Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts

Thursday, April 29, 2010

VIDEO: Andrea Mitchell labels Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg ‘anti-American.’

By GottaLaff

I am Laffy, and I am anti-American.

"Hi Laffy."

If being critical of the Iraq war is anti-American, then count me in:

On Morning Joe, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell echoed Brown’s attack on Clegg, saying that Clegg “is very anti-American” on certain foreign policy issues. Guest Zbigniew Brzezinski immediately rejected Mitchell’s claim.



So if we disagree with foreign policy issues, we are not "really" American. But I'm pretty sure I am. I even have the papers to prove it, should anyone stop me and demand to see them.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Abandonment of American Principles

By GottaLaff

Fayiz al-Kandari

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard has graciously given me permission to post his latest op-ed in full:

For most of my military career, the United States followed the rule of law and resisted legal shortcuts that ran counter to our country's long-standing principles. We didn't beat or humiliate helpless prisoners. We didn't lock up alleged criminals and throw away the keys. We didn't let fear change who we are and what we believe. Then came Guantanamo. Political expediency replaced due process, and America started down a slippery slope of doing what is easy and politically popular rather than what is right.

I remember my early days in the military like they were yesterday. Two weeks after high school graduation, I talked my mother into signing the papers that allowed me to enter the Army at the young age of seventeen. Soon I was off to basic training at Fort Benning in Georgia during the height of the Cold War in 1984.

While in basic training, the U.S. Army instilled in us a set of principles and then promptly sought to test our resolve. We were told that it was routine for the Soviets to detain citizens of other nations without trials. The Army even had a fake Russian officer stand on a stage and attempt to rattle us young recruits by telling us that our weakness and sense of morality would lead to our demise.

Along with the other young basic trainees, I shouted down the Russian imposter and I remember leaving with a sense of triumph. I thought to myself, "I am an American damn it! Even the worst people get a fair shake." As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1956 and the Soviet Union realized in 1991, "America is strong because we believe in the dignity of man."

Today however, I am deeply concerned that our country's greatest legacy of strengths - our sense of justice and dignity of man - are eroding. Redefining torture to allow for harsher treatment of suspects and detaining prisoners indefinitely represent a total abandonment of our principles. Remember we have released over 500 detainees the government was unable to establish anything at all against.

Throughout our country's history, we have prevailed time and time again over the most infamous and tyrannical of individuals - no matter the enemy, their strategy or tactics. During my more than two and a half decades in the U.S. military, I have witnessed firsthand the positive impact our country has had around the world.

As a young infantryman assigned to West Germany in the mid-1980s, I helped protect people from being placed in jail and beaten at the hands of the Soviets. I remember an old German man thanking me as an American not only for allowing his country to return to democracy, but also for harnessing the Soviet Union and its blind efforts at world domination. My thoughts reverted back to the faux-Russian officer in basic training attempting to ridicule me, my sense of morality and my pride in our country.

In Bosnia, I investigated crimes committed during and after the Bosnian war. Again, I was thanked by civilians for helping put a stop to the insane idea that a person's religion is indicative of his or her worthiness to inhabit the earth. I remember a Bosnian Serb official telling me, "You Americans act so damned principled, what do you know." For a moment, I was again reminded of that assembly at Fort Benning and I felt a sense of triumph.

While serving in Iraq, a newly appointed Iraqi governmental official told me that, if America were going to succeed here, it's time to pick sides. He then presented me with a list of names in Arabic. The implication was obvious - he wanted me to prosecute some political opponents. At the time, I laughed off the suggestion and never even had the list of names translated. We're Americans; we do not use legal powers for political purposes.

In 2004 I heard that the U.S. military was involved with abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. My first thought was, "Oh, I bet these soldiers will be prosecuted to the fullest extend under the law." I was outraged when I actually saw the photos and wondered how American soldiers could inflict such harm on helpless and handcuffed prisoners. We are trained yearly on the Geneva Conventions; we in the military know better. In retrospect, the country had already veered dangerously off course, and I hadn't fully realized it yet.

