RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘Saddam Hussein’

MI6 ‘is not complicit’ in torture

By Gordon Corera
BBC Security Correspondent

Head of MI6 Sir John Scarlett

The head of MI6 has told the BBC there is no torture and "no complicity in torture" by the British secret service.

Sir John Scarlett said his officers were committed to human rights and liberal democracy, but also had to protect the UK against terrorism.

There has been growing concern about the role of the intelligence services in the mistreatment of suspects abroad.

The Joint Human Rights Committee of MPs and peers recently called for an independent inquiry into the matter.

In a highly critical report, the committee said there was now a "disturbing number of credible allegations" of British complicity in torture.

These allegations include the rendition and alleged abuse of British resident Binyam Mohamed from Pakistan to Morocco, prior to being taken to Guantanamo Bay.

However, the committee said it was unable to draw conclusions about the involvement of British officers because ministers and the head of the domestic security service MI5 refused to testify at parliamentary hearings on the claims.

The Metropolitan Police are investigating the role of MI5 in Mr Mohamed’s case.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has also said it has grave concerns that British officers were complicit in torture.

Independence

Speaking on BBC Radio 4′s programme MI6: A Century in Shadows, Sir John Scarlett defended the actions of his organisation, the Secret Intelligence Service or MI6.

"Our officers are as committed to the values and the human rights values of liberal democracy as anybody else," he said.

"They also have the responsibility of protecting the country against terrorism and these issues need to be debated and understood in that context," he added.

He denied that British intelligence services had been compromised by their close relationship with counterparts in the US.

"Our American allies know that we are our own service, that we are here to work for the British interests and the United Kingdom. We’re an independent service working to our own laws – nobody else’s – and to our own values."

He insisted there has been "no torture and there is no complicity with torture".

‘No regrets’

Sir John also discussed the controversy over the reliability of intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

At the time, he was the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which had ownership of the 2002 dossier which contained the controversial claim that Saddam Hussein would be able to deploy weapons of mass destruction "within 45 minutes".

The newly launched Iraq Inquiry is expected to revisit the question of how the intelligence was presented in the dossier.

Citing the earlier Butler inquiry’s findings on the matter, Sir John acknowledged that "a number of the reports and reporting lines proved to be unreliable and had to be withdrawn".

"This of course is a regular issue in any kind of intelligence work and if you have lines, reporting chains if you like, then of course there are issues about how you validate them," he said.

Sir John said he had no regrets over the issue, but conceded that the episode had been "a difficult time for the service".

He will step down as the head of MI6 in November.


MI6: A Century in the Shadowsis a three part series for Radio 4.

The final episode,New Enemies,will be broadcast on Monday 10 August at 0900 BST and 2130 BST or listen again via iPlayer.


This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Jodie Evans: Put Down The Pom-Poms

Biden must invest his energy in calling for diplomacy, development, investment in infrastructure and accountability from the corrupt leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq that the US supports.

Gates: Some US Troops May Be Leaving Iraq Early

ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRPLANE — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday he sees “some chance of a modest acceleration” in the pace of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Gates, returning from a trip to Iraq, told reporters abo…

New claim of UK torture complicity

Papers suggest intelligence service knew men were being mistreated

A businessman who was held and mistreated in the United Arab Emirates following the London bombings believes he has evidence that British consular officials asked permission from the UK’s own security services to visit him while he was detained.

Heavily redacted documents seen by the Guardian appear to indicate that the request to visit Alam Ghafoor was made to an unidentified British intelligence officer and not to officials in the UAE.

Ghafoor is one of several British men who allege there has been British complicity in their detention and torture while abroad. The businessman, who is 38 and from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, was detained and tortured while on a business trip to Dubai following the London bombings in July 2005.

Ghafoor and his business partner, Mohammed Rafiq Siddique, flew to the UAE on 4 July. They were dragged out of a restaurant as they dined on 21 July. The two British Muslims say they were threatened with torture, deprived of sleep, subjected to stress positions and told they would be killed and fed to dogs.

Ghafoor has obtained copies of correspondence from consular officials to the Foreign Office in London while he was in custody that show those officials were asking someone other than the UAE authorities for permission to see him. Who that person is, and who they represented, is unclear, as their name was censored before the copies were handed over. Some of the reports were so heavily redacted by the time Ghafoor received them that the only words not blanked are his name.

In one email, dated 25 July, 2005, a consular official wrote: “Today I phoned [name withheld] trying to get permission to see them. First [...] told me that there was no need because they would be deported soon. I asked if we could see them today or tomorrow. [...] told me that [...] would check with the UAE authorities… and would let me know. I didn’t hear from [...] since then. Tomorrow I’ll speak to [...] again.”

