing plans are implemented, and only 2.5 Israelis on average inhabit each new unit, the entire program could add as many as 196,ooo Israelis to the 490,000 Israelis already living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Yet as recently as September 30, 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert said Israel should withdraw from almost all of the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem in order to achieve peace. Of course, Olmert’s profession of normative behaviour would be deemed gratuitous nonsense in an international court of law, because all these settlements are clearly illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention. So what gives?

Nothing. What you see is what you get — simply business as usual. There is no real peace process, only an illusion of one, but an illusion that has been and continues to be used cynically by the Israelis to ethnically cleanse the best land for Eretz Israel (“best” by definition includes access to the water in the West Bank aquifers — more on that later) by relentlessly creating irreversible “facts on the ground.”

All one has to do is look at the historical record. For the last 20 years, the U.S government and its wholly owned subsidiaries in the thinktanks, academia, and the media have promoted the soothing vision of an ongoing Arab-Israeli peace process. This process has been centered on the ideal of attaining a two-state solution — namely, establishing a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Dutifully, the mainstream media in the United States (MSM) has inundated the American people with stories describing how the ongoing peace process is a road leading to a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But to date, that road has led into the nightmare of the West Bank’s roadblocked cantons and the hellish Gaza Ghetto, and the preponderance of MSM reporting, at least in the United States, leans toward blaming the Palestinians for their fate.

To be sure, the MSM also reported about bumps in the road that can be attributed to Israel, especially question of settlements in the Occupied Territories. But such reporting has been usually in the context of the settlements being temporary impediments to a solution, often couched, for example, in vague visions of Israel eventually abandoning most of its settlements, and doing land swaps for others, once the Palestinians renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist. In this context, there have been very few reports that put the question of settlements into an easily understood long term perspective, even though the information is widely available on the internet.

To be sure, the Israelis did evacuate 6000+ settlers from Gaza in 2003, and occasionally, the Israeli government evacuates a trivial number of settlers from the so-called “outposts” on the West Bank. But these Israeli moves have been anomalies to their long term pattern of settlement, which has been amazingly consistent since the rate of settlement began to accelerate in the mid 1970s. In fact, as demonstrated in the chart below, the pattern of settlement has been remarkably untouched by the deliberations of the so-called peace processes. It is based on official data produced by the Israeli government and made available to the public by the courageous Israeli human rights organization B’TSelem.

The so-called peace process, which at first was ad hoc, became institutionalized with great optimism in 1993, when the signing of the Oslo Accords ended the First Intifada. But over the next seven years, the Oslo deliberations did not alleviate the economic hardships afflicting the Palestinians, nor did it even slow down the pace of Israeli settlement, as is shown clearly by the pink shaded area of the figure. Oslo effectively ended in in Sept 2000, when Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Islam’s third holiest site) incited the Palestinian uprising that became known as the Second Intifada and helped to catapult Sharon into the office of Prime Minister.

A re-institutionalization of the formal peace process rose tepidly from the ashes of Oslo in June 2002, with the so-called Road Map to Peace initiated by President George W. Bush. The aim of Bush’s Roadmap was to establish an independent Palestinian state as early as 2005, and central to achieving that aim was a freeze on settlement expansion by May 2003 (called for in Phase I of the roadmap), as well as a reduction in violence and political reform by the Palestinians. The gray area in the figure spans the time of Bush’s so-called road map, and it is clear that his Roadmap, like Oslo, had absolutely no effect on Israel’s pace of settlement. Israel’s murderous assault on the Gaza Ghetto effectively dumped the detritus of Mr. Bush’s illuson into the lap of incoming President Obama in January 2009.

The assault on the Gaza Ghetto, together with a sense of frustration from not being able to weaken Hamas’s grip on Gaza, also helped to accelerate an ongoing political shift toward the radical right among the Israeli people, as became evident in the stunning results of the recent Parliamentary election. It now seems likely that Binyamin Netanyahu — the former prime minister between 1996 and 1999, who worked so assiduously to trash Oslo and increase settlements — will return to power as prime minister, this time with the neo-fascist Avigdor Lieberman as his foreign minister.

So, based on the history depicted in the chart and Netanyahu’s track record, we can expect the rate of settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to continue and probably increase. True to form, in one of his campaign speeches, Netanyahu promised he would not be not bound by Olmert’s empty promise to evacuate the settlements, and any future peace talks would not be about giving up territory, but about achieving an “economic peace” through economic development — whatever that means.

And how has Mr. Obama’s government reacted to date? The most critical comment I have been able to find is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remark in Jerusalem that the planned expansion of the settlements cited in the first paragraph would be “unhelpful.”