Then came my assignment to defend Fayiz al-Kandari, a Kuwaiti who has been locked away in Guantanamo Bay for the past eight years. Initially, I was skeptical of my client and his claims of severe abuse and broken bones at the hands of my fellow service members. I remember thinking, "How bad could it be?" That was until one day when he insisted on showing me the multiple, large, horizontal scars that spanned the entire length of his back.

Still unconvinced that he had been beaten, I decided to obtain his medical records only to discover that many were missing during the timeframe Fayiz claims he was beaten. Meanwhile, the records I was able to review were severely redacted and hard to read. It was then that I realized Fayiz had been treated in outrageous ways. I really don't care if you refer to the treatment as "enhanced interrogation" or "torture," the fact remains that beating a handcuffed prisoner and shackling him in a fetal position for more than an entire day is both wrong and illegal by my estimation, period.

When it comes to Guantanamo, I'm still waiting for that Fort Benning sense of triumph. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem forthcoming. Rather than following our country's long-standing principles, today we are moved by fear and abide by the very worst policies and practices - indefinite detention, military commissions, secret prisons, and abusive interrogations. While these may be convenient in the short-term, the lingering and detrimental effects on our country will be felt for decades to come.

We in the military do not - and have never - supported harsh interrogations. We understand that we lose more than we gain if barbarity becomes the guiding force behind our military efforts. Ironically, I find that those who support torture and indefinite detentions tend to be amazingly light in military service. Meanwhile, those who oppose these un-American policies and practices are serving side-by-side with me and also fill the ranks of my senior leadership. As senior officers we must do a better job at making our voices heard to the world and, more importantly, the young members we lead.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is the U.S. military attorney for Kuwaiti detainee Fayiz Al Kandari, who still awaits his day court more than eight years after he was sold into US custody. The views presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Department of Defense or its components.
****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Ex-MI5 chief: US misled allies over torturing detainees

By GottaLaff

How many times have we heard this now? Enough to finally act on it? Nah, too bothersome. Keep looking forward, don't look back. Learning from our past is so true justice ago:

United States intelligence agencies misled key allies, including Britain, about its mistreatment of suspected terrorists, the former head of the country's domestic spy agency, MI5, said Tuesday.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired in 2007 and is now a member of the House of Lords, said the U.S. deliberately suppressed details of its harsh handling of some detainees, including accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.


No way! Piffle! Why, BushCo would never think of doing such a thing!

"The Americans were very keen that people like us did not discover what they were doing," Manningham-Buller told a meeting at Britain's Parliament.

Of course they were. They knew they'd get nailed for war crimes.

A few years ago, back in 2002 or so, Manningham-Buller wondered how the U.S. got KSM to spill his guts, as it were, and the response was that it was KSM's pride in "his achievements" that made him talk when interrogated. However:

"It wasn't actually until after I retired that I read that, in fact, he had been water boarded 160 times," Manningham-Buller said.

See how proud he was? And how proud BushCo has been of that "achievement"?

"Americans were very keen to conceal from us what was happening, as they were from many of their own people." Manningham-Buller spent 33 years in British intelligence, and was head of MI5 between 2002 and 2007. [...] "The government did lodge protests and I'm not going to say any more on that," Manningham-Buller said.

So, hey, remember all the jokes about how BushCo was like, totally into "24"? And how it affected their policies? Yes, a Tee Vee show...

Here's the sick punch line:

"One of the sad things is Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush all watched '24,'" Manningham-Buller said...

Some jokes just aren't funny.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Kuwait Needs to Speak Up on Guantanamo

By GottaLaff

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard has graciously given me permission to post his latest op-ed in full:

With the Obama administration's January 2010 deadline for closing Guantanamo Bay now in the past, two Kuwaiti detainees remain imprisoned in Cuba where they have been held without trial for more than eight years. While the U.S. government is primarily responsible for the suffering these Kuwaitis have endured, the Government of Kuwait is also responsible for allowing the injustice to continue.

