Bloggerheads

You’ll want to start here:

BlairWatch – The Failings of the Press

Different incident, same issue, same problem:

Obsolete – To publish or not to publish, that is the question: Why is this Labour government so obsessed with secrecy, and our newspapers and media so inclined to carry out their non-binding orders in not naming the suspects? Apparently Nick Langham is entitled to his privacy, although the police and media freely name those who are wanted for offences, and occasionally “name and shame” others. In this supposed age of freedom of information, it seems odd that the British media is still prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt, despite the fallout from the Hutton inquiry.

(Note to Strobes…. publish some of this stuff online. Please.)

At the same time, we have the sheer absurdity of the Bush administration proudly proclaiming themselves to be above the use of torture, after months of actively trying to block McCain’s anti-torture bill:

Guardian – White House drops long-standing opposition to torture legislation

But I have to rely on blogs and websites, not my regular glut of national newspapers, to relay the following information:

Boston Globe – Bush Could Bypass New Torture Ban: When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief. (Latest development here.)

So he was for torture, but is now against it, unless he wants to use it. And that’s not a front-page headline? FFS…

And on the subject of discretion (and whistle-blower slap-downs and media complicity)…. you’ll want to start here on wiretapping and move along to this piece:

The Nation – The Hidden State Steps Forward: When the New York Times revealed that George W. Bush had ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap the foreign calls of American citizens without seeking court permission, as is indisputably required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, he faced a decision. Would he deny the practice, or would he admit it? He admitted it. But instead of expressing regret, he took full ownership of the deed, stating that his order had been entirely justified, that he had in fact renewed it thirty times, that he would continue to renew it and — going even more boldly on the offensive — that those who had made his law-breaking known had committed a “shameful act”… Secret law-breaking has been supplanted by brazen law-breaking. The difference is critical. If abuses of power are kept secret, there is still the possibility that, when exposed, they will be stopped. But if they are exposed and still permitted to continue, then every remedy has failed, and the abuse is permanently ratified. In this case, what will be ratified is a presidency that has risen above the law… The Administration of George W. Bush is not a dictatorship, but it does manifest the characteristics of one in embryonic form. If Congress accepts his usurpation of its legislative power, they will be no Congress and might as well stop meeting. Either the President must uphold the laws of the United States, which are Congress’s laws, or he must leave office.

Liberal bias at work? Hardly. Check this out: What follows, from an Associated Press rundown on September 15, 1998, is a long list of newspapers that “called for President Clinton’s resignation.” AP added that some of those listed “did so before the release of Kenneth Starr’s report on Sept. 11.”

And while we’re looking at lists and the media lying down, Jack Abramoff deserves a mention. Here’s a list of people he made formal donations to. It includes George W. Bush… it includes Oliver bloody North!

That list leads us to this:

Independent – Bush hands back tainted funds from disgraced lobbyist

Why? Under scrutiny of the law, there’s no way to reverse a criminal relationship, even when you return some of the gains. But it’s not the scrutiny of law that Bush fears… it’s scrutiny of the media.

But how can one claim that the media is shackled by this administration, yet feared at the same time?

Because it’s been transformed from watchdog to rescue dog.

It’s been slapped about the face with false claims of bias by those who are shameless users of bias.

It’s been bashed about the body by claims of complicity in terrorism, by those who themselves who shamelessly torture and terrorise others.

Above all, it’s been effectively leashed by claims of national and international security.

And the same pattern repeats itself in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

That’s three administrations that have nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt, but still enjoy that privilege because of people in mainstream media who fear a legal/media savaging if they turn on their new masters. It’s almost as if they’ve forgotten the purpose of their canine incisors.

And speaking of the benefit of the doubt… here’s yet another false claim about Iraq that was followed by perhaps two editorials on Blair’s stupefying statement that; “There is no justification for Iran or any other country interfering in Iraq.”

Where are the front page headlines that read; ‘BLAIR LIES ABOUT IRAQ – AGAIN’…?