Ghafoor, who was released without charge on 30 July, is convinced that the individual to which consular officials were turning for permission to see him was a British intelligence officer. At the time of his interrogation, Ghafoor was told that British security services had requested his questioning.

MI5 and MI6 officers who question terrorism suspects they know are being tortured, are acting in line with a secret government interrogation policy, drawn up after the 9/11 attacks. The policy states: “we cannot be party to such ill treatment nor can we be seen to condone it” and that “it is important that you do not engage in any activity yourself that involves inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners.” It also advises intelligence officers that if detainees “are not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene” to prevent torture.

According to Philippe Sands, QC, one of the world’s leading experts in international human rights law, the policy almost certainly breaches international human rights.

When Ghafoor asked why he had been picked up, he was shown a photograph and told he resembled one of the 7/7 suicide bombers and must be related to him. His business partner, Siddique, who was also detained and tortured, says he was told he must have been involved in the bombings – not only did he share a name with the bombers – but he lived in Dewsbury, the same Yorkshire town.

Ghafoor said his interrogators questioned his sexuality, as he is not married, and insulted him because he was unable to wash, saying he smelled. He was also punched in the groin.

One interrogator said to him: “In the morning you will be thrown into a pit and the dogs will tear you to bits and I will watch it and enjoy it.”

Eventually, he agreed to sign a false confession admitting he was a friend of the bombers and had organised the London attacks. “I wrote a false confession and put crazy things in it like ‘I have constant contact with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden’,” he said.

He was told he would be shot by a firing squad the following morning.

When Ghafoor returned home, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. His relationship with his partner broke down and he suffered nightmares, anxiety and paranoia.

Ghafoor is furious that there has been no explanation for his treatment, nor an apology. “I would like to know why I was put through this hell and I would like someone to be accountable.”

Clive Stafford-Smith, the legal director of Reprieve, a not-for-profit human rights organisation, said: “It is impossible for the victims of torture to move on without truth and reconciliation, yet the British government seems intent on covering up what it has done.”

He added: “Until recently, the British security services were told to effectively turn a blind eye to torture.”

The Foreign Office said in a statement that Ghafoor and Siddique were not detained at Britain’s request. “British consular staff visited them on July 30, 2005 to ensure their welfare needs were being addressed. Their detention was a matter for the Dubai authorities … they were not detained at the request of the UK government. We do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment for any purpose.

“Wherever allegations of wrongdoing are made, they are taken seriously and investigated as appropriate.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Eric Blinderman: Do Governments Need The Media to Bring Criminals to Justice?

America’s Most Wanted has successfully bridged the gap between entertainment and law enforcement; The Wanted attempts to do this on an international scale.

Reformists challenge Iraq’s Kurdish elite

Obama-inspired Change party may form serious opposition in parliament as antipathy towards establishment grows

Amid rising tensions with Baghdad, Iraq’s self-ruling Kurds elect a parliament and president tomorrow following an unusually vigorous campaign in which a new reform movement has challenged the long supremacy of the elite.

The results will be closely watched by the government in Baghdad with whom the Kurds are engaged in bitter disputes over the distribution of power, territory and resources – solutions to which are seen as key to the country’s long-term stability. Turkey, Iran and Syria, each with significant Kurdish populations of their own, will also take notice.

Some two and a half million voters will choose between 24 party lists to fill 111 seats in the regional assembly in Erbil. Under a quota system, 30% of the MPs will be women. Eleven seats are set aside for minorities such as Turkomans and Christians.

A separate ballot will directly elect a president for the Kurdistan region. The incumbent, Massoud Barzani, who is head of the Kurdistan Democratic party, is expected to comfortably beat his four rivals.

But it is the parliamentary race that has caused the greater stir, with debates over poor services, the lack of transparency and corruption foremost.

The big beasts of Kurdish politics, Barzani’s KDP and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is led by Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, face a serious challenge for the first time since self-rule was established 18 years ago. Despite maintaining security and improving infrastructure, the coalition partners stand accused of allowing corruption, cronyism and nepotism to take root.

Enter Goran, (the Kurdish word for change), a reform movement inspired by the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. Its supporters’ chants of “We will change it” have been heard at rallies across Kurdistan, tapping into the broad public antipathy towards the old Kurdish establishment.

Change has put up a slate of candidates for the elections and though not expected to beat the KDP-PUK alliance, it may gain sufficient seats to form a serious opposition. It may also go on to fight in the elections for the federal parliament in Baghdad next January, splitting the powerful Kurdish bloc.