As is universally recognized, Kuwait is a close and faithful ally of the United States. The United States liberated Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990. More recently, Kuwait provided critical support as a staging area for the U.S. military during the Iraq War.

To be fair, the Emir of Kuwait has sought the return of the Kuwaiti detainees in face-to-face meetings with both President Bush and President Obama. The Emir has also sent a letter to the U.S. government requesting that all Kuwaiti citizens detained at Guantanamo be returned. Other Kuwaiti officials have repeated that request to their counterparts in the U.S. government.

The Government of Kuwait has also fulfilled all of the conditions the U.S. government established for the return of the Kuwaiti detainees. Perhaps most significantly, Kuwait established a state-of-the-art rehabilitation center that provides access to education, medical care, group discussions, and physical exercise to help detainees recover from their long ordeal in Guantanamo.

But while Kuwait has clearly made an effort to secure the return of its citizens, these efforts have not been strong enough. Contrast Kuwait's quiet, diplomatic approach with that of Saudi Arabia, which openly criticized the U.S. government and demanded its citizens back. As a result, more than 100 Saudi detainees were transferred from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia.

Despite the close ties between the United States and Kuwait, the United States does not appear eager to send Kuwaitis home. For example, on September 17, 2009, a U.S. federal judge ordered the immediate release of Fouad Al Rabiah, an innocent Kuwaiti who was interrogated in "enhanced" ways at the hands of his U.S. captors. Rather than immediately returning him to Kuwait, the U.S. government delayed and stalled Mr. Al Rabiah's transfer, forcing his attorneys to ask that U.S. officials be held in contempt of court. It was not until December 9, 2009, almost three months after the judge's order, that Mr. Al Rabiah was finally released from Guantanamo and returned to Kuwait. Still, even with a Federal judge's opinion that the United States had no authority to detain Mr Al Rabiah, the Kuwaiti government refused to demand his return.

If the United States was reluctant to release a demonstrably innocent man, it most certainly will be in no rush to repatriate my client, Fayiz Al Kandari, whose habeas case is still pending despite Fayiz having spent more than eight years in Guantanamo.

At this critical time, the United States is turning its back on its faithful ally. The United States may be legitimately reluctant to return detainees to countries such as Tunisia or Libya where former prisoners may face further torture or persecution. But there are no such concerns about Kuwait. To the contrary, Kuwait treats its returned detainees humanely and helps reintegrate them into society with a rehabilitation program modeled after the successful Saudi program.

No one likes to tell their friends they are wrong. But there comes a time in every relationship when a little push back is necessary. And the friendship survives. Now is the time for the Government of Kuwait to take a stand. It might be outside its comfort zone, but it is the right thing to do for its two citizens still imprisoned at Guantanamo.

****

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is the U.S. military attorney for Kuwaiti detainee Fayiz Al Kandari who still awaits his day court more than eight years after he was sold into US custody. The views presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Department of Defense or its components.
****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Obama aides push for criminal court trials of terrorists

By GottaLaff

http://static.desktopnexus.com/wallpapers/90821-bigthumbnail.jpg

Good for the Obama administration. Military commissions are not as reliable, something I've discovered after months of following Fayiz al-Kandari's case.

Testimony derived from tortured detainees and heresay upon heresay are allowed in military commission trials. Prisoners make up useless, forced testimony under extreme duress in order to make the suffering stop.

And what is this sudden aversion to our system of justice? American courts aren't good enough for the GOP? And since when did any terrorist ever escape from our supermax prisons?

The Obama administration bluntly urged the Congress on Thursday to steer clear of directing where terrorism suspects should be prosecuted, pushing back against efforts to require military rather than civilian trials.

A bipartisan group of senators has offered legislation aimed at forcing the administration to prosecute terrorism suspects, like the self-professed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in special military commission trials instead of traditional criminal courts.

Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to Nancy Pelosi and The Boehner:


"The exercise of prosecutorial discretion has always been and should remain an Executive branch function [...] We believe it would be unwise and would set a dangerous precedent for Congress to restrict the discretion of our departments to carry out specific terrorism prosecutions."