Independent – Anger as Britain admits it was wrong to blame Iran for deaths in Iraq: Britain has dropped the charge of Iranian involvement after senior officials had repeatedly accused the Tehran regime of supplying sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents. Government officials now acknowledge that there is no evidence, or even reliable intelligence, connecting the Iranian government to the infra-red triggered bombs which have killed 10 British soldiers in the past eight months. The twist comes three months after British officials first made strong assertions, widely reported in the media, of an Iranian hand in killing British soldiers. The highly publicised allegations emerged as America was locked in tense confrontation with Iran over its nuclear policy… A former Labour defence minister, Peter Kilfoyle, accused the Blair government of following President George Bush’s obsession with Iran. “Is this intelligence or is it propaganda?” he asked. “This is what happened in Iraq. I have a deep, abiding mistrust of what is put out by the Government and a deep, abiding mistrust of what is put out by the intelligence services. This is part of an almost unconscious urge to support whatever the American policy of the moment might be.”

BBC – 100 things we didn’t know this time last year

‘Jack Straw knowingly misled the House’ isn’t in the list, but I did find out that in the U.S. you can subpoena a dog.

Economist – America’s most-hated companies

Both of those links came via an interesting new news-preference service NewsBump.

NewsBump also led me to this gem: A wise man once said it took 42 muscles to frown and only four to pull the trigger of a decent sniper rifle.

Now, how can I present the next set of links here without suggesting violence toward everyone’s favourite world leader? Ah, here we go… this strangely familiar (and NSFW) story reminded me of our ‘Bush in the UK’ adventure, where I was heard to say: (Y)ou should not under any circumstances attempt to pierce George W. Bush’s brain with a bullet. It’s not only a close-to-impossible shot, it’s a very silly thing to do.

Washington Post – Bush Defends Spying Program As ‘Necessary’ to Protect U.S.

Capitol Hill Blue – Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’

Heck of a Job, Bushie

Back in the UK…

A new blog called Surrey Tories has launched with a lovely comment on Dennis Paul’s New Year message. How nice to know that he’s been thinking of me.

Neil Craig is getting stepped on by the Scottish Liberal Democrats… for blogging and (*gasp*) writing letters.

Speaking of letters, Craig Murray has published some of the more thoughtful correspondence he has received in the past few days.

You’ll laugh, you’ll cry… Personally, I wept over the total lack of torture coverage in Sunday’s papers (that probably resulted from most journalists phoning their stories in a few days ahead).

Still, we have this:

Sunday Herald – Her Majesty’s Secret Service?: As official denials grow ever more opaque, evidence which points to Britain’s involvement in torture grows ever more transparent.

And this…

Time – Stubborn Charges – Has the British intelligence service been torturing prisoners in Greece?

We also have this end-of-year thought from Robert Fisk…

Robert Fisk – Only justice, not bombs, can make our dangerous world a safer place: But terror is also in the prisons and torture chambers of the Middle East. It is in the very jails to which we have been merrily sending out trussed-up prisoners these past three years. For Jack Straw to claim that men are not being sent on their way to torture is surely one of the most extraordinary – perhaps absurd is closer to the mark – statements to have been made in the “war on terror.” If they are not going to be tortured – like the luckless Canadian shipped off to Damascus from New York – then what is the purpose of sending them anywhere? And how are we supposed to “win” this war by ignoring all the injustices we are inflicting on that part of the world from which the hijackers of Sept. 11 originally came? How many times have Messrs Bush and Blair talked about “democracy”? How few times have they talked about “justice,” the righting of historic wrongs, the ending of torture? Our principal victims of the “war on terror,” of course, have been in Iraq (where we have done quite a bit of torturing ourselves).

And yet more from Rupert Cornwell…

Rupert Cornwell – War on Terror: The global war: Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, the kidnapping and “rendition” of terrorist suspects, alleged secret CIA prisons – all have created the impression that where Muslim radicals are concerned, anything goes. Nobody in a high position has been sacked for outrages that have stained America’s reputation. Most astounding of all is that US leaders, self-proclaimed champions of democracy and human decency, appear to be resisting a legal ban on torture. For every terrorist captured, half a dozen potential new ones are born.