One thing is certain, we can depend on being put to sleep with more somnolent visions of peace in our time while the Israelis create more facts on the ground.

Franklin “Chuck” Spinney is a former military analyst for the Pentagon. He currently lives on a sailboat in the Mediterranean and can be reached at chuck_spinney@mac.com

Bush era lies will linger a long time

March 12, 2009

Rosa Brooks | The Capital Times (Wisconsin), March 10, 2009

How did they ever get away with it?

Last week, the Justice Department released a batch of memos drafted in 2001 and 2002 by lawyers in the Bush administration’s Office of Legal Counsel. Written mainly by John Yoo, then a deputy director in the office, they laid out the purported legal justifications for a theory of presidential power amounting to virtual dictatorship.

Collectively, they declare that if the U.S. military were deployed against suspected terrorists inside the United States, even U.S. citizens wouldn’t be protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. They also conclude that citizens and noncitizens could be designated “unlawful enemy combatants” by the president on the basis of secret evidence. And once that happens, they could be locked up indefinitely and tortured, without charge, access to counsel or any procedure through which to challenge the detention or treatment.

I know: All this is old hat. With so many leaks over the years, who doesn’t know by now that the Bush administration sought virtually unlimited executive power to monitor, detain and use force against individuals anywhere around the globe in the name of the “war on terror”?

But even today, it’s still shocking to see it laid out in black and white.

In a way, what’s most shocking is just how outrageously bad the office’s legal arguments were. The 2001-2002 memos mischaracterize previous Supreme Court decisions, ignore crucial legal precedents and contain gaping holes in logic. To accept the theories the Office of Legal Counsel came up with, you need to assume that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had it all wrong when they rebelled against Britain’s King George III in 1776. You need to believe, more or less, that the 225 years of American jurisprudence between 1776 and 2001 amounted to one giant mistake.

The memos are so embarrassingly foolish that the Office of Legal Counsel itself was ultimately forced to repudiate them. In October 2008, the office advised that “caution should be exercised before relying in any respect” on its own previous advice about domestic surveillance or the domestic use of the military. A week before President Barack Obama’s inauguration, the office issued another “never mind” memo, stating that “certain propositions stated in several memos respecting … matters of war and national security do not reflect the current views of this office.”

Better late than never, I guess.

But all this raises the question: How did such dangerously bad legal memos ever get taken seriously in the first place?

One answer is suggested by the so-called Big Lie theory of political propaganda, articulated most infamously by Adolf Hitler. Ordinary people “more readily fall victim to the big lie than the small lie,” wrote Hitler, “since they themselves often tell small lies … but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

In other words: Paradoxically, the more outrageous the claim, the more apt we are to assume there must be some truth to it. Just as some banks and insurance companies are apparently “too big to fail,” some claims from those with political power seem to strike us as “too big to disbelieve.” “That seems so outrageous it must be right,” we tell ourselves. “The important people keep saying it — they must know something I don’t know.”

That’s the only explanation I can come up with for why the 2001-2002 memos stood as Bush administration doctrine for as long as they did. (The Big Lie theory also helps explain why other manifestly false Bush administration claims prevailed in the face of the evidence: Recall, for instance, how we were assured that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the war would be a cakewalk?)

Big lies prevail because we can’t bring ourselves to believe that our leaders could be so dishonest or deluded. And big lies can do terrible damage, of course. The Bush administration’s big legal lies paved the way for some of the most shameful episodes in our history, including the official authorization of torture.

In the end, thankfully, all big lies collapse under their own weight. We’re in a new era: The early memos produced by the office have been repudiated, and the Bush administration was sent packing with rock-bottom public approval ratings.

But don’t think we’re out of the woods. As Hitler demonstrated, some small part of the most “impudent lies” will always remain and stick. Big lies leave little lies in their wake, changing the political discourse in enduring, difficult-to-detect ways.

And that’s the challenge we now face: tracing the barely visible effects of the Bush administration’s now-repudiated big lies — through our legal system, our constitutional system, our foreign policy — and undoing all the damage.

It will take a generation.

Rosa Brooks is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. This column appeared first in the Los Angeles Times.

Israel Lobby Defeats Freeman Appointment

March 12, 2009

Robert Dreyfuss | The Nation, March 10, 2009

The withdrawal of Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, following two weeks of vituperative attacks on him by the amen chorus of the U.S. Zionist lobby is a black mark on the Obama administration.