The message that “change is on its way” has resonated across the mountainous region, especially with younger Kurds, said Hiwa Osman, Iraq director of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

“Its use of Kurdish rap music – a relatively new phenomenon here – and street parties has contrasted sharply with broadcasts for the ruling Kurdistan list, which stress bravery and courage and the past Kurdish struggles against Saddam Hussein in the mountains, all set to the theme tune for Gladiator,” said Osman.

It is a surprise therefore that the movement’s leader is an establishment veteran, Nawshirwan Mustafa. For years he was the PUK’s number two. But Mustafa, 65, broke with Talabani two years ago, criticising the debilitating system of mismanagement and corruption that was failing the Kurdish people.

Mustafa spreads Change’s message via a daily newspaper, a popular website and a satellite TV station. He said he wanted to clean up Kurdish politics and “stop the KDP and PUK from interfering in all aspects of public life”.

In Sulaymaniyah, where Change was born, its symbol of an orange-flamed candle on a deep blue background has appeared on the sides of buses and taxis, on T-shirts, baseball caps, and balloons. At night thousands of flag-waving supporters take to the streets.

“The emergence of Change has energised elections here like never before,” said Assos Hadi, the editor in chief of Awene newspaper. “Before, the Kurdish political scene was like a lake, with a few ripples here and there. Now it is like an ocean, with raging currents.”

A western diplomatic observer said: “Change made an impressive start to the election campaign but in recent weeks, the Kurdistan list has got its act together and come back hard at them.”

Private polling carried out by the Kurdistan alliance in the final days of the campaign suggested the Kurdistan list was ahead with 56% support, followed by Change with 14%, and a grouping of moderate Islamist parties and two secular parties third at 9%. However, the number of undecided/don’t knows was a surprisingly high 20%.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Iraq United

A game of football in Baghdad - despite sand storm (Photo: Hugh Sykes/BBC)

By Hugh Sykes
BBC News

When is a one-nil defeat a victory When Iraq play Spain.

Spain beat Iraq in the qualifying round of the Confederations Cup in South Africa in June, scoring the only goal of the game. But the Iraqi fans were smiling.

In Bloemfontein and Johannesburg, the Iraqi national team had its own wildly enthusiastic "barmy army" of followers.

They were mostly expatriates ("not exiles," one of them pointed out firmly) – fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, with Iraqi names but homes in the US, Canada and the Gulf states.

Iraqi fan in South Africa (Photo: Hugh/Sykes)

The children had never been to the country where their parents were born. But they shouted "Iraq! Iraq! Iraq!" and waved the red, white and black national flag, with its inscription "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great).

One flag flapped continuously above a small group of Iraqi fans, held up over their heads by a great bunch of helium-filled balloons.

Under Saddam Hussein, and his son – Sports Minister Uday Hussein – Iraqi footballers were routinely humiliated and tortured when they lost.

But now a new national team has evolved – and it came to international attention when Iraq won the Asian Cup in 2007.

Fond memories

Football in Iraq is an intense national passion. During the World Cup in 2006, TVs were permanently tuned to the football – power cuts permitting.

One day I visited Cafe Arabia in Baghdad. It was more of a youth club than a cafe, with table-tennis and snooker – and a poster of Ronaldinho on the wall, wearing his Barcelona strip.

In the middle of the Portugal-Mexico game, the TV went blank. So I lined up some of the boys and asked them in turn who they supported: France, Argentina, Brazil, Brazil, England, Argentina, England, Brazil, Brazil, Brazil, Brazil.

Hugh Sykes with Iraqi football fans at Cafe Arabia, Baghdad

In Iraq during the World Cup, I also met Alla, a Baghdad civil servant and a Liverpool fan.

He told me: "England have two super-stars – David Beckham and Steven Gerrard. But it’s hard for England to beat Brazil – they are not fit enough."

Another time, in a cafe in Basra in 2003, 10-year-old Moatez’s eyes brightened with delight when I told him I lived near the Arsenal stadium in London.

"Oh!" he sighed. "Thierry Henry, Sol Campbell, David Seaman!" And as he said the name of the former Arsenal keeper, Moatez mimed a goalie’s dive from his chair.

Back in Baghdad, at the height of the violence in 2007, there was a local cup final on a dusty pitch down by the Tigris river.

There were about 50 spectators, most of them children. I asked them about their lives.

"We’re tired, exhausted," they said. "We come here on our bikes, afraid of explosions on the way."

National symbol

Had they seen any explosions Yes.

"We’re playing just for the people, for Iraq"

Nashat Akram
Iraq captain

Iraq captain Nashat Akram (Photo: Hugh Sykes/BBC)

"There was a bomb right next to my house," one boy told me.