Guardian – British admit being at terror grilling: British officials have admitted MI6 officers were present during the interrogation of 28 Pakistanis in Greece, despite apparent denials by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. They insist, however, that the officers took no active part in the men’s arrest, questioning or abuse that was later alleged.

Just some thoughts to aid those who may be swayed by seemingly strong denials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street in the coming days….

Jack Straw’s Oral FAC Evidence (Tuesday 13 December 2005): I have never had piece of paper produced before me where on the rubric it says, “We believe this has been obtained under torture.”

And here’s why…

Paragraph 9 of Letter #3 from Craig Murray (July 2004): 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.

So, no names given, no questions asked. Hooray for plausible deniability. More on this in a moment.

First, it needs to be pointed out that both Jack Straw and Tony Blair can truthfully claim that they have seen no evidence based on torture if that data is instead classified as ‘intelligence’. Neat, huh?

Second, they can truthfully claim that they have seen no piece of paper produced before them where on the rubric (header) it says, “We believe this has been obtained under torture.” – because it would appear that this information – along with any names – is removed from such documents before they see them.

Third, these paragons of virtue and justice may (I stress may) actually be able to truthfully claim that “we don’t do torture” or “we don’t encourage torture” because they are using the present tense.

Oh, and I’m not just talking about Uzbekistan here. Abu Ghraib is in the past, too:

Observer – British quizzed Iraqis at torture jail: British military intelligence officers were interrogating prisoners in the notorious Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq even as the first reports of abuses at the prison came to light, The Observer can reveal. The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that three ‘military personnel’ were stationed at the prison, outside Baghdad, between January and April this year. Coalition sources in Iraq say MI6 also visited the jail regularly.

Now we get back to (and close with) plausible deniability… and the fact that Jack Straw does not enjoy this privilege.

He may claim to be a busy man and unable to read all correspondence from all ambassadors.

Like Geoff Hoon, he may even claim to be unaware of the many press reports on the matter because he was out of town at the time.

But he cannot claim to be unaware of the issue of torture in Uzbekistan, because he had to work his butt off to fight, refute or suppress these claims as part of a bloody election campaign.

He knew. He always knew. And if there’s any justice, he’ll be done for this and for his blatant misuse of power in trying to shut Craig Murray up.

Complicity: A good point well-raised by Talk Politics

Edjog writes a letter to Michelle Malkin

The Scotsman takes an interest…. twice.

BlairWatch has an MP3 of Craig’s BBC Radio 4 interview.

Telegraph – Ex-ambassador claims Britain received terror information gained by torture: Mr Craig said the information undermined assertions by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that Britain did not “knowingly” use information provided through torture. He is claiming a public interest defence under the Government’s “whistleblowers’ charter” as protection from prosecution.

(Mr Craig…? Oh well. Moving on…)

Slate – The Crystal Ball Drops: On the last blogging day of 2005, bloggers are swapping predictions for 2006. They’re also debating claims that the British used intelligence extracted by means of torture in Uzbekistan and pondering the changing gender balance on college campuses.

(Off-topic note for the record; almost every local ‘end of year’ wrap-up I’ve read so far includes a reference to Rebekah Wade. Moving on…)

United Press – Brit envoy says UK lied on torture: Murray’s decision to publish the documents also implicates the United States, Britain’s closest ally. In another confidential report to London, dated 18 March 2003, Murray wrote: “As seen from Tashkent, U.S. policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan, the United States pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.”

New York Times – Diplomat Says Britain Used Data Gotten by Torture: A spokesman for the Foreign Office, who spoke in return for anonymity under department rules, declined to comment directly on Mr. Murray’s claims. “There is nothing new here,” he said. He also declined to comment on British news reports that the Foreign Office had blocked publication of a nonfiction book by Mr. Murray, “Murder in Samarkand,” until he edited out sensitive material.

Check out Empire Burlesque’s excellent blog-watcher and news-scraper for more.