In other words, piss off.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Video- Incredible PSA for seatbelts



Just phenomenal. h/t Josh Lev.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Seven paragraphs

By GottaLaff

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100210/capt.c9262f3704794e7c90bb3943ab9d0ab1.britain_torture_claims_lon813.jpg?x=213&y=343&xc=1&yc=1&wc=254&hc=409&q=85&sig=6tlAVcD2w43rc2ecT7nXGg--

My original post about the release of information on Binyam Mohamed here.

"No real secrets" were revealed. So what was the problem again?

At issue in the British court were seven paragraphs derived from American intelligence documents. The Bush administration claimed the material contained top-secret information and threatened to cut off intelligence sharing with Britain if it was released. Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton repeated those threats, despite President Obama’s campaign promises of openness and the rule of law in his detainee policy.

The paragraphs contained no real secrets. Mainly, the document — a summary of information that American intelligence provided to Britain’s security service, MI5 — echoes previous disclosures by the C.I.A. and Mr. Mohamed’s harrowing account of his ordeal.

But what it does contain is the assessment by British intelligence that his treatment violated legal prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners.

Actually, now that I think about it, it's understandable why they'd want to keep that under wraps.

*****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Yoo asked for it

By GottaLaff

Yoo hooooo!

As reports circulate that the Justice Department has softened its criticism of attorney John Yoo for memos approving the Bush administration's treatment of terrorism suspects, several prominent lawyers are urging a federal appeals court in San Francisco to hold Yoo accountable.

They have submitted arguments opposing dismissal of a prisoner's lawsuit that accuses the former Justice Department attorney of providing a legal cover for torture. The suit covers much of the same ground as the department's ethics investigation of Yoo. [...]

Yoo says he always gave good-faith legal advice and denies authorizing torture. Those claims could be tested in a San Francisco federal court, however, unless Yoo can persuade a court to dismiss Jose Padilla's lawsuit. [...]

Yoo has appealed, saying the suit would interfere with presidential war-making authority. The Obama administration has taken his side, arguing that courts should not meddle in questions of national security.

But in filings over the last 10 days, groups of constitutional law professors, legal ethics scholars and former government attorneys urged the court to keep Padilla's suit alive.

They argue that this is not a dispute over legal advice, as Yoo contends, but the case of a lawyer who allegedly stepped out of his role to take part in planning detention and interrogation policies, and then devised legal opinions to justify those policies.

And who are some of these very principled, very learned, very ethical lawyers who support the novel concept of upholding the-- What's it called again? Oh yeah-- U.S. Constitution? Here's who:

Erwin Chemerinsky, law school dean at UC Irvine; Alan Morrison, an assistant law dean at George Washington and former director of Public Citizen Litigation Group; and Norman Dorsen of New York University, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Also, Stanford's Deborah Rhode and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, not to mention Bruce Fein, special assistant to the director of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in President Ronald Reagan's administration.

They stressed the importance of applying ethical standards to lawyers who advise the president on constitutional issues.

There is much more here. (h/t: VNDNBRG)

And here:

*****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Britain discloses secret data on detainee abuse by U.S. agents

By GottaLaff

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100210/capt.c9262f3704794e7c90bb3943ab9d0ab1.britain_torture_claims_lon813.jpg?x=213&y=343&xc=1&yc=1&wc=254&hc=409&q=85&sig=6tlAVcD2w43rc2ecT7nXGg--
AP – In this file photo dated 2000 and released by the human rights and legal defense organization Reprieve

How many more like this are coming? You know there are classified reports galore, cover-ups, military commissions that convicted (and continue to convict) innocent prisoners or those whose tortured confessions were used against them. I could go on, and have (see below):
Britain was forced by an appeals court Wednesday to reveal a long-secret description of how a former terrorism suspect was beaten, shackled and deprived of sleep during interrogations by U.S. agents.