As I wrote two weeks ago, when the campaign against Freeman began, if Barack Obama can’t stand up to the likes of Marty Peretz, Jonathan Chait, Steve Rosen, and other snarky critics, and if the White House can’t defend a critical intelligence pick when that person is savaged by Republican sharks smelling blood in the water, then how can we expect Obama to stand up to Bibi Netanyahu and his even more radical ally, Avigdor Lieberman, when they confront Obama over Middle East policy?

It’s sad, and worrying.

Expect gloating in the pages of The New Republic, National Review, The Weekly Standard, at Fox News, in the corridors at the American Enterprise Institute and AIPAC, and in the right-wing and neocon blogs.

Joining in on the trashing of Freeman were the (let’s face it) hard-line Jews of the Democratic Congress, including Senator Charles Schumer of New York, Rep. Steve Israel (yes, he is actually named “Israel”) of New York, and of course, that former Democrat, Joe Lieberman — all of whom crowded into the amen corner with AIPAC.

The Post, writing this morning about opposition to Freeman by seven Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, quoted Freeman from 2007: “The brutal oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending. … American identification with Israel has become total.”

You can, apparently, believe anything but that.

Nearly four years ago, I interviewed Freeman about the disastrous appointment of Porter Goss as CIA director, who was installed by then-President Bush as a political watchdog over an agency that is supposed to speak truth to power. Goss, Freeman told me then, was sent to Langley to “impose a vision on [the CIA] that its analysts and operatives reject as simply not based on reality,” he told me. “It’s totalitarian. We are going to end up with an agency that is more right-wing, more conformist, and less prone to produce people with original views and dissenters.”

I guess we know, now, that there’s no room for dissenters in the intelligence community, now, either.

Late on Tuesday, Freeman issued the following statement:

To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect.You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

I’ll be updating this post during the week, so stay tuned.

Pakistan protesters begin march

March 12, 2009
Al Jazeera, March 12, 2009

Riot police were deployed as anti-government protesters prepared to begin their march [AFP]

Hundreds of Pakistani lawyers and activists have started a anti-government march from the city of Karachi, the main city of Sindh province.

Riot police on Thursday arrested dozens of protesters and stopped cars and buses from collecting hundreds of lawyers assembled at the high court ready for the journey to Islamabad.

The lawyers, who are calling on Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, to reinstate judges sacked in 2007 by previous president Pervez Musharraf, instead left the high court on foot and started their march with other anti-government protesters.

“We’ve started the march to achieve our goal,” Munir A Malik, a former president of the supreme court bar association and a protest organiser, said.

The demonstrators are scheduled to arrive in Islamabad, the federal capital, on Monday, where they hope they will join thousands of other anti-government protesters for a rally outside the parliament.

“It is a test for the new government, as to whether it will be in a position to give people their democratic rights,” Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Islamabad, said.

“Across the country there has been a heavy clampdown by the security agencies in spite of the fact that the Pakistani prime minister said that there would no problem with the march as long as it is peaceful.”

Arrests made

The 1,500km-long march comes in spite of a ban on demonstrations in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh, where thousands of troops have been deployed.

Police across the country on Wednesday rounded up about 300 people, including members of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan’s main opposition party.

Nawaz Sharif, the leader of the PML-N and a former prime minister, had called on Wednesday for people to “change the destiny of Pakistan” by attending the march.

The PML-N quit the cabinet last year to protest against the new civilians government’s failure to honour a deadline to reinstate Iftikhar Chaudhry, the former supreme court justice, and other judges sacked by Musharraf.

Sharif disqualified

In February, Pakistan’s supreme court disqualified Sharif from contesting elections, fuelling the bitter power struggle between the PML-N leader and Zardari, who briefly allied in the campaign to force Musharraf from the presidency.

Sharif, left, has criticised Zardari for not reinstating the sacked judges [AFP]

The ruling forced Sharif’s party out of power in Punjab, placing the province under central government control. But in an apparent concession to Sharif, Yousaf Raza Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister, said on Wednesday that the government wanted central rule over the province to end.

Whichever party has the sufficient mandate to form the provincial government should take over, he said.

The PML-N has the most support in Punjab, although it does not have a clear majority to run the provincial government alone.

Raja Assad Hameed, the Nation newspaper, said that many of the protesters are looking for the central government to relinquish its control over the province.

“They are coming to Islamabad to tell Zardari that the mandate in Punjab, the powerhouse of Pakistani politics, should be given back to the legitimate representatives of the people and that the governor’s rule should be lifted from Punjab,” he said.

“The situation could go anywhere from here; the government has lost its credibility and popularity very prematurely.”

The growing divide between the government and the opposition has increased concerns over the long-term stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan, a major US ally in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.