All we have so far from the Foreign Office is a further assurance that they don’t torture people and they don’t (actively) encourage others to torture. They’re also running with an ‘old news’ line that strangely echoes the view of initial critics, and kind of undermines any planned prosecution of ‘Mr Craig’ for publishing secrets…

UPDATE – More via Nosemonkey, who notes the appearance and spread of the Associated Press story, points out that the Mirror has the most accurate headline to date and brings up an interesting point about the latest denials from the Foreign Office.

UPDATE – BBC – Ex-diplomat prints torture claims

1. As Wibbler notes in a previous comment, “Craig Murray” is one of the most popular blog-specific searches today. We have right-wing bloggers to thank for at least 30% of this activity. Well done, lads!

2. Chin-wiping cheerleader Michelle Malkin is now on the case and begs us to ‘stay tuned’. Please note the careful illusion of balance in this post. (“Y’know, this book-plugging moonbat may have a point, but…”)

3. Isn’t most of this a recycled version of Richard Clarke ‘only wanting to sell his book’? I think someone needs to learn a few new tricks.

4. Damn it all…. it’s just occurred to me thank no-one thought to check the fonts!

5. More careful and balanced scrutiny from Outside The Beltway.

6. Some great comments under this post. Put your coffee to one side.

7. The Register reports: (T)he point, and the difficulty for the FCO, is that they establish who said what, to whom, when. Claims by the FCO and the Government in general that it does not procure evidence via torture and that it is unaware that torture is taking place can most kindly be viewed as superlatively disingenuous when seen against the background of Murray’s letters. In order to sustain the ‘see no evil’ policy in the face of these, Jack Straw must presumably also now claim to have been entirely unaware of what one of his own ambassadors was telling him, repeatedly and at some considerable length.

8. The Times reports *and* links to the documents *and* Craig’s website. Damn it, that shoots my Murdoch conspiracy theory to hell. I guess our case is baseless after all.

9. Craig’s release of these documents was one of the lead stories on Radio 4 this evening. The ever-biased BBC at work. Obviously.

10. We now have the weekend papers to look forward to. There’s lots of analysis in weekend papers, plus we’re dealing with two distinct sets of editors. What a shame that I’ve now lost heart (and interest) thanks to those hard-working pundits who have the courage to believe in their President.

11. I did this; The Herald – MPs to probe ‘torture’ claims over British spy in Greece – I deliberately engineered this story in order to market Craig’s book. I wasn’t going to say anything, but the guilt is eating me up inside.

12. At this stage, we are treating the near-to-complete removal of files from Craig’s web server at approx 2230 GMT yesterday as a technical glitch caused when the hosting company attempted to move the site to a different server via an automated process, but only managed the first half of the operation, thereby changing ‘moval’ to ‘removal’.

(What? ‘Moval’ is a perfectly cromulent word. The explanation given by the host seems entirely dyspepmental, also.)

There’s more, but thirteen is an unluckiest of numbers and I’m just dying to say; STAY TUNED!

*Sing*, Dennis!

Oh, superlative manipulative disingenuousness,
Blair and Straw are famous for their truthful strenuousness.
They can deny it all they like, the sods,
There’s no way out of this mess,
Wiiiith….
Superlative manipulative disingenuousness!
(Um diddle diddle diddle um diddled lies…)

UPDATE – Oh, go on then…

UPDATE – Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha*breeeeeath*ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

No, no, no… wait… it gets better: A former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan is about to release an “explosive” book on the Clinton-inaugurated practice of “extraodinary renditions.” (my emphasis)

At the risk of repeating myself; Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Here’s the first smear, folks.

Craig’s just out to sell his book! He hacked his own website! It’s old news anyway!

Keep an eye out for more charming accusations and insinuations over the weekend.

Speaking of carefully-crafted insinuations and name-calling wingnuts concerned right-wing activists, something rather odd happened to Craig Murray’s website last night.

The site is now back online, but we’re waiting for a response from the hosting company before we give out any details.