Ethiopia-born British resident Binyam Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan in 2002, and says he was tortured there and in Morocco before being flown to Guantanamo Bay and charged with plotting with al-Qaida to bomb American apartment buildings. [...]

Mohamed's lawyers claimed the seven paragraphs prove that the U.S. and British governments were complicit in extracting evidence against him through torture. [...]

The paragraphs posted on the Web site of the British Foreign Office after the court decision say Mohamed was subjected to "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," including sleep deprivation, shackling and threats resulting in mental stress and suffering, during interviews by U.S. authorities. [...]

The charges against Mohamed were later dropped.

He was one of the "lucky" ones.

"It shows the British authorities knew far more than they let on about Binyam Mohamed and how he was tortured in U.S. custody," she said. "It is clear from these seven paragraphs that our authorities knew very well what was happening to Mr. Mohamed. Our hands are very dirty indeed."

She said it is now evident that British authorities were complicit in the use of torture and benefited from it.

And, sadly, that's all that mattered to them.

*****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

British court orders release of U.S. document about Guantanamo detainee

By GottaLaff

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/iraqis_tortured_wp-f.jpg

Judges seem to side with Gitmo prisoners a lot, as you know from some of my previous posts (links to those below). There's a reason for that:
Former Guantanamo Bay inmate Binyam Mohamed says U.S. and British agents knew he was being tortured. Britain said releasing a summary of his treatment would harm relations with U.S. intelligence.

An American document that allegedly describes the torture of a former Guantanamo Bay inmate should be made public, a British court ruled Friday, dismissing Britain's argument that it was suppressing the information to preserve its intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States and to uphold national safety. [...]

Mohamed, 31, a British resident, alleges that he was subjected to torture, including beatings and sexual mutilation, by interrogators in Pakistan and elsewhere with the full knowledge of American and British intelligence agents. The high court ruled that the secret synopsis, which had been blacked out in previous court filings, had no intelligence value and could be released.
"No intelligence" seems apt here. How smart is it to have tortured these people, considering that torture provides no reliable information, and often results in lies?

Oh, and any statements made under those circumstances isn't admissible in a court of law anyway... unless of course it's a military commission... which is a joke.
Rather, the judges wrote, "the public interest in making the paragraphs public is overwhelming," because the summary could shed light on illegal activities carried out by the U.S. and British governments.
IMHO, this was a very wise judge:
"It cannot be suggested that information as to how officials of the U.S. government admitted treating [Mohamed] during his interrogation is information that can in any democratic society governed by the rule of law be characterized as 'secret' or as 'intelligence,' " the court said, adding that "the risk to national security . . . is not a serious one."
*****
All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Glenn Beck/Fox News Boycott Goes International

By GottaLaff

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/csZRr8tMONM/0.jpg

News Corpse has a bit of interesting news, luvs. I absobloomin'lutely adore the British, don't you? Eh? What?
Today there are over 60 companies that have withdrawn from his show because they do not want their brands associated with the hatred and hostility for which Beck is known. [...]

But now the campaign has expanded into the international arena. The Guardian UK is reporting that Waitrose, Britain’s most upmarket supermarket chain, has pulled all of their advertising, not just from Beck, but from all of the Fox News Channel.

“We take the placement of our ads in individual programmes very seriously, ensuring the content of these programmes is deemed appropriate for a brand with our values,” said a customer services spokesman. “Since being notified of our presence within the Glenn Beck programme, we have withdrawn all Waitrose advertising from the Fox News channel with immediate effect and for all future TV advertising campaigns.”

Fox News airs in Europe on Sky satellite television. Sky itself is part of the international media empire owned by Rupert Murdoch who, of course, also owns Fox News. Sky’s chairman is Murdoch’s son James, who is the likely heir to the News Corp. throne.

Notable in this announcement is that Waitrose explicitly states that their ads will be withheld from all of Fox News. Previously, Fox has claimed that they were not suffering any revenue loss because ads removed from Beck were simply shifting to other programs. They can no longer make that claim.

Loverly.

Cheers then!