"Ten or eleven people were killed. I watched my father carry dead bodies away."

In South Africa this June, the Iraqi side did not make it to the semi-finals.

"That’s football," their captain Nashat Akram told me.

He added: "But I hope my fans in Iraq are feeling happy because this is the first time we’ve played in the Confederations Cup – a very high level.

"And I hope in the future that we’ll do well and help our people. We’re playing just for the people, for Iraq."

The importance of the Iraqi national team as a symbol of national unity cannot be overstated.

Watching the stars playing in Jordan earlier this year, an Iraqi sports reporter, Haider Abdali, told me the hopes of his homeland were projected onto the football team.

"In the past, and now," he said, "there is no difference between Iraqis because Iraqis love each other and live together – from a long time.

"So now, and in the future, this team will be a picture for all Iraq because the team is mixed from all Iraq. There is no difference between us.

"It was people from outside who came and did this to us to divide us, and they succeeded; but now Iraqis wake up and return to their lives and love each other."

On election day in January 2005, at New Baghdad police station, policemen in uniform were playing football in their lunch break.

When the ball went into touch, a little girl called Raba went and fetched it – sometimes scraping mud off it before throwing it to one of the men.

Raba was then seven years old. Her father was a policeman at New Baghdad.

But he wasn’t there playing football anymore. Three days earlier, he’d been shot dead by an insurgent.</p


This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper: Must it be Business as Usual as the People of Iran Hang in the Balance?

Citizen lobbies and elected representatives have to ask this simple question: do we have to do business with people who do business with the Mullahs?

Washington diary

By Matt Frei
BBC News, Washington

Different countries mourn their fallen in different ways.

US Marines carry the remains of Sgt Michael C. Roy, at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, 10 July 2009

The flag-draped coffins of Italian soldiers are applauded as they prepare to get lowered into the ground.

In Israel, relatives and friends display unfettered and unembarrassed grief as they throw themselves on the coffins.

In America, a democracy which worships its military more than any other I know, the ritual after death in battle is dignified, understated and wrapped in etiquette.

If you have any doubts about this, I suggest attending a burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

The undulating fields of gravestones peer out over the National Mall, the Lincoln Memorial and Capitol Hill.

In Washington, the prize of liberty is architecturally linked to the price of life.

Respect

This country owes its creation to the blood of its soldiers and never lets you forget it.

The military is a part of every day life. At virtually every airport you see soldiers returning from the front in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The radio is full of spots advertising discounts for military families. On Memorial Day, Independence Day and Veterans Day, our neighbours – who loathed George W Bush and his war in Iraq – hang out a super-sized Stars and Stripes.

I was on the shuttle flight to New York last month with the usual crowd of Capitol Hill staffers – a few congressmen, some agitated banking executives and napping lobbyists.

Suddenly, the captain announced that we had some soldiers on board who had just returned from Iraq. The whole plane erupted in applause. Respect for the military transcends party lines and opinions about war.

So it always struck me and my American friends as odd that the Bush administration maintained the ban on footage of the flag-draped coffins of fallen soldiers returning from Iraq.

The ban was first implemented by Mr Bush’s father during the first Gulf War, in an attempt to avoid the kinds of images that had undermined support for the Vietnam War.

"There is plenty of personal material to put a face, a name and a story to the awful statistics of war"

Matt Frei in the BBC World News America studio

But the images themselves do not create a mood swing for or against a conflict, they merely underpin existing impressions.

The concealed coffins of Dover Air Force Base – a ban which has since been lifted by the Obama administration – mirrored the many veiled justifications for a war that was overshadowed by too many questions.

And so we come to Britain, a country that has gone to war more often than any of its European neighbours since World War II.

Britain fought the Falklands War in 1982 to much of the world’s astonishment.

For the Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges it was like "two bald men fighting over a comb".

Worthy cause

Britain relishes a just war. Lady Thatcher egged on President George Bush Sr to dispatch troops to Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.

British public opinion was far more enthusiastic about a military engagement in the boggy Balkans than the House of Commons.

It was Tony Blair who persuaded Bill Clinton to use force in Kosovo.

Apparently, the two had a stand-up row in the Oval Office with the British Prime Minister shaming the American President into action.

The hearses containing the bodies of five fallen British soldiers make their way through the streets of Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, 10 July

The Iraq war was the exception to the rule and Afghanistan is proving to be an interesting case.

After 9/11 there was very little opposition to the Afghan war.

The combination of going after al-Qaeda and removing a medieval regime that banned women’s education was considered a worthy cause.