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Torture Ministers must explain destruction of CIA 'torture flight' papers

By GottaLaff

Remember when Boy Georgie said he and Tony Blair were bffs? Partners? Soul mates? Fellow Colgate users? Remember the U.S. and Britain were paired up the way the Enquirer paired up Sarah the Quitter and the First Dude's business partner?

This is what happens when you're inextricably linked to a partner... in crime-- investigations begin to overlap:

Ministers must explain why crucial documents relating to CIA "torture flights" that stopped on sovereign British territory were destroyed, a panel of MPs has said.

A damning appraisal by the influential foreign affairs select committee on Britain's role in the rendition of terror suspects and alleged complicity of torture condemns the government's lack of transparency on vital areas of concern.

In particular, the MPs, in a report released today, call for an explanation for the missing papers, which might explain the role of Diego Garcia, the British overseas territory, in the US's "extraordinary rendition" programme. [...]

It also criticises the government's inability to offer assurances that ships anchored outside Diego Garcia's waters were not involved in the rendition programme. [...]

Amnesty International said the MPs' verdict underlined the need for a full, independent inquiry into the UK's involvement in "war on terror" and human rights abuses.

The committee also voiced disquiet over claims that British intelligence officers were complicit in the torture of detainees held overseas. [...]

Details of the investigations the government has carried out into any of the claims should be made public, according to MPs. Mike Gapes, chairman of the committee, said it was time ministers also disclosed the guidance given at the time to intelligence officers interviewing suspects.

He said details of people captured by UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and placed in US custody should be divulged as part of a drive to improve transparency.

*******************************************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

If Labour can't protect people like Gary McKinnon, it really stands for nothing

By GottaLaff

I got this link from a fellow Tweeter, with this message asking me to get the story out: "Can u help too? His family is scared for him.". Will do:

If Labour can't protect people like Gary McKinnon, it really stands for nothing
Alan Johnson must act: anyone who believes in the principles of justice would be alarmed by this state bullying of a hacker

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Former MI6 chief says Britain was 'dragged' into Iraq war

By GottaLaff

But... But... but BushCo and the Rushpublics say that the intel from al-l-l-l those other countries was the same as ours, and they all pointed to bad, bad things like imminent threats and WMD. Now Nigel had to go and open his big mouth and ruin everything:

Britain was "dragged into a war in Iraq which was always against out better judgment" the former deputy head of MI6 has claimed, in a remark that will reignite the debate over political interference in the war.

The comments, made by Nigel Inkster, who was deputy director of MI6 at the time, make clear there were reservations over the war at a very senior level within the Secret Intelligence Service.

MI6 was blamed for the failure of intelligence that took Britain to war after helping produce a dossier in which Tony Blair claimed that Iraq was ready to use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

The dossier, said to have been "sexed up" by Downing Street, also mentioned controversial intelligence that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from Niger.

In a speech at the Institute for Public Policy Research, Mr Inkster blamed weakness at the Foreign Office for allowing Britain to get dragged into a war over which officials had serious doubts. [...]

His views on Iraq, expressed for the first time in public, may also explain why he was passed over as the head of MI6 in favour of Sir John Scarlett, who took responsibility for the dossier during the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly. [...]

The Butler Report into the intelligence that took Britain to war, concluded that "more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear", and that judgements had stretched available intelligence "to the outer limits".

So many investigations, so little time.

Friday, March 13, 2009

More fuel: Secret e-mails show Iraq dossier was 'sexed up'

By GottaLaff

Is anyone surprised? .... Anyone....? ::crickets:: Who will be the first one to finally prosecute?

Secret Whitehall emails released yesterday provide damning new evidence that the notorious dossier making the case for invading Iraq was "sexed up".

They disclose that the intelligence services were skeptical over the "iffy drafting" of government claims that Saddam Hussein could mount a missile strike on his neighbours within 45 minutes of ordering an attack.

Officials privately mocked assertions that the Iraqi president was covertly trying to develop a nuclear capability and wisecracked that perhaps he had recruited "Dr Frankenstein" to his supposed crack team of nuclear scientists.

So much for that mushroom cloud. What was that you were saying again, Ari?

The release of a series of confidential memos and emails, following a protracted Freedom of Information battle, reignited the controversy over accusations that Tony Blair's government "spun" Britain into war.

Last night both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats renewed their demands for a full public inquiry into the decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq.

The 45-minute claim – presented to MPs in a notorious dossier on 24 September 2002, six months before military action began – was central to the Blair government's justification for war.

But a memo sent 13 days earlier by Desmond Bowen, head of the Cabinet Office defence secretariat, to John Scarlett, who was head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, suggested he had grave reservations over the threat. [...]

Another memo, dated 16 September 2002, from an unnamed official, also suggests exaggerated claims were being included in the about-to-be-published report. [...]

Last night William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "This is the latest in a steady stream of damaging revelations about the events leading up to the Iraq war. These minutes shed interesting light on the process by which the caveats in the Joint Intelligence Committee's original assessment of Iraq's WMD programmes were stripped out of the dossier that was presented to Parliament and the British people." [...]

The emails: How 'sexing-up' was achieved:

11 September 2002 Desmond Bowen: "The question we have to have in the back of our mind is: 'Why now?' I think we have moved away from promoting the ideas that we are in imminent danger of attack and intend to act in pre-emptive self-defence... In looking at the WMD sections, you will clearly want to be as firm and authoritative as you can be. You will clearly need to judge the extent to which you need to hedge your judgements with, for example, 'it is almost certain' and similar caveats."

11 September 2002 Mark Sedwill: "I would expand the history of weapons inspections. It is an interesting story and would give the media a better feel for the difficulties they faced and the persistence of the Iraqi obstruction... We need a very simple table somewhere... This should be brief enough to get on to the Sky wall – ie no more than five bullets."

16 September 2002 Unnamed official (thought to be intelligence agent): "I note that the paper suggests that Saddam's biotech efforts have gone much further than we ever feared. Page 4 Bullet 4: '[Iraq] has assembled specialists to work on its nuclear programme' – Dr Frankenstein I presume? Sorry. It's getting late... We have suggested moderating the same language in much the same way on drafts from the dim and distant past without success. Feel free to try again!... Lots of 'ranges' close together – iffy drafting."

At the risk of repeating myself, what more does it take? Now that Bush and Blair are out of office, and troops are coming home, more evidence is being revealed. What excuse can anyone come up with to justify avoiding a full investigation, not just some white-washy commission?

Maybe we the people need to be a little louder with our demands.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Britain bars entry to anti-gay Reverend Fred Phelps

By GottaLaff

http://cdn-media.channelme.tv/media/images/000000/27/16/Mjc~ODE2_large.jpg
Indeed:
An anti-gay U.S. Christian preacher and his daughter have been barred from entering Britain as they could spread "extremism and hatred," the British government said Thursday.

The Reverend Fred Phelps, founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, had been due in Britain to protest at a play about the murder of a gay man.

But British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she had decided to prevent Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from entering the country.

"Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behavior by inciting hatred against a number of communities," a Home Office spokeswoman said.

Phelps believes the United States is doomed for tolerating homosexuals, that military deaths in conflicts such as Iraq are god's punishment and organizes regular protests at events around the country. His church achieved notoriety for picketing the funerals of U.S. servicemen.
Wise decision. Celebrate. Sometimes life actually makes sense.

H/t: Chris

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Get out the terrorist alert charts

By GottaLaff

Via CLG, October Surprise?

"We have done all the things that we need to do, but the threat is building - the complex plots [to prevent an Obama victory] are building." 'Great' terror plot brewing in UK: Top official 15 Oct 2008 Britain may be faced with a major terrorist attack, a top security official said on Wednesday, as the the Government received a severe setback in parliament in its effort to pass a key counter-terrorism law. "There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this," warned Lord West, who advises British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on security matters.

It's election time. Here come the terror alerts.

Recent Posts