The war appeared to be over almost before it began and warnings about the treacherous terrain of Afghanistan soon dissipated.

How things have changed.

In the space of two days last week, Britain lost eight soldiers, three of them just 18 years old.

Some of the soldiers had kept journals which have been reprinted in the press. Others had been featured on national TV before they were killed.

In other words, there is plenty of personal material to put a face, a name and a story to the awful statistics of war.

Insufficient armour

The town of Wootton Bassett, which is close to the air force base where coffins are flown into, has provided a chorus of grief.

Thousands of people lined the quaint streets on Tuesday to welcome back the fallen heroes.

Many cried. Others cheered. Uniformed veterans hung their heads in honour before applauding.

Wootton Bassett has done this 80 times since the beginning of the Afghan war and twice in the last week alone.

This is raw and unscripted grief, leavened by shock. Who knows where it will lead

Everyone is watching whether the beast of public outrage will stir once again.

It has done so often enough this year, most memorably over the MPs’ expenses scandal.

So far the picture is mixed. There have been some poignant questions about insufficient armour in Afghanistan.

They have been asked in some of the journals of the fallen soldiers, and repeated in the pub and on the floor of the House of Commons.

This is damaging and – almost inevitably – the government of the day will be blamed. Take cover, Gordon.

Every country hates the idea that its sons and daughters are being asked to risk their lives on the battlefield with dodgy equipment.

The latest opinion polls indicate that the public and parliament are still behind this war.

But the casualties mount, the possibility of defeat is discussed and the definitions of victory become increasingly woolly.

Britain still mourns its dead in Afghanistan with pride and applause. That may change if the cargo of coffins becomes more regular.

Meanwhile, Britain’s colonial history lingers uncomfortably on the sidelines.

In 1842, 16,000 men and their dependants evacuated Kabul after a disastrous occupation.

Only one of them, Dr William Brydon, a military surgeon survived.

The rest were killed by winter, hunger and Afghan tribesmen who resented the presence of armed foreigners and infidels on their soil.

The last thing that the British government now needs is for the public to start re-reading the history books.

Matt Frei is the presenter of BBC World News America which airs every weekday on BBC News, BBC World News and BBC America (for viewers outside the UK only).


Send us your comments on Matt Frei’s Washington Diary using the link below.

Your comments
</p


This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Stanley Kutler: Remembering History, Powell, and McNamara

By Stanley Kutler How do we remember history? Time diminishes our memories of details and spear carriers. Thirty-five years ago, as Richard Nixon prepared to…

Scott Atran: The Moral Failure of Our National Intelligence

A new government report on the Bush administration’s surveillance of personal commmunications reveals a familiar pattern of intellectual deafness and moral abuse of the country.

Bush library to display Saddam Hussein’s gun

Deposed Iraqi leader was armed with the pistol when Delta Force troops captured him in 2003

George Bush is not a man who does irony. It’s not in his personal vocabulary. Take the exquisite irony behind the story of Saddam Hussein’s gun.

The weapon, a 9mm Glock 18C, was discovered by Delta Force special troops when they dug Hussein out of his fox hole outside Tikrit on 13 December 2003. The legendary beast of Baghdad emerged from the 8ft-deep hole bewildered and disorientated; with his shaggy beard and unkempt mop of hair he looked closer to a dishevelled elf than one of the world’s great dictators.

The Iraq war at that point was still in its infancy, Bush was feeling buoyant. In his eyes the pistol represented a fundamental triumph of good over evil.

After four Delta Force soldiers presented Bush with the pistol, mounted in a glass case, it became one of his most prized possessions. He would show it off in the Oval Office to visiting military dignitaries, with the boast “The Delta guys pulled it off Saddam”.

Now the New York Times has discovered that he intends to make it a centrepiece of his presidential library that is being built, at a cost of $200m (£123m), on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Though the gun belongs to the US national archives, associates told the Times that he intends prominently to display it there. The library is to be organised thematically around 25 key decisions taken by Bush during his eight years in the White House.

Mark Langdale, the president of the foundation that is being set up in Bush’s name, told the paper that “the gun is an interesting artefact, and it tells you that the United States captured Saddam Huseein and disarmed him literally. How we fit that into the decision to go to war, we haven’t gotten to that point yet.”

One can empathise with Langdale’s difficulty. How indeed does the pistol fit with the decision to go to war?

Which is where irony, or the former president’s lack of it, kicks in. Hussein was found with the pistol as he crouched on all fours in his cave. But he offered no resistance to the Delta Forces and when they came to confiscate his gun they found that it was unloaded. It is safe to assume that the Bush library will not labour that point when it opens in 2013.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds