tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-222063282024-03-14T02:41:35.826+00:00Accident Waiting To HappenMusings and more than a little ranting on the state of the world today, yesterday, tomorrow, and maybe even the day after that.....Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-36000766319539279742009-05-07T12:13:00.001+00:002009-05-07T12:13:38.090+00:00The Gap Between 'Us' and 'Them'Politicians spend an inordinate amount of time these days trying to reconnect with ‘real people’ and bemoaning the gap between politicians and the real world. While these sycophantic quasi-democratic unrepresentative fools may like paying lip service to building bridges with ‘the real world’, the recent G20 meeting in London served to highlight once again the chasm that exists between ‘us’ and ‘them’. For whilst the Metropolitan Police were busy beating peaceful protestors and battering innocent newspaper vendors to death our barely elected leaders were demonstrating how firmly their feet are planted in the ‘real world’.<br /><br />A request under the Freedom of Information Act this week has revealed that the food and drink bill for the G20 quango ran to over half a million pounds. And guess who’s paying for this? Is it the over paid, expenses-draining representatives of ‘we the people’? Er, no, it’s just ‘we the people’. Once again the tax payer is left to foot the bill for a bunch of rich white middle class buffoons getting together in a totally unaccountable and un-transparent meeting to determine our fate. While the people’s liberties were being attacked on the streets, behind the police, armed guards, private security and bodyguards, world leaders, their wives, their secretaries, their assistants, their PAs, and practically anyone else who could secure a seat on the gravy train, were tucking into £66,000 pounds worth of fine wines, and munching their way through £435,000 pounds worth of food. The irony of these people meeting to discuss the global economic crisis and poverty and debt in the developing world whilst indulging in a Romanesque orgy of gluttony was no doubt lost on them.<br /><br />(Prices taken from <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/163500k-ndash-what-it-cost-to-feed-and-water-g20-leaders-1680401.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/163500k-ndash-what-it-cost-to-feed-and-water-g20-leaders-1680401.html</a>)Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-92064252453186292482009-04-16T13:39:00.001+00:002009-04-16T13:40:33.148+00:00Police, the Media, and the Errosion of LibertyIt is readily apparent that in the UK today our civil liberties are not merely under attack, but are already rapidly disappearing, and are doing so with seemingly little reaction from the majority of the British public. And why is this? One has to conclude that a large part of the reason for this state of affairs is the collusion between the government, their politicised anti-libertarian anti-protest stance, the supposed terrorist threat, and the mainstream media.<br /><br />In order to continue to keep the general population supine, docile and malleable, the government, through the media, must maintain fear and present examples of the ‘threat’ which we now face. Coupled with this they must continually seek to discredit those who raise questions about this state of affairs, and who exercise their democratic rights to voice their opposition through protest.<br /><br />The main way of maintaining the status quo of fear and suspicion has been through the media’s continuous reporting of the terror threat, and their role in regurgitating without critical enquiry or questioning, the government spin on this issue. If you were to believe everything you hear spouting forth from the mouths of government and the media, you would be forgiven for believing that we are living in unprecedented times, where a large number of radicalised UK muslims, supported by a huge number of foreigners and other undesirables who have infiltrated this country in order to sponge off our benefits and visit terror upon us, have placed each and every one of us in clear and present danger of being blown up in some horrific terror plot.<br /><br />In order to maintain this clearly preposterous position the government continually give more power to our police – supposedly the thin blue line between us and the ever present threat of terror. The police are then encouraged to use these increased powers (not that they require any encouragement) to create spectacles – flagship events designed to ram home to the populous the sheer scale of the terror-threat that lurks just around the corner.<br /><br />As an example, in recent times, we have witnessed the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes (and subsequent attempts to deny or avoid blame or responsibility by the Metropolitan Police), and the Forest Gate raids where two local residents were shot and wounded in their own home in a high profile terror raid, only to be released without charge on the quiet a few weeks later.<br /><br />And it is this pattern that concerns me – the high profile public terror raids and arrests, the much publicised ‘items of suspicion’ found in these peoples homes, the 24 hour media focus on the arrest of ‘home grown terrorists’, then days or weeks later the quiet release without charge of these people, which is never seemingly reported by the media so keen to slander them in the first place, and so happy to regurgitate without question or criticism the words of the police and government ministers (and of course when the information is too laughable to even attribute to a specific police officer or government minister there is always the recourse to “an unnamed government spokesman”).<br /><br />Another example: four weeks ago a convoy of aid from the UK to Gaza was attacked in a high profile public policing operation – I keep repeating ‘high profile public policing’ as it is entirely deliberate that the media are always ‘embedded’ during these operations. So, ten muslim men were arrested at gun point on the M48, with the country’s media watching on in glee. The headlines the next day spoke of links between UK supporters of Palestine and unspecified ‘terrorists’. By extension the entire UK population who had supported the Palestinians during the Israelis brutal assault on Gaza were implicated as having ‘supported terrorism’. The message was clear – be more careful what causes you support and where you give your money to’. Of course what was not reported was that while this was happening the convoy continued through Europe, into north Africa, and finally through Egypt to Gaza where they successfully delivered many tonnes of much needed humanitarian aid to the besieged people of Gaza. What was also not reported was that two weeks later all ten men were released without charge. How is it now possible, yet alone permissible, in this country for the police to be allowed to arrest ten men, hold them without charge for two weeks, then release them on the basis of ‘lack of evidence’. Two alarming thoughts follow from this – do we still have habeas corpus in this country, the presumption of innocence until PROOF of guilt is established through supporting evidence? And even if these men were a terrorist threat (which they never were), is the most sensible way to defuse that threat to let them wander around under observation for weeks on end, then let them board a convoy of heavy goods vehicles, before having half of Manchester’s police force pull them over at gun point on part of the UK’s motorway network? Does this sound like sensible policing, or politicised actions by the police planned for, and played out for, the watching UK media.<br /><br />Yet another example. Over Easter there was series of high profile police operations in the northwest of England which claimed to have uncovered a major UK terror plot. Newspapers spoke of plans to bomb Old Trafford, Anfield and the Trafford Shopping Centre. Twelve muslim men were arrested. Eleven of the twelve currently remain in custody. Under Britain’s draconian anti-terror laws terror these men have another week to wait before they are likely to be released. But you can bet your bottom dollar they will all be released without charge. And you can bet the media won’t report that. After all, the less sensationalist media are already reporting that “security sources” (i.e. government spokespeople too embarrassed to put their name against this ridiculous story) have stated that they expect few, if any, terror-related charges to result from the arrests. Raids on the men’s homes and business premises in the northwest of England have so far failed to turn up any evidence of bombs, chemical explosives, weapons or ammunition. They did find a quantity of table sugar at one property, in the kitchen. For more on that read on….. One “senior security source” was cited in the Guardian as stating that “nothing of huge significance” had been uncovered. This is a far cry from the hysterical claims that originally attended the arrests. Then police sources claimed that they had thwarted a massive Al Qaeda-directed operation to launch large-scale suicide bomb attacks over the Easter holiday. Citing information from “MI6 operations targeted on Pakistan”, “anonymous security officials” claimed there had been a high risk of an “imminent attack” that would cause “mass casualties.” Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the apparent terror plot as “very big.” Wow, “very big” – is that a technical term? And who are these ‘unnamed sources’? Is it any more newsworthy than me reporting that I heard a man down the pub tell his friend over a glass of strong cider that Elvis is alive and well and living in Glasgow? Such is the subsequent backpedalling over this alleged terrorist conspiracy that the Guardian stated, “A central mystery remains how counterterrorism officials could believe such a serious plot existed when they were unsure of seemingly basic elements of the alleged conspiracy, such as the targets.” Indeed. The “evidence” now being presented for the existence of a terror threat appears to centre on reports that several of those detained—most of whom were in the UK on student visas—had been seen taking photographs near a Manchester shopping centre and other public venues. This behaviour, it is argued, is consistent with terrorist reconnaissance. A surveillance team also reportedly heard discussions about certain dates over the Easter holiday, prompting the arrests. So, it is now enough to prove ‘reasonable suspicion’ to the forces of law and order in the UK for someone to be ‘muslim with a camera’ or to discuss dates over a public holiday with their friends. Does this seem strong enough evidence to stage a series of ‘high profile anti-terror operations’? Ask yourself the question – are we under more of a threat now than during the Irish Troubles? I believe not. The Troubles lasted over fifty years, and saw organised guerilla armies (the IRA amongst others) arm themselves with a range of modern weaponry and explosives, receive widespread financial and political backing across the globe as well as in Ireland and parts of England, and engage in a prolonged campaign of bombings in mainland Britain that lasted for well over thirty years. During this time police and security forces learned some valuable lessons. One, the less voice you give to terrorists the better. Two, the more you play down the threat and underestimate the risk of terrorism, the better the reaction amongst the general populous and the greater the likelihood they will grit their teeth and persevere. Three, rounding up suspects willy-nilly, interring them without trial, and locking them up for prolonged periods of time on the flimsiest grounds and most questionable legal evidence is counter-productive and only helps their recruitment drive.<br /><br />And yet, in the years since 9/11 more than 1,000 people have been arrested under anti-terrorism laws in the UK, of which less than 50 have been convicted. I can think of no other area of policing that would accept a 5% conviction rate as normal. However, so sweeping are the anti-terrorism powers that people have been detained on the flimsiest of pretexts. Earlier this month, five people in Plymouth were detained under the Terrorism Act after a young man was seen spraying graffiti. “Political literature” was reportedly found in one of the homes raided and it was claimed at the time that the five had been planning to join the G20 protests in London. Furthermore, the press reported ‘unnamed police sources’ as reporting that the police had found explosives and firearms during the raid and believed the ‘terror suspects’ were planning an act of ‘terrorism’ during the G20 protests. All five men were held for several days, before they were all released without charge. Begging the question, just what had the police found in their homes? Well, the political literature turned out to be some Karl Marx (the police would have a field day in my home that’s for sure), the ‘explosives’ turned out to be a safety flare (two of the men were keen sailors, hardly surprising considering they lived in Plymouth), and the ‘firearm’ turned out to be the flare gun necessary to launch the flare they found. But was any of this subsequent information reported by the media who had taken such a keen interest in the story initially? No. The lies were allowed to stand, and the people who had read and been alarmed by the initial report were left to assume it had all been true. And yet if a newspaper makes a mistake in its daily edition, for instance mislabeling a picture alongside an article, there is guaranteed to be a correction and apology in the following day’s paper. All the while, the hysterical atmosphere generated by such high profile police operations and arrests has been used to further strengthen police powers and undermine democratic rights. The brutal shooting of innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005 by undercover anti-terrorist officers exposed that police had covertly adopted a shoot-to-kill policy. Less than one year later another innocent man, Mohammed Abdul Kahar, was shot by anti-terror police in a raid on his home in Forest Gate. In the latest police operations over Easter, Muhammad Adil, a 27-year-old Pakistani student, told how he had been eating lunch outside Liverpool John Moores University when he and a friend were surrounded by armed officers. Special Forces Officers with telescopic machine guns instructed them to raise their hands, and forced them to the floor. Adil’s hands were tied behind his back as he lay on the ground for over an hour, while police kept their guns trained on him. Taken to a police station, he was released after several hours without charge. What could possibly necessitate being arrested by police armed with machine guns if within hours you have been released without charge? Was this man presumed innocent on his arrest? Simultaneously, police were carrying out similarly spectacular arrests in other locations. Two people were detained while working as security guards at a DIY store. A worker at the store told how 80 officers had swooped on the building, and armed police had rushed into the shop, emerging 10 minutes later with the two men. Does it take 80 police to arrest two men working at a DIY store? If the police wanted to legitimately talk to these men would it not have been easier to send two police to their home and ask them to come down to the station for a chat? If you or I were of interest to the police, they wouldn’t send 80 police to arrest us at our work, they’d pop round, knock on the door, and ask us to accompany them to the station. This seems an entirely more sensible way of going about your business without getting the backs of an entire community up, causing fear and panic in the population, disrupting a DIY stores business, and traumatising two innocent men. In the Wavertree district of Liverpool, residents described how unmarked black cars had sped down the street, stopping outside a flat, and a number of men wearing black combat gear had stormed the building. Three men were brought out handcuffed from the building. In a residential area in Manchester, meanwhile, a woman told how she had heard a lot of noise and opened her door to see “four or five policemen were on top of a man. They were dragging him along the street and he had no shoes on. They shouted at me ‘get inside, get inside’. There was a policeman on each corner of the street, with machine guns.”<br />Do these actions seem designed to:<br />a) efficiently and quietly bring some men in to answer questions you may have about any criminal activities they may have been involved in or plan to commit in future, or<br />b) create a climate of fear and panic, reinforcing stated government and police lies about the level of terror we are facing, simultaneously justifying the actions themselves, and any past or future actions by the government or police, who are working so hard t keep us safe.<br /><br />It looks increasingly likely that the lack of evidence of terror-related activities in the latest arrests will be attributed to the fact that the police operation had to be moved forward at the last moment after Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick of the Metropolitan Police was photographed the previous day entering Downing Street carrying a briefing paper—marked top secret—with details of the intended raids visible to the watching media. Fearing the cat was out the bag, hundreds of police officers were quickly scrambled for the northwest raids. Quick’s “gaffe” is now being blamed for compromising an otherwise promising operation. The Times speculated April 14th that indications that no terror charges would ultimately be laid against those arrested posed “questions about how real this threat was and whether the police were trying to cover their embarrassment over Mr. Quick.” More pertinently, it should be noted that warnings of imminent suicide bombings on a major city came just as the government and Metropolitan Police faced mounting condemnation of police actions during the G20 summit of world leaders in London, which ended April 3. During the protests, more than 200 people were arrested, houses were raided, and thousands of people detained for hours by police in London side streets in a practice known as “kettling.” The vast majority of those arrested were released with out charge. The police policed this protest just as they have every other protest I have attended in the last ten years. They were violent, unaccountable, deliberately provoked the crowd, seemed intent on engaging in a physical confrontation, and most were illegally not displaying their ID numbers. During the protest there were a large number of assaults on protestors by police, and subsequently one man was found to have died during the protests. As usual the police and media kicked into action side by side. The media reported ‘unnamed police spokesmen’, the police denied facts, made claims and counter claims, and so it seemed the event would play out like any other. The media, after all, had their story – violent protestors had once again instigated trouble in the City, run amok, fought police, and generally engaged in anarchy. Those raids in Plymouth must have been on to something, because there was a lot of violence.<br /><br />However, the presence of alternative media – namely individual protests armed with cameras, camcorders, mobile phones – meant that gradually another version leaked out. Footage emerged of police assaulting the man who later died. Footage emerged of police striking men, women and children in unprovoked attacks. Footage surfaced that showed police routinely hiding their ID numbers to prevent identification after the fact. Suddenly the media had a new story. Had ‘one bad egg’ spoiled things? Were there one or two policemen prone to violence? Had police tactics been wrong? Had police provoked protestors? Were the police going to change tactics in future? Suddenly, the media weren’t interested in the usual story of unwashed hoody-wearing anarchists attacking the police and Starbucks. The media had an exclusive! Stop press…. Stop press….. police engage in mindless violence to protect the interests of big business and reify the political will of their masters. Well, my heartfelt thanks to the mainstream media for reporting what those of us who protest have known for years. The police are not there to protect us, or even protect public order. The police are there to implement the will of the government. In collusion with the media they need to maintain the story that protesting is dangerous, violent, and likely to lead to trouble. They need to maintain the perception that the police need more power. They need to maintain the notion that police and government encourage and assist peaceful protest, while ensuring that all protest is met with enough violence to put protestors off continuing with their actions. And so, of course, we are offered up the sacrificial lamb of ‘a couple of bad eggs’. The police and media will work together to ensure that a few heads roll, then back to business as usual. But, we can’t maintain this constant barrage of criticism against the police in case it undermines public confidence. And so, less than 24 hours later, Britain was faced with another ‘alleged’ terrorist plot, and the media had their next story. And yet the story wasn’t ‘civil liberties under further attack as police stage terror raids that lead to all men being release without charge’ the story was ‘huge easter plot to blow up football stadiums in the northwest’. You may think I’m labouring a point, but these sorts of actions are insidious and have knock on effects. At the weekend it was announced that plainclothes armed police units are to be deployed on the streets of Scotland for the first time in its history. No official statement or justification, let alone discussion, accompanied this unprecedented move. But the Scotsman newspaper editorialised in support of the deployment, citing the alleged northwest terror plot, which it said could have led to “blood and suffering” on the streets of Manchester. So now a wholly fictitious plot in the northwest is used to justify having armed plainclothes police on Scotland’s streets. One more civil liberty gone without so much as a whimper of protest. Because people these days are scared to protest. And in case the media were getting board of the northwest terror plot story, or heavens forbid starting to think about publishing the fact that no weapons, explosives or plot have been uncovered, police staged an Army Bomb Squad raid on a flat in Liverpool yesterday to give the media a chance to revive the story. The peculiar thing is that the address raided had been under search and cordoned off five days before the bomb squad was called in. Indeed, last Wednesday 50 (yes, 50) policemen swooped on the flat and searched it for six hours. It is therefore remarkable that the "Bomb" wasn't found for a further five days. The official description of the Bomb Squad raid was "precautionary". That is "Precautionary" in the sense of "Publicity stunt". What the mainstream media fail to report is that the bomb squad experts were able to tell the police that the suspicious substance was - table sugar. Whether cane or beet, doubtless intense forensic examination will tell us.<br /> And so the cycle of propaganda continues. There is a terror threat. There must be. Look at all those terror raids. All those terrorists arrested. The police need more powers in order to stay one step ahead of these crazy terrorists. And yet for the communities directly affected, or those that value our civil liberties over the police’s right to act with impunity, these actions simply stem to stir the flame of protest, calling us to defend our liberties before it is too late. In engaging in this legal right to voice our opinions and protest the actions of the police state we now live in, we are met with unprecedented levels of surveillance, control and police brutality. This justifies for the media the needs of the police to have more powers. And so the police stage more raids, to capture more phony terrorists, further enhancing the need for protest in defence of our liberties, which only further provoke the police to violence in defence of the powers they so desperately want. If they can get away with it they will pin the blame firmly on the protestors or on the terrorists. When they get caught out and even the media turn on them, they will hang a couple of sacrificial lambs out for slaughter, the media will be appeased, normality will be restored, and no one will think to report on the innocence of the men arrested or the protestors assaulted.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-26257118942377822282009-03-16T14:17:00.001+00:002009-03-16T14:17:44.952+00:00Israel lurch to the rightIsrael today stooped to a new low, yet at the same time gave perhaps its truest insight in recent years into the pervading mind set of its politics. Having failed to return a majority party in the recent general elections (you remember, the ones where leaders of the different parties fell over themselves to see how glad they could appear at the slaughter of innocent lives in Gaza), Benjamin Netanyahu (leader of the ‘winning’ Likud party) is now scouting round for prospective coalition partners. Although the situation may yet change, as it stands today part of Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling collation would be the Yisrael Beiteinu party, with the notable appointment being it’s leader Avigdor Lieberman becoming foreign minister. Even within Israeli politics Yisrael Beiteniu are considered very right wing, and Lieberman is widely considered to be one of the most extremist and reactionary politicians in the country. Amongst his past utterances have been a call for Israel to redraw its borders to hand over Arab areas to the Palestinians while retaining major settlement blocs (a form of forced transfer, an illegal land grab, and the sort of ghettoisation old Adolf would have been fond of), and his suggestion for all Arabs remaining in Israel to be forced to sign loyalty oaths or lose their right to vote (a policy that is both racist and fascist). Other notable occurrences in Lieberman’s politic career have been his conviction for assaulting a twelve year old Arab boy, and his call for any Arab member of the Knesset (the Israeli parliament) who meets any representative of Hamas to be executed (note his call only extends to Arab members of parliament, and that his call is for people meeting the democratically elected government of a neighboring country to be executed). Indeed this latter action so upset fellow Knesset members that two resigned, including Labour minister Ophir Pines-Paz, who resigned stating that Lieberman was tainted "by racist declarations and declarations that harm the democratic character of Israel”.<br /><br />Other notable utterances by Lieberman have included his reflection on how to deal with Palestinian resistance: “if it were up to me I would notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at ten in the morning we would bomb all their places of business in Ramallah, for example.” (which is a premeditated statement of intent to commit war crimes as both the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, and the use of excessive force, and the targeting of civilians are illegal in law). Even more blood-chilling than this was his later statement in July 2003, when reacting to a proposal to give an amnesty to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners including members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, when Lieberman commented "It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world," Lieberman continued, stating his willingness, as Minister of Transport, to supply buses to take the prisoners there”.<br /><br />Interestingly, this won’t be the first time Lieberman has been in a coalition government – he walked out of the last one he was in in protest at the peace process. So here you have a country that claims to be a beacon of peaceful democracy, surrounded on all sides by barbaric Arab terrorists, and yet repeatedly votes for people that make statements of mind-boggling cruelty, who are anti-Arab, anti a two state solution, anti dialogue, anti peace, pro war and ultimately racist and fascist. Nowhere else in the world, not even in America, would politicians with such right wing views get elected to office, let alone invited to join the ruling government, let alone be offered the job of Foreign Minister.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-91242326890245323212009-02-18T12:26:00.001+00:002009-02-18T12:26:26.280+00:00The Perfect HusbandWe all remember the wonderful Tessa Jowell – the woman who signs her mortgage agreements over the breakfast table without asking her husband what it is she is signing - *cough* allegedly! Whilst many of us may well have hoped she had disappeared from politics for good, it turns out that she is actually holding down two jobs currently - Minister for the Olympics and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. However, it is fair to say that Tessa will always be remembered as the woman who divorced her husband to save her political career, after they had accepted £400,000 from Silvio Berlusconi following Mr Mills giving evidence in a court case in defence of the corrupt Italian former PM. Today Judges in Milan have sentenced David Mills to 4 and a half years in prison for bribery and corruption, and ordered him to pay £250,000 damages to the Italian State. Mr Berlusconi himself can not be prosecute after he passed a law while in power exempting him from prosecution (interestingly very swiftly after Mr Mills had lied for him in court to protect him from prosecution for bribery and corruption!).<br />I’m sure Tessa Jowell will have little or nothing to say on this subject, and play heavily on her separation from Mr Mills, but one has to wonder about the endemic corruption in politics and query whether dearest Tessa was really unaware that the nearly half a million pounds she and her husband had used to pay off their mortgage stemmed from Mr Mills knowingly lying in court in defence of the then PM of Italy. In fact, Tessa claimed at the time she not only had no idea where the money came from, as she didn’t think to ask her husband where he’d found a little under half a million pounds from, but that she was also unaware they had used it to pay their mortgage off, as she had simply signed some paper work over breakfast one morning. What a marriage! The type where your husband comes home from work one day with half a million quid, doesn’t tell you, then uses it to pay your mortgage off without telling you that either.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-46400910656614804572009-02-17T11:39:00.001+00:002009-02-17T11:45:37.875+00:00Lord Blair Champion of the Free WorldI spotted this today:<br /><br /><a href="http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Tony-Blair-Former-Prime-Minister-Wins-Million-Dollar-Prize-For-Achievements-That-Shape-Society/Article/200902315224001?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15224001_Tony_Blair,_Former_Prime_Minister,_Wins_Million_Dollar_Prize_For_Achievements_That_Shape_SocietyWhich">http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Tony-Blair-Former-Prime-Minister-Wins-Million-Dollar-Prize-For-Achievements-That-Shape-Society/Article/200902315224001?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15224001_Tony_Blair,_Former_Prime_Minister,_Wins_Million_Dollar_Prize_For_Achievements_That_Shape_SocietyWhich</a><br /><br />In short, Tony Blair has been ‘awarded’ £697,000 from the Dan David Foundation in Tel Aviv for being “one of the most outstanding statesmen of our era”. Notwithstanding the utter ridiculousness of that sentiment, and the amazing amnesia as concerns Iraq and Afghanistan, does it not strike anyone else as a possible conflict of interests to be employed as the “Middle East Peace Envoy” whilst accepting a million dollars from one of the most eminent charitable bodies in Israel? OK, so Blair is ‘donating’ the money to his own “Faith Foundation” but nevertheless it seems to me that someone who wines, dines and courts the favours of one side to the point where they pay him a million pounds, yet has never had the courage or moral fortitude to even set foot on the Gaza Strip, may just, possibly, be a little biased in their outlook.<br /><br />As for the Award, the Dan David Foundation has recognised Blair’s” achievements that shape and enrich society today". Although they conveniently forgot to mention the millions of dead innocent Iraqi and Afghan men, women and children who were murdered due to Blair’s desire to enter into a modern day crusade alongside his pal Bush. They did mention Kosovo, claiming "From the time he assumed leadership of the British Labour Party in 1994 until he stepped down as prime minister in 2007, he showed exceptional intelligence and foresight, and demonstrated moral courage and leadership. It was the Kosovo crisis in particular that transformed Tony Blair into an international leader on the basis of his steadfast determination and morally courageous leadership." Which is some of the best historic revisionism I have seen in a long time (you would have thought Israelis more than most would shy away from historic revisionism, but apparently not). The statement is also laughable.<br /><br />Because as anyone that observed the situation with their own eyes and not via the auspices of Murdoch’s news empire remembers, Kosovo was a bloody tragedy where Blair managed to get himself dragged in as poodle to the US President (Clinton not Bush as it happened), then exacerbated the situation though inaction, then finally decide to react with a show of force that directly led to the deaths of tens of thousands. During the conflict our ‘protection’ of the Kosovans led to over a million ethnic Kosovars being internally displaced, of which a quarter of a million remain as internal refugees today, and ethnic tensions still continue to cause intermittent bloodshed. So a good job well done by Blair. Give the man an award. It is also interesting to note that in the Kosovo intervention which Blair is here lauded for, Blair and his chums intervened to protect Kosovans who had fought a bloody and brutal armed guerrilla war against the occupying powers of the Serbo-Croat alliance. And yet Blair refuses to accept that the Palestinians are engaged in a guerrilla war against an occupying power. Strange. Also interesting to note that both the situation in the Balkans and the situation in the Middle East are direct results of British nation building after the First World War where we arrogantly assumed that we could draw lines on maps, create countries, and force different peoples to live together despite thousands of years of bloody conflicts suggesting otherwise.<br /><br />What perhaps upsets me more however is that this award continues our ‘civilised’ societies determination to honour, reward and make heroes of the men who lead us to war. If Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, and the situation in Israel today teach us anything, surely it is that armed conflict only begets more armed conflict, more pain, bloodshed and suffering, which the people on the street always bear the brunt of, while the war makers, the arrogant men with their delusions of grandeur, are decorated with awards and pieces of gold.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-20142743222404753682009-01-27T15:08:00.001+00:002009-01-27T15:10:18.110+00:00The Blatancy of LiesJust a few short words to highlight the absolute supremacy of the victors discourse in the hell of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It seems that such is the mendacity of the world’s media, the governments of the West (and indeed plenty of our puppet-regimes and receivers of military aid amongst the leaders of the Arab world) and the state of Israel itself, that lies and crimes are now reported as fact, and the facts remain unreported.<br /><br />Example one: a seemingly innocuous article about an archaeological dig, picked up, amongst others, on the BBC news website and Sky news. Both reports detailed how The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) had discovered a rare Roman-era marble statuette in Jerusalem. Both reports note, without any further comment, that the 1,800-year-old figurine made of marble and depicting a miniature image of a bearded man's head was discovered in an archaeological excavation by the Israel Antiquities Authority in <em>occupied</em> east Jerusalem (my emphasis). Now, on the one hand you could argue that the word occupied is included in the articles, and that proves that the BBC and Sky are reporting impartially. Frankly, that’s bollocks. It doesn’t explain who is occupying East Jerusalem (the state of Israel), who it is that is being occupied (Palestinians), how long this has been going on (since 1967), the context for the land being occupied (naked aggressive military expansionism and religious zealotry by the state of Israel), or the legal consequences (that occupying east Jerusalem is illegal in international law and that in so occupying the area Israel are in material breach of UN resolutions Furthermore that Jerusalem as a whole is a ‘corpus separatum’ which is supposed to be under a special international regime administered by the UN). All in all the article fails to highlight that Israel has no legal right to be in east Jerusalem, and that it therefore has no right to be conducting archaeological excavations there and keeping any antiquities it finds.<br /><br />Example two: an article that appeared in some mainstream media (the BBC, Independent, Reuters, Haaeratz, Irish Times and Guardian for example) of a Rabbi for the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) who had been handing out questionable religious guidance leaflets to troops entering Gaza. All of the articles were small and crammed in the ‘other news’ column inches. All simply stated that a controversy was brewing over Rabbi Avichai Rontzki (the army chief chaplain) giving out these leaflets for their alleged incitement against Palestinians. Ah, ‘alleged’, there’s that conditional word, that safety net for the media. Now, the leaflet itself was considered so extreme in its intolerant and fundamentalist religious views that many within Israel have been uncomfortable with it (Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights group said the booklet's contents could be "interpreted as a call to act outside the confines of international laws of war"). It called on the IDF soldiers to ‘show no mercy’ (not only a statement born of hatred and a refusal to differentiate one Palestinian form another, but also a call for IDF soldiers to avoid the usual ‘rules of war’ which explicitly call for mercy and humanity, especially towards civilians, women, children, the elderly and the wounded). The leaflet went on to claim the IDF’s "cruel enemy" was "terribly immoral" and advised soldiers they were fighting "murderers." The booklet, it transpired was written by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, a main figure in the Jewish settler movement in the occupied West Bank – and thus a proponent of an act which is illegal in law and at the heart of the ongoing conflict – illegal settlement. Now, consider for one moment if news had emerged that the chief Imam to Hamas had distributed a comparable leaflet – we’d have heard once again that Hamas are a terrorist organisation dedicated to wiping Israel off the map and who exhibit all the signs of religious fundamentalism and extremism that threaten to eradicate the very fabric of civilisation. This may well be true. But why would one side elicit one reaction and the other side none?<br /><br />Finally, consider the declaration reported today by the leader of Israel's right-wing Likud party, Binyamin Netanyahu. In the run up to the forthcoming general election in Israel Netanyahu informed Tony Blair, the Middle East Peace Envoy (setting aside the cynicism and hypocrisy of that appointment for one moment to allow us to consider the point), that if elected Prime Minister (which seems likely) he will continue to expand existing settlements on the West Bank. Now, how was this reported in most western media? Why, of course, it was reported as “Netanyahu vows, No New Settlements”. How cynically disingenuous. Of course no one is denying that Netanyahu did indeed make that promise (whether to believe him is another matter entirely). But the angle that was most definitely NOT reported was “Netanyahu vows to continue illegally expanding illegal settlements in illegally occupied land belonging to Palestinians, taken from them by force, and illegally occupied in breach of a number of UN resolutions for over 40 years”. Because of course that might help people understand a little more about this conflict. We are of course told, and supposed to believe, that this conflict is so complex, so long standing, that it defies human comprehension. Utter bollocks. For those with time (say half a day), and the ability to read (at above, say, a Key Stage Three level), the situation is easily understandable. As is the reason for the current impasse. No lasting, viable settlement is going to be reached without a viable Palestinian state being established. To be viable you need to not be occupied by a foreign ,military power. You need to not have checkpoints manned by said foreign military power hindering the free movement of people within your territory, you need to have control over your natural resources, access to water, aquifers and farmland, and you need to not have expanding illegal settlements, separated from you by barbed wire, fences and trenches, serviced by separate roads and defended by an illegal occupying army and armed religious extremists. And yet Netanyahu can come out and brazenly boast about his intention to continue to expand existing settlements on the west Bank – an act illegal in law and preventing any hope of lasting peace between Israel and Palestine – without censure. Let us consider for a moment the scale of his boast. Since 1967 Israel has built 120 illegal settlements on the west Bank, housing 261,879 people. A further 102 ‘Outposts’ have been built. An ‘Outpost’ is an illegal illegal settlement; often no more than a couple of caravans on a hill top they are usually home to the most extremist settlers, and despite not being formally recognised by the Israeli government, enjoy the same protection from the Israeli military, the same funding from Israeli nationals and the same special treatment from Israeli authorities, such as roads, utilities and schools for the exclusive use of settlers, as the settlements themselves. The “outposts” are, in fact, settlements by another name, as a report on the “outposts” commissioned in 2005 by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon pointed out. Further more, there are illegal settlements in East Jerusalem too. As noted above this is illegal, a breach of a UN Resolution (446), and a flagrant attempt to alter ‘the facts on the ground’ prior to any negotiated deal with the Palestinians. In just 12 settlements in East Jerusalem 182,460 illegal settlers live, protected as usual by the might of the worlds fourth largest army. In total therefore, there are currently 417,723 Israelis living illegally on the West Bank. And yet no one talks about this, no one censures this fragrant breach of law and morality, this barest of thefts and ongoing provocation to the Palestinians who are supposed to be constructing a viable state on the 58% of their country which is not illegally settled by an occupying army. And Netanyahu and the rest can openly boast of their support for expanding existing settler communities and still be reported as moderates.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-41256842020786227812009-01-22T16:22:00.002+00:002009-01-22T17:35:30.638+00:00Gaza<p align="left"><em>An election is coming. Universal peace is declared and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.</em> T. S Eliot</p><p align="left">I have been unable to write anything about the situation in Gaza while the Israelis were caring out their wanton slaughter, too numb and horrified by what was unfolding before my eyes to respond coherently. Now that, for the Israelis at least, Operation Cast Lead is now over, people have begun to seek answers and analyse the motives and objectives of the Israeli military and government in entering into this bloody operation.<br /><br />The quote above I think captures a lot of people’s reasoning for the timing of operation cast lead - a vicious military assault slipped into the dying days of a lame duck president and timed to maximise the seeming humanitarian impact of Barack Obama. But I'm not sure I buy that. Sure, the timing suited Israel, it suited Bush, and it suited Obama. But I think that's just by the by.<br /><br />Whilst others will claim it is related to the Israeli's mentality of victimhood, seeing the abused become the abuser, and others will claim it is the clear and single minded desire to 'solve' the Palestinian problem once and for all, I am not so sure. I certainly don’t buy the Israeli argument that it is all the fault of Hamas. And for a number of reasons. Yes, there are some on the Israeli side (especially amongst the ultra orthodox and ultra zionist) who see it is a question of military might combined with god given right to obliterate the Palestinians, and others who worry that if not tightly controlled the 'Palestinian question' could, in time, lead to a resumption of blatant anti-semitism and attacks on a country that sees itself as surrounded by enemies. But I am no psychologist and do not want to fall into the trap of using cod-psychology and wild generalisations to explain the actions of a government and its army. Indeed, actions such as Operation Cast Lead are far too clinical, too meticulously planned, to be the result simply of some psychological driver. Indeed the operation must have been planned months in advance, and the sudden increase in shipments of weaponry, notably ‘bunker busting’ bombs, by the US military in the months leading up to this operation suggest that it was not only the Israelis who had been planning this for months.<br /><br />Far more interesting I think to assess Operation Cast Lead in terms of an action located within the nexus of standard capitalist-imperialist territorial expansionism. Removing the religio-ethnic strata from any analysis (which is not to say these are not factors, for both sides) is also helpful if one wishes to look at the situation without getting dragged into 100 years of recent history, and indeed the entire history of a people and their god.<br /><br />But first, let us start by assessing the stated aims of operation cast lead, as laid out by the IDF:<br />1. To halt the fire of rockets by Hamas from Gaza into Israel<br />2. To prevent the smuggling of weapons from Egypt into Gaza via a network of underground tunnels.<br />3. To teach Hamas, and by extension Gazans, a valuable lesson about the consequences of breaching an Israeli ceasefire (indeed one Israeli politician talked of visiting a holocaust on the Gazans – not, one would imagine, an accidental choice of words).<br /><br />Well, objective one is easily dismissed - throughout the operation Hamas rocket fire into Israel continued unabated and there is no question that Hamas still retain the capability to begin the barrages if they so choose. Secondly, news has emerged today that the smuggling tunnels are already back in use and providing valuable and vital diesel into Rafah and the rest of Gaza. Finally, it is essential to note that it was actually Israel who broke the Hamas declared ceasefire and precipitated this entire crisis.<br /><br />So, it is clear that the objectives above do not ring true (and indeed many Israeli military analysts have lined up to question the sense of these stated objectives as militarily unachievable). I very much wonder whether the actions in Gaza don't in fact mask a rather more mundane (in one sense of the word) set of motives. I consider Israel to be a prime example of the development of a capitalist nation state - one which exists almost perfectly as a microcosm of the different stages of capitalism, and its inherent logics and rules. From a country that did not exist 100 years ago, the state of Israel has developed perhaps more rapidly than any other nation state. First it experienced rapid industrialisation and economic development, as the deserts were greened, and an economy developed (initially predominantly agricultural, but now encompassing manufacturing, military-industrial development, and financial and service industries). In part this was driven by the massive influx of immigration from across Europe and the wider world. Next was a phase of blatant and aggressive imperialist expansionism, as the state militarily and unilaterally re-defined its borders by occupying parts of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank and Gaza.<br /><br />Coupled with this imperialism came the standard othering of subservient populations (in this case the Arabs - both Israeli Arabs and Palestinians) to create a pool of affordable and readily available cheap labour. In this way the state of Israel has grown in a little under one hundred years to a position as a dominant developed nation state, a noted military force and an economic powerhouse, both within its region, and also vis-à-vis Europe and the US.<br /><br />The importance of the Israeli economy to other developed economics can not be underestimated. To the UK, French, and US in particular, Israel is a vital source of economic fluidity - both as an investment opportunity for surplus capital, and as a key purchaser of military technologies (and recipient of military aid - a financial deal which benefits both the western arms manufacturers and the Israeli economy). So perhaps operation cast lead should be looked at not in relation to its timing regarding the US presidency, but rather its timing in relation to the world economy. The world economy is currently in crisis, predominantly due to the inherent crisis tendencies that are the central logic of the system itself. These crises - always painted as being unforeseeable and unique, are in fact as predictable as night following day, or the Met undercounting demonstrators on marches in London. This time, there is a failure in monetary circulation - the cyclical process of creative destruction has slowed, and there is seemingly no available capital to grease the wheels of greed. However, it is the case that there is no actual shortage of money, just a shortage of investment opportunities seen as risk-free enough to entice the big investors of the global capitalist market who are recovering form having their fingers burnt by Enron, Lehman Brothers, Northern Rock, sub prime securities, and the like.<br /><br />Those who until recently would have gambled on hedge funds and short selling need another outlet for their surplus capital, and quick, before the economic 'downturn' begins to affect them, and not just the ordinary schmuck on the street. Seen in that light, the bombardment of Gaza takes on a new complexion. Witness the clamour to talk about aid and reconstruction, witness the huge sums of money being promised. Even better than a normal investment opportunity, with its attendant risk, this situation is like manna from heaven to the global capitalist class. Huge redevelopment grants, with contracts underpinned by governments and international aid agencies. You simply can't loose. And the picture gets rosier and rosier for these purveyors of destruction in the name of development - the absolute crisis of leadership in government in Gaza (and indeed in the West Bank - one led by an Israeli stooge and supported tacitly by billions of dollars of Israeli money, the other ruled by a democratically elected organisation who the world has made clear will not be allowed to rule much longer) presents an excellent opportunity for the capitalist class to operate without checks or balances, exactly as they see fit, making partnerships and soliciting support with the simple persuasive power of hard currency. It is no coincidence that large reserves of gas have been found off the shores of the Gaza strip, in Palestinian waters. These resources want exploiting (apparently, at least according to British Gas who are eager to get their hands on it) and you can bet your last dollar that Hamas and the mass of the Palestinian populous will not be allowed to profit from this.<br /><br />And don't think this war on Gaza is only about Gaza: while the Israelis continue to crow about their unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (in actual fact a forced retreat under the pressure of legitimate resistance by Gazans) more settlers have settled on the West Bank than were pulled out of Gaza in the intervening years. The West Bank remains the critical objective for Israeli expansionism. Whether you believe that to be religiously driven expansionism to occupy and own biblical greater Israel, or economic expansionism based on the material wealth to be found on the West Bank (aquifers, fertile land, habitable space for an expanding population), Gaza is a mere smoke screen. The creation of 'facts on the ground' remains Israel’s objective - to occupy and retain the areas of the West Bank so vital to their long-term economic security.<br /><br />And finally, in closing, let us remember that, macro and micro objectives, analysis and reasons aside, some very stark facts were hammered home in Gaza these past few weeks. The Israelis committed war crimes (targeting of civilian areas, populations and infrastructure; the use of white phosphorous in civilian areas; disproportionate response to violence; collective punishment of an entire population), the West sat by and cheered them on, and the civilians of Gaza paid the price. The media were central too, continuing the uneven discourse that seeks to portray every Israeli action as an equal and measured response to a Palestinian provocation. For the record then:</p><ul><li>Israel broke the ceasefire</li><li>Over the last 7 years – 22 Israeli deaths have resulted from Palestinian violence</li><li>In the same time period Palestinian deaths through Israeli violence have numbered over 5000</li><li>During Operation Cast Lead more than 1,300 Palestinians were killed and 5,000+ wounded, half of them women and children</li><li>In the same period 13 Israelis were killed – 4 by IDF ‘Friendly Fire’, a further 6 IDF soldiers killed within Gaza</li><li>Thus the ratio of death in this asymmetric warfare is 1300 Palestinian to 9 Israelis</li><li>More than 4,000 buildings have been destroyed in Gaza, and more than 20,000 severely damaged</li><li>50,000 Gazans are now homeless and 400,000 without running water</li></ul>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-26485433283533515272008-04-11T12:09:00.001+00:002008-04-11T12:11:43.786+00:00Data/Control<p align="justify"><span style="font-family:arial;">I read an incredible article today on the BBC news website (</span><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7340174.stm"><span style="font-family:arial;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7340174.stm</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">) . Unsurprisingly I did not find it incredible because of its powerful journalism or dissenting viewpoint, I found it incredible because it was yet another of those initiatives that ought to leave middle England spluttering into their cornflakes, but instead passes by without a second look, and confirms this countries descent into fascism and enforced conformity.<br /><br />The story outlines how the police have been ‘learning lessons’ form the recent protests around China hosting this years Olympics. One assume they have not been learning the lesson ‘don’t’ give the Olympics to totalitarian regimes with appalling human rights records’, but have perhaps been learning a thing or two about policing from their Chinese special forces counterparts. The article outlines how in the interests of ‘security’ police are spending £600million in the run up to the 2012 Olympics to: </span></p><span style="font-family:arial;"><p align="justify"><br />> Install a “technological footprint” across London as a “first line of security<br />> Introduce state of the art technology that tracks all spectators from the venue right to their homes, through the use of special tickets with trackers in them<br />> Deploy advanced identity-recognition techniques to monitor the crowds,<br />> Deploy enhanced car number-plate recognition systems<br />> Buy three new helicopters to carry out close surveillance<br />> Install biometric fingerprint checks for all workers on the Olympic sites<br /><br />Two thoughts follow form this revelation: one, who are the police expecting at the 2012 Olympics that they feel the need to deploy the biggest security operation this side of Dunkirk; and, are people simply going to stand by and allow this to happen?<br /><br />Sadly there is no debate about it at all for the most part. News items like this are not widely reported, you have to look for them and keep your eyes and ears open, and certainly the majority of the population that maybe don't take a paper or watch news, or the rest that read tabloids and watch sky news (i.e. those being spoon fed Rupert Murdoch’s agenda) have no idea, or regurgitate the old chestnut that "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear".<br /><br />For me it has been proven time and time again that technologies like this can not and will not make any real, quantifiable difference to security. Thus, you have to wonder about other motives and forces drive these decisions. And I think the prime one is a desire to know more and more information. Begging the question, why? Well, I think governments are increasingly in the pockets of business interests (I know it has always been the case, but I think the way globalisation has led to a huge re-scaling of business from a primarily local, or national enterprise to a series of huge global conglomerates has grossly reinforced the power and control by business over government).<br /><br />And I think that in the 21st Century, the so called 'Knowledge Economy' and focus on technologies, means that one of the most valuable commodities in the world is data. Our governments collect data on us. Our credit cards collect data on us. Our mobile phone collects data on us. Our internet service providers collect data on us. Everyone is busy collecting data on us. You think how many times in a day or a week you have to provide data to various external organisations and government departments. And why? It's always portrayed as being for our security, or to make our lives easier, or to improve the shopping experience by allowing retailers to tailor their products or their special offers to our own individual needs. I actually think the desire of business to get their hands on our data is at least as insidious as the governments desire.<br /><br />Both have one driving influence in their quest for knowledge. Power. If you have enough information on us you have power over us. Either the power of the government to monitor and record so much information on us that they can keep us supine and docile (who wants to go on a demo if the police are going to be there videoing you with a digital camcorder that when run back against a computer checks your facial biometric details against the record of biometrics they take when you renew your passport, thus allowing them to conclusively prove you took part in an 'illegal' activity, allowing them to arrest you, and take more of your details: your dna and fingerprints, etc) or the power of business to market products at us, offer credit to us, get us locked into a never ending contract of debt, desire and consumerism.The worrying trend is that the government now sells the data it collects on us to businesses, and businesses collect data on us which they hold for many years and pass, if asked, on to the various law enforcement agencies. I believe it is a new form of control, certainly in advanced western countries, to replace the reliance on physical force. Whilst that option will always remain for governments, they have realised it is much cheaper, much more effective, and much better for public relations, to control the population implicitly rather than brutally and explicitly. So perhaps one lesson that the English police are learning form the Chinese experience of the Olympics is that it is better to invest heavily in security than have the spectacle of protestors fighting police on the capitals streets.<br /><br />So many of the things that saddle and burden us these days exist to subtlety condition our behaviours. Who feels able or motivated to stand up and protest/live autonomously/make a stand/complain when they are saddled with debt, fear, and unfulfilled (and unfulfilable) desire? Debt coupled with false expectations. For why do people get into debt? Because it is easy. Because the banks make it far too easy for people to get their hands on money they can not ever hope to repay. Because people are led to believe form an early age that status is achieved through material possession. That owning a house, a car, gucci jeans, rayban sunglasses, the latest blackberry, a 32" plasma TV, or a big new shinny car makes you a better person. And now, with the level of data control it is even easier to control this pattern. Banks and businesses know what your interest are, they know what your dreams are (after all they have spent vast sums of money trying to condition your dreams and desires), and they know how to interact with you. You have been segmented, placed into a specific demographic field, you are communicated with very very specifically.<br /><br />In creating the twin leviathans of debt and desire you control a population much more thoroughly than through the mere threat of violence. Effectively you have made each person internalise the system of control, so instead of needing external physical forms of control (i.e. the police) individuals now do their own policing. They stop to think, can I afford to jack this job in? Can I afford to stand up for my rights? Can I afford to get cautioned if it affects my ability to go abroad? Can I afford to get arrested if it affects my chances of getting a good job? And if you decide you can’t afford it, then just take out a loan, get another credit card, or re-mortgage your house.<br /><br />And interestingly, for the people that see through this lie, and who choose to live and exist autonomously as individuals, the more traditional, old fashioned sort of control, that borne of physical violence, is rolled out. And interestingly, the roll out of force is more often that not preceded by, directed by, and driven by, data. Hence the emergence of ‘intelligence led policing’, which more often than not exhibits the antithesis of intelligence, and simply relies on observation, phone tapping, the trawling of various radical websites, and the use of agents to infiltrate groups and organisations. (Only this week the anti-airport expansion group Plane Stupid exposed one of their newer members as a stooge working for a private security firm with very concrete ties to BAA.). The state powers seem offended by groups and individuals that refuse to play ball and share all their data in the public domain. Indeed this offends them so greatly that they will go to extremes just to infiltrate these groups, gain information, and then crack down physically on them. And of course their end goal, to complete this vicious cycle of control, is to capture data. Names, dates, plans, networks, phone numbers, email addresses, finger prints, dna. Enough data to ensure that they do not have the same difficulties tracking you or your groups in future. One of the many fascist tendencies of the recent terrorism legislation was its bestowing of powers on police to be able to force individuals to give up data without even being suspected of a crime (let alone involved in one).<br /><br />And so we come full circle. The government wishes to control us, and operates at the behest of elite interests, predominantly the interest of capital. Hence they wish to host global spectacles like the Olympics as it is a great way to boost business, open new markets, gain media exposure, and so on. This desire rides roughshod over the desires of anyone else. From the people displaced by the building needed for this global spectacle of capital to take place (whether those displaced in China, or those displaced in east London) to those that object to China’s record in Burma, Tibet, and within its own borders to those that simply question whether their taxes should be spent to boost the flow of capital in the global economy; there are many who do not feel the Olympic spirit. And these dangerous, dissenting voices must be controlled. Only, you understand, in order to defend the Olympic ideal.<br /><br />Those police on foot, on bike, on roller blades, on buses, in helicopters, and observing through the lenses of camcorders and CCTV cameras who so valiantly defended the Olympic flame as it passed through London, Paris and San Francisco, were all defending the Olympic ideal! And in order to do so they needed to observe and record, to capture data, to infiltrate dangerous and subversive groups, and to deploy physical violence (alongside some Chinese special forces in nice tracksuits) to catch those who dissented. And when these reprobates had been caught they were sifted for data and forced to provide permanent forms of ID (dna, fingerprints and photos) in order to improve security.<br /><br />Security to allow the games to take place. So that more products can be sold, more records kept (why on earthy would you need a ticket that can track your movements!?). You can buy your official 2012 Olympic tickets with your Visa card (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics), possibly online using software by Microsoft (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics ), print your directions on your Samsung printer (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics ), purchase a McDonalds (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics), shave with a Gillette macfusionpowervibratesuper (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics) , drink a coca cola (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics), or if it all gets too much for you why not stay at home and watch the spectacle on your Panasonic 32” plasma TV (official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics). You get the picture.<br /><br />But don’t forget the Olympics is all about a sporting ideal. One borne of wide spread drug abuse admittedly, but hey, don’t let that stop you consuming. The Olympics drive the economy, they encourage consumerism, and in doing so they continue the conditions for a free flow of data form consumers to corporations and governments. These corporations and governments will not allow anything to stand in the way of this 21st economic ideal, and so will, borne of necessity, share data with the forces of law and order to ensure your security and the security of the games(after all how would the world continue if the men’s 85kg straight lift didn’t go ahead?!). If threatened they will deploy force to uphold the noble traditions of the Olympics.<br /><br />This little musing may appear to have developed on twin tracks, the Olympics and the quest for data, but the two are related. The quest for data underpins the quest for increased consumerism, increased consumerism produces more and more data, and once you get used to having more and more data taken from you and recorded (both by state and businesses) you will be de-sensitised to it. You will also be controlled. You will know that they know. You will think twice about fighting your corner. So bear two things in mind – think about the data you are asked for and daily provide. Think who is asking for it, what they will do with it, and why they need it. And refuse to play along. Your information is yours, don’t’ allow it to become another commodity because commodities feed consumerism and the free play of consumer capitalism requires security. Everything needs increased security these days it would appear. But why? If the Olympics just didn’t go ahead would it matter? Would the world stop? Would all those hormone and steroid ridden athletes implode with disappointment? Only if the lack of Olympics meant they could no longer be the official face of Nike, official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics.</span></p>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-90541827223567888002007-11-08T15:37:00.000+00:002007-11-08T15:39:49.514+00:00The Roadmap to PeaceThere has been renewed interest in issues around the Israel/Palestine conflict in the last few weeks. Firstly, I can only presume that this is directly related to our (and indeed the USA’s) need to divert attention away from the increasingly disastrous operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as hoping to provide a smokescreen from any future plans we may have to attack Iran. The idea, I suppose, is that if we pretend to look half interested in sorting out a little bit of land the Palestinians can play at statehood on, we get to look good in the eyes of the Middle East. Laughable assumption though it may be, it would seem to fit with current UK/US government ideology, removed as it is from any semblance of reality. Secondly, as is always the case when talking about this subject I feel the need to set a few ground rules: there is no ‘Israel/Palestine conflict’, all there is is one continuous 60 year illegal occupation of sovereign Palestinian land , punctuated with uncounted acts of violence, aggression and terrorism not by one side, but by both. It remains the case that while groups on both sides have committed unspeakable acts of horror on each other, the Palestinians retain a right to self defence and self determination, and this will continue until they regain control of all of their land, their borders, their airspace, their ports, water, electricity, economy, and most importantly, dignity.<br /><br />Thus, in the last few weeks, we have witnessed the spectacle of the US, the Quartet, and Israel all, to various extents, stating their eagerness to restart the ‘roadmap’ and ensure a ‘viable Palestinian state’. Legitimised by their stooge Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Bantustan of Rammallah and de facto spokesperson of the Palestinian people, various ideas have been floated in recent weeks, that in the mainstream media stand as proof of the serious nature of the current push for peace. However, to those observers with an interest in the ‘facts on the ground’ (a particularly popular piece of semantics within the Israeli government and their US counterparts) and even a passing knowledge of the history and the current situation in Palestine, and undoubtedly for the Palestinians themselves, the latest moves are simply one more slap in the face for their rights and their never ending quest for justice. Interestingly even the UN, that talking shop for nations with its historic role as arbiter and legitimator of US foreign policy since at least the Suez crisis, is beginning to feel embarrassed at the extent to which the Palestinian people themselves are painted out of the peace process. After all, until their leadership acquiesce to the concessions demanded of them by the Israeli government, the Palestinians are not to be allowed a voice in this process to determine their future and their fate.<br /><br />Not that this should come as a surprise to the informed observer. After all, the Palestinians have been powerless to speak for themselves, determine the outcomes of their own lives, even control the most basic elements of their lives and existences (including their movement, economy, security, education, electricity, water, airspace, borders and welfare). Hence in the current discussions we are casually informed by the media that the Quartet feels that there may be the possibility of progress if the Palestinian negotiating team are willing to come to the table and discuss a land swap, whereby the Palestinians will be allowed to keep land equivalent to the landmass of the West Bank in return for allowing the Israelis to retain key settlements on the West Bank.. Until they agree to this demand to concede land it is the Palestinians who are held up as standing in the way of peace. This whole argument is erroneous. The absolute incontrovertible truth which this demand seeks to bypass is that the land in question all belongs to the Palestinians. Not by claim, historical fact, or ‘facts on the ground’ but in the legal framework which ought to guide this whole process but is consistently overlooked – the internationally agreed UN 1967 green line (which itself is already a concession of land on the part of the Palestinians vis-à-vis the original 1948 UN partition of British mandate Palestine or even the 1949 UN armistice line). [I feel I should add here, that upon re-reading my blog it looks very much like I’m a big fan of international law and the UN. I’m not. Its just that, for one, I believe that in a non-hierarchical democratic system, the rules and rights ordinary people would choose to confer on each other would roughly measure up to the basic tenants of our UN agreed human rights, and secondly, that in the context which many of the struggles I mention exist we have to force the debate onto agreed international terms to bypass the might of the US, and that whilst I would love to advocate anarchy as a solution to, for instance, the Palestinian problem, I feel it more realistic to strive for justice in language everyone else can understand]. After all, were we to discuss historical facts there would be a strong social justice argument for the talks to only proceed when the Israeli government is willing to discuss returning lands it seized militarily between its military offensives of 1948, 1967 and 1973 (and indeed continues to seize for ‘security purposes’ to this day). The notion that it is the Palestinians who ought to come to the table willing to discuss giving over control of land, any land, anywhere, to the Israelis is laughable. The argument continually proffered by the Israelis and their US allies, is of the necessity of addressing the current peace process to ‘facts on the ground’. At the heart of this argument is the fact that there are hundreds of Israeli settlements (as well as over 400 checkpoints) within the 1967 agreed Palestinian borders, covering somewhere in the region of 40% of 1967 Palestine and providing homes to over 400,000 Israelis (including East Jerusalem, still over 250,000 discounting the residents there). The argument is made that removing these settlements, as happened in Gaza (of which I will speak more later), is simply unrealistic, and that they therefore must remain, and be taken into account in any final settlement (no pun intended, this is no laughing matter).<br /><br />Of course what this entire argument fails to mention is that these are all illegal settlements. Illegal under international law, illegal under the terms laid down for occupying armies in the Hague Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention, immoral, and unjust. These are settlements built on land stolen by force. Settlements that bisect the west Bank in such a way as to create a series of Bantustans in the West Bank which make the notion of a viable Palestinian state ridiculous and insulting. Settlements that have been a deliberate policy of successive Israeli governments for at least the last 25 years, precisely designed as a long term ploy to create irreversible facts on the ground to force any final status settlements in the ‘peace’ process heavily in the favour of the Israeli negotiating position. Let us be clear about some basic and irrefutable truths which ought to form the absolute basis of any Palestinian negotiations:<br /><br />The only viable borders for a Palestinian state are the UN agreed 1967 green line<br /><br />There can be, nor should be, any negotiations while any Israeli settlements remain anywhere within the 1967 green line<br /><br />There can be, nor should be, any negotiations while there remains any Israeli military or security apparatus on any Palestinian land<br /><br />The apartheid wall is immoral, unspeakably cruel, and illegal in international law. It must be torn down and repartitions made to all those whose lives it has destroyed<br /><br />The peace process, which can only begin when the above issues have been rectified, must recognise the inalienable right of return of all Palestinian refugees<br /><br />The peace process must recognise the views of all Palestinians, including the millions of refugees scattered across Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, the rest of the Middle East, Europe, America and elsewhere (estimated to be in the region of three million people). These people and/or their forefathers were forced to flee their homeland and have a right to have their views, opinions and desires represented by those selected to negotiate for the Palestinian people<br /><br />Mahmoud Abbas is not a suitable negotiating partner. He represents a minority of the Palestinian people, is the choice figure of the US and to an extent the Israeli government, rather than the Palestinian people, and is the successor of the morally bankrupt Yasser Arafat and his Fatah party. For many years, since at least their retreat to Tunis, Fatah represented an autocratic, corrupt and self serving institution that gradually failed to speak for, or speak to, the mass of the Palestinian people it claimed to speak for. In gradually gaining the support of the Israeli government and the US it delegitimised itself, and came to rely on the support of those it claimed to oppose to legitimise and support its rule. Through the deliberate policies of the Israelis, with the full support and connivance of the US, it came to need these alleged ‘foes’ to cement its position. In supporting Fatah for so long, and creating a gulf between Fatah and the Palestinian people, the Israelis and US have, much to their chagrin, provided the perfect conditions for the emergence of Hamas as the spokespeople of the Palestinian people. For so long the Palestinians retained a mainly secular political outlook, but in viewing the increasing ineffectiveness and corruptness of Fatah they have been forced toward a position where the only radical voice speaking for, and acting in the interests of, the Palestinians, was Hamas. Effectively, the Israeli government, the US, the UK, and the EU have all sought to punish Palestinians for electing Hamas in free and fair democratic elections. We can see why the people of Palestine may have been pushed towards voting in these right wing religious fundamentalist zealots by considering the political, economic and military situation in Palestine since at least the first intifada. Now consider the illogicality of trying to punish the Palestinians for their choice: all that will happen is that by punishing the Palestinians choice with tanks, missiles, sonic booms, incursions, bored closings and electricity blackouts, you push the people of the West Bank, and especially Gaza, further and further into the arms of Hamas, the most hard line option with their promises of blood and death and terror. It is always the same when you try to intimidate another with violence and bloodshed, you push them towards the bloodiest and most violent group or individual they can find as they seek comfort, protection, and revenge. Now the Israeli/US nexus have made this bed they must lie in it. They offered the Palestinians democratic elections, and the Palestinians held democratic elections (ratified unanimously by the independent UN election observers) and elected Hamas. However much the Israelis, the Quartet, the UN, the EU, the UK, and many people the world over, may disagree with Hamas policy and actions, we must recognise that they are the elected voice of the people and are a reflection of the views of Palestinians, created by the facts within Palestine.<br /><br />For let us not forget that when your opinions of the situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are formed not by CNN, the BBC, and Haratz, but through your daily suffering in Gaza or the West Bank, the view looks very different. The resort to violence, the constant attempts to defend themselves and respond to Israeli actions and incursions, the use of suicide bombers and Qasam rockets, these all seem much different when you have lived in the squalor, violence and apartheid of the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. When you have experienced your loved ones killed with high velocity munitions shot from militarised observation towers, witnessed women refused passage though ‘checkpoints’ and forced to deliver their babies in the dirt at the side of the road then watch their babies die in their arms, seen your home bulldozed for ‘security’ purposes, lived with the daily humilities and inconveniences caused by these same checkpoints, been subjected to nightly sonic booms by F16 jets, seen your land stolen, your crops destroyed, your youth fired upon, stood by powerless while your farmland is cut off form you by a wall that makes its former counterpart in Berlin look like a garden fence, and your history and culture ridiculed and destroyed, things seem very different. When you have watched all this occur in the context of settlements linked together by high quality “settler only” roads springing up unendingly on your land, when these settlements appropriate your water, your farm land, your ancestral homes, when these settlers attack you, use you as slave labour to fuel their expansion into international markets for clothing, food, and flowers, and when these settlements use what land remains to you as their personal garbage dump, things look very different. When those occupying your land have the 4th largest army in the world, armed not just by their own burgeoning military-industrial complex, but by the most modern weaponry provided by the US, UK, France, and others, and have recourse to tanks, APCs, Apache Helicopters, F16 jets, Cluster Bombs, heavy artillery and every type of gun and munitions available things look very different.<br />The Palestinians right to defend themselves from the brutal, bloody and murderous events that daily occur in their illegally occupied homeland (but which are so infrequently reported to us here in the West) is unquestionable. Having said that it remains, without a shadow of a doubt, indefensible to target these attacks at civilians, at women and children, and people in bars, clubs, cafes, schools, and so on. But this resort to terror is not the solely a crime committed by Palestinians against Israelis. There can be no doubt from the frequency with which it occurs (whether we in the West get to hear about it from the mainstream media) that the IDF deliberately target civilians in their operations in the West Bank and Gaza. In doing so they commit terrorist offences too. Terrorism is not only confined to guerrilla groups and Palestinian resistance movements – states too can commit terrorism. Indeed, the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy comments, as part of his analysis of the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel form Gaza, and the subsequent IDF military incursions into the Gaza Strip, “anyone who takes an honest look at the progression of events during the past two months will discover that the Qassams have a context: they are almost always fired after an IDF assassination operation, and there have been many of these. The question of who started it is not a childish question I this context. The IDF has returned to liquidations [e.g. targeted assassinations], and in a big way. And in their wake there has been an increase in Qassam firings”. So, in direct contravention to the discourse we get here in the UK, even the Israeli media accepts that more often than not the Palestinian violence is a tit-for-tat response to its constant precursor, Israeli violence. Indeed, it is worth noting (especially in the context of the attempts to reinvigorate the ‘roadmap’ and talk about ‘peace’) that from 16 July this year when US President George Bush announced November’s peace meeting the Israeli military killed 104 Palestinians (21 in the West Bank; 83 in the Gaza Strip; 12 children); injured 442 (251 inthe West Bank; 191 in the Gaza Strip; 54 children); and arrested 1,181 (1,096 in the West Bank; 85 in the Gaza Strip; 54 children); as well as setting up 29 additional military checkpoints in the West Bank.<br /><br />So we cans see if we take the time to really look what is happening that any current discourse about ‘peaces’, especially one that holds up the Palestinians as being unable or unwilling to renounce violence whilst painting the Israelis as the innocent and injured party desperately seeking peace with its blood thirsty neighbour, is laughable. Until the conditions I outlined above are met, or at least acceptable as the bottom line for any future negotiations, any attempts to find a solution will be externally imposed and doomed to failure. And yet it will be the Palestinians who are held up as being opposed to peace while the Israeli government is shown to be doing all it can. Nothing could be further from the truth. Take as an example the recent withdrawal form Gaza. Heralded as being the most brave and humanitarianly minded move yet in this whole grotesque saga, the move was indeed highly desired by the residents of Gaza. Offered the chance to have all illegal settlements removed and the end of military occupation seemed like the endgame for Gazans. To finally control their own movement, destiny, economy, borders, and future seemed the final solution all had been striving for. And yet it has not turned out like this at all. Israel has indeed removed all settlements (blowing many up as it left to prevent the Palestinians benefiting form them) and no longer occupies Gaza militarily. At least not on the ground. There are still incursions. They still shell Gaza. They still send in Apache helicopters to carry out ‘targeted’ assassinations. They still use F16 jets to cause sonic booms over the tower blocks of Gaza City. And they still control every element of life for Gazans. For they control the border crossings, the airspace, the sea, the water, the electricity, the jobs, the economy, and thus the fate of 1.5 million people. Since the Israelis closed the borders to all movements of goods and people the frail economy in Gaza has crumbled as fast as the health and dignity of its population. Now some 85% of Gazan’s are unemployed, all building work (including vital repairs to the sewage system) has halted as the Israelis refuse to allow the importation of concrete, the price of flour has soared 80% due to its scarcity (the UN provide emergency food aid to over 600,000 in the Gaza Strip), and even the provision of electricity is subject to the whims of the Israeli government. For whilst the discourse in the UK has been around the Israelis using electricity blackouts as some sort of collective punishment (illegal under international law) in retaliation for Qassam rocket attacks, we cans see that the Qassam rocket attacks are themselves responses to Israeli violence against Palestinians. And so the cycle of violence continues. And yet the disintegration of the Gaza strip is held up as just another example of the inability of the Palestinians to rule themselves, and their violent nature and lust for blood. Whereas, what Palestinians really seem to want is a few basic tenants of humane and human existence: land, water, electricity, jobs, food, security, peace.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-37672474209988468222007-11-08T13:37:00.000+00:002007-11-08T14:17:20.577+00:00Met Exonerated Over de Menezes MurderSo, two enquiries this week, one by the Courts under the auspices of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Health</span> and Safety <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Legislation</span>, the other by the "<span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Independent</span>" Police Complaints Authority, have both, to all intents and purposes, found the Met not guilty over the murder of Jean <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Charles</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Menezes</span>. The first ruling by the H&SE effectively found that the Met had placed sections of the public at risk through various failings in their operational procedures. In much the same was as a supermarket puts the public at risk when it mops the floor and doesn't put one of those folding yellow warning signs out. Rather than placing the public at risk by shooting innocent commuters <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">to</span> death on the tube, for <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">instance</span>. I <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">suppose</span> it's not the H&<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">SE's</span> fault in one sense, they are more often charged with fining companies with sub-standard wiring than being the arbiter of justice in a murder case.<br /><br />The second investigation this week, by the "independent" police complaints authority, found that it had all been a bit of a shambles in the Met, sort of maybe thought about half <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">heartedly</span> suggesting that some actual people be charged and take <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">responsibility</span>, and called for a public debate about the incident and wider issues of how to police potential suicide bombers. Well, I'm all up for a public debate about the incident and the wider context of the "war" on terror. One, the people that shot Jean Charles <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Menezes</span> should be held personally accountable for his murder. From the goons with the guns right up to Ian Blair, those people in the chain of 'command and communication' responsible for an innocent man having his head caved in by 7 shots at point blank range have to be held to account. Secondly, I do agree that we need to have a series debate about the wider context of what we do in the 'film script scenario' we are so often presented with of "what would you do if a known suicide bomber was about to blow himself up on a bus" (interestingly, a close cousin of the other catch all question designed to trip loonies and lefties up "If a man was in <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">captivity</span> and knew the combination to defuse a bomb that was going to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">destroy</span> new york city, surely it would be acceptable to torture him"). Well, for one, realise that this is a one in a million <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">scenario</span> and not worth the focus it gets as the centre point for all other discussions about how to proceed with a "counter <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">terrorism</span> policing policy". However, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">I will</span> countenance this <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">theoretical</span> proposition in the context of Jean Charles <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Menezes</span> to <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">uncover</span> the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">stupidity</span> which is central to it. <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Because</span> of course, as everyone knows, prevention is always better than cure. So, the easiest way to prevent having to make those sorts of <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">discussions</span> is to make sure that you don't allow a situation to develop where there is a potential suicide bomber, a packed tube, and a pig with a gun. There are two ways of doing this, either ensure that the conditions do not exist to ignite radicalisation and extremism (the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">argument</span> that is always overlooked as being <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">unrealistic</span>, wacky, soft, etc..., i.e. change our <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">ways</span>, remove our government, get the hell off of other peoples lands and resources and start working towards a way we can all live non-hierarchically unshackled from the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">restraints</span> of governments and imposed systems of work, behaviour and rules), or if this has failed (or in our case not even begun to happen) then don't let the situation get to critical. In the case of Jean Charles <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_30">de</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_31">Menezes</span>, don't let him onto a bus, then a tube, then shoot him.<br /><br />Indeed, this is amply illustrated in the words of one of the officers involved, speaking at the H&SE hearing. 'Andrew' stated that officers were trained to fire "as a last resort, when conventional methods have failed". Begging the question what, <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_32">exactly</span>, were the conventional methods deployed to halt the journey of their so called suicide bomber? It is true to say that in this case pretty much fuck all other methods had been undertaken - the police didn't confirm Jean Charles' ID as the surveillance officer assigned to watch him was <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_33">having</span> a piss, they let him get on a bus, let him get off a bus, let him walk into a tube station, down two sets of escalators, let him get on a tube, sit there for two minutes, then shot him in the head 7 times without warning. With 'dumb dumb' bullets - bullets which are illegal and <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_34">outlawed</span> under the terms of the Geneva Convention and various <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_35">subsequent</span> treaties for military use on the <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_36">ground</span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_37">s of</span> being inhumane, but <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_38">apparently</span> perfectly OK loaded into the guns of London's finest the Met. But then that should come as no surprise to anyone - anyone that has ever had the misfortune to come into contact first hand with the Met; from Jean Charles de Menezes to anyone who has even been in London on May Day, anti-War marches, or demos in Parliament Square; knowns that the Met operate under a totally diffeent set of rules to everyone else.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1150891242442204212006-06-21T11:53:00.000+00:002006-06-21T12:07:57.786+00:00Slipping Standards, Rotting MindsJust one quick observation today. A recent survey for channel 4 found that during last year the show 'Celebrity Love Island' accounted for three quarters (yup, thats right, 75%) of ITV's factual programming. Unbelivable as that may sound, such is the slippage of standards on terrestrial TV, that a show featuring a bunch of over hyped pituary retards trying desperately to ignore their hang-ups and phobias long enough to manage to fuck one another accounted for 75% of ITVs contractually obligated "factual programming". Begging the question how such a piss-poor excuse for a TV show gets to be classified as 'factual'. Unless of course the factual content is contained in the fact that this show clearly and demonstratably highlights how facile and unquestioning the population of this country now is. We will accept anything shoved our way, we will be distracted by it, and we will swallow it hook line and sinker. So, in a year when our government was waging an illegal war in Iraq, occupying Afghanistan, supporting US war crimes in Guantanamo, and so on, ITV managed to fob the entire population of the UK off with a show where a bunch of emotionally crippled attention seekers lie around on a beach moaning about how hard their lives are for a month. Factual programming?? I don't think so.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1150890784411026992006-06-21T11:33:00.000+00:002006-06-22T13:10:07.813+00:00Getting Back To Agreed Standards.......<div align="justify">I guess one of the themes running through this blog is that there do exist between nations, and between humanity as a whole, a pre-agreed set of basic laws, assumptions and standards which we have collectively agreed in order to define the limits of our acceptance. They may not be perfect, there may be elements of these rules and laws that some want to quibble over or change to some degree, but ultimately, these agreed upon notions exist to guide humanity away from the evils and destruction visited upon us during the last two centuries when the mechanisation of war and the industrialisation and capitalisation of society have provided a glimpse of the brutality of which the human race is capable. </div><div align="justify"><br />Hence, there exists conventions on human rights, rules for wars, norms of decency; a set of standardisations to point out those who clearly transgress from the safe middle ground. For instance, Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as:</div><div align="justify"><br /><em>"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including...wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." </em></div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">This seems entirely reasonable, does not seek to restrict a nation or its army from waging war and engaging in acts of an offensive or defensive nature. This is the norm. For me, it does not go far enough: as a pacifist it simply seems to seek simply to make war and destruction acceptable. And yet, it exists as the norm for delimiting the acceptable act of war from the unacceptable, from the criminal. Which is why it annoys me so much when opponents of brutality and state sanctioned terror are painted as imbeciles and idiots for voicing concerns, or for daring to utter the accusation of 'war crimes' against the UK, the US, or Israel. While all these countries and their morally bankrupt politicians and leaders would happily agree that War Crimes have occurred in Somalia, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or in Sudan, they baulk at the accusation that they too are guilty of these crimes. Yet they are. They are guilty in an objective, legally agreed sense. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">These rules exist to govern these actions, they have transgressed these rules, clearly and without argument, and yet they object and react to accusations they are war criminals as if we had accused of them of the most onerous and horrific crimes. And yet, who in their right minds would disagree that the US has been guilty of "unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person" in relation to their Extraordinary Rendition flights and the facilities at Guantanamo Bay? Who would seriously defend the Israeli Defence Force and the thus the Israeli government from accusations that it is guilty of "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly"? And who could possibly defend charges that the UK government, especially in relation to its new 'anti-terror' laws, is not guilty of "wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial."? In these objective terms all of these countries governments are clearly guilty of war crimes. </div><div align="justify"> </div><div align="justify">These are not sensationalist claims dreamt up by the left, but objectively provable facts using guidelines agreed upon internationally by the very countries now charged with breaching them. In the same way as it is true to state that were the Nuremberg Trials occurring today, in this country, Tony Blair would be found guilty and hung. After all, the defendants at Nuremberg were not even tried with committing war crimes, but simply with "waging and executing an aggressive war". Again, not sensationalist hyperbole, but fact. Tony Blair is a war criminal, and would have been hung for his crimes at Nuremberg.</div>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1149069319921060732006-05-31T09:55:00.000+00:002006-05-31T09:55:19.923+00:00Democracy?......Two things made me really incensed this week... (Well, there were probably more, but two sprang to mind): one watching Rob Newman talking about the us 'bringing democracy to the middle east' (in a humorous and sarcastic way - he didn’t make me angry, the implications of what he was saying did), and secondly, the news on the bbc website today regarding the us government urging Nicaragua’s not to vote for Daniel Ortega when he stands (fairly and democratically) for election as president later this year. Of course there are two interesting things about this. One, how is it democratic, or supportive of democracy, for a country to attempt to tell the population of another country how to vote. How can it be acceptable for the largest superpower in the world to attempt to dictate to Nicaraguans how they should vote? Can you imagine the outcry in the US if china began issuing statements telling us citizens how they should vote? And secondly, isn't there the usual hint of sickening irony and hypocrisy about this news - the US government telling the people of Nicaragua not to vote for Ortega? Because, of course, we all remember what happened last time the people of Nicaragua DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by a free fair national vote of 63%, ratified by international observers, Daniel Ortega as there president don't we? He, and the Sandinistas he had led in defeating the fascist dictatorship of the US backed Somoza regime, were subjected to 12 years of the most brutal, violent and immoral repression meted out by the US government and their CIA funded, armed, and backed paramilitary front the Contras. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were deliberately targeted by the Contras after the US used AWACS planes to inform the rebels where the Sandinistas were so they could AVOID them and attack unhindered the villages and autonomous communities of the Nicaraguan people. And now the US government has the audacity to inform Nicaraguans not to democratically elect Ortega president.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1149007594095103162006-05-30T16:13:00.000+00:002006-05-30T16:46:34.133+00:00<div style="text-align: justify;">Well, its been ages since I wrote anything, so I thought I better get my ass in gear. First off, the eagle eyed among you will have spotted a new link to the right of this page for a new Amnesty campaign on internet freeomd. Click it for more info........<br /><br />Secondly, I am becoming increasingly pissed off at the vitriolic, hate filled bile spewing forth in most circles about the "immigration crisis" at the moment. For one there is no crisis, and for another thing, people seem to be totally incapable of differentiating between economic migrants, legal migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and terrorists. This pisses me off, as it is irresponsbile and only further muddys the debate. I find it sickening to hear the bile and lies spewing forth from the foul mouthpieces of the Murdoch Empire, the Sun, the Daily Hate Mail and the Torygraph. Their respective editors editors have felt obliged to show little interest in the fact that the real story is that the vast majority of migrants have<br />come to the UK to escape repression and the grinding poverty which has been<br />forced upon them by the economic policies of the UK (and the US, G8, IMF, World Bank et al - i.e. neoliberalism) and a bunch of wars where we have wrecked thier countries. And then these bastards moan that we can't 'send them back' due to some lefty conspiracy to protect their 'human rights' as they will undoubtedly get tortured if we send them back to the places from whence they came. Well, maybe we should have thought about that before we and/or the US ran around the world teaching every dodgy regieme and failed state the latest in torture techniques, before legitimating torture internationally through our actions in Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.<br /><br />Next up, here in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Britain, we <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>lurch closer and closer to a police state, bereft of freedom, with <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>only a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>thin veneer of democracy, and people do nothing, content with their <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>nice <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>house, small wage rise, lower tax threshold and Sky TV. It struck me the other day that we will soon be in a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>position <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>where our kids will read a book like Orwell's 1984 and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>it <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>won't seem like a nightmarish vision of the future, but an accurate <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>portrayal of reality. The state pass more and more legislation allowing<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>them to spy on us, keep personal information about us, trade this <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>information for profit (more anon), remove and curtail our liberties <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>freedoms, all in the name of 'protecting' us. But from who?? The <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>mythological terrorists? the bogeyman? Ourselves? The only people we <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>need <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>protecting form is the state and the corrupt and moribund politicians <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>who <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>are solely focussed on their own comfort, and on profit - both for <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>themselves, and for the businesses and corporations who are their <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>masters.<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Alongside the proposed ID card which would allow them to hold a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>database <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>containing our fingerprints, DNA, biometric data, and full background <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>information from the day of our birth, through our schooling, our <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>school <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>reports, our jobs, our taxes, our bank accounts, our movements, our <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>beliefs, and so on, they now propose that this information be expanded <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>with <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the information that businesses collect on us daily. So they would buy <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>information on our credit and debit card transaction, out internet<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>usage, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>our phone conversations, our shopping habits, our holiday <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>destinations, and<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>so on. They would buy this information from business, and they would <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>sell <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the information they held on us back to business to allow business to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>'better tailor their products to our needs'. Frankly, that terrifies <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>me, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and yet the general public sit and accept it without even a whimper of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>objection. The few that rise above this apathy are singled out and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>labelled <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>as 'terrorists', 'troublemakers', 'dissidents' and 'loonies'.<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>For instance, there is Brian Haw. He is a husband and a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>father, a committed Christian, and a protestor against the Iraq war. He <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>felt so strongly that the war was illegal and atrocious, and was so <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>upset <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>that it was being waged in his name by 'his' 'democratically elected' <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>government, that 5 years ago he went to London, and set up opposite the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Houses of Parliament with some placards to protest against the war. He <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>has <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>been there constantly since. For five years he has lived and slept on<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>pavement, heckled and berated by passers by, spat on, assaulted, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>threatened. The police harass and intimidate him. And yet he has <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>stayed. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>This has upset the sensibilities of Parliament so much that they have <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>written a new law just for him. As part of their new 'Serious and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Organised <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Crime' law (SOCPA) which covers international drug trafficking, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>terrorism, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>threats to national security and so on, they included a passage which <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>makes <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>it ILLEGAL to hold any protest within one square mile of the Houses of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Parliament. Despite the right to free assembly and the right to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>freedom of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>protest being enshrined in our laws, the European Union Human Rights<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Act, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to which we are a signatory, and international recognised standards of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>human rights, it is now illegal for a citizen of this country to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>protest <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>outside our own parliament, to which we elect people to represent us <span class="moz-txt-citetags">(</span>apparently). A few brave individuals instantly protested this <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>abomination <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of a law, and were promptly arrested, fined heavily, banned from <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>protesting, and threatened with jail. One man held a picnic opposite <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>parliament, with no placards, he simply sat there drinking tea wearing <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>T-Shirt that read 'protesting is not a crime'. He was promptly<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>arrested and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>charged, fined, and banned from protesting. As for Brian Haw, he<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>successfully challenged the ruling by arguing that he preceded the law <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>so it didn't apply to him. Yesterday, at 3am, 50 police arrived and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>dismantled his display, removed his placards, stole all of his personal <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>possessions, and served him with a court order informing him that if <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>he has <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>more than twenty people visiting or standing with him at any time, uses <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>megaphone or loudspeaker, displays placards, or rings a hand bell, then <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>they will arrest him. Apparently he threatens the security of the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Houses of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Parliament. What a joke. I wonder how these politicians and police and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>judges can sleep at night. But more than that I wonder how the<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>population <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of my country became so lazy, so blind, that they would sit passively<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>by <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and watch this dictatorship, this fascism, take hold. We, the Brits, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>love<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to hark on about how our grandfathers fought and died in the World <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Wars to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>save England from the threat of fascism and totalitarianism in the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>guise of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Nazism. And yet this terrible evil threat which so many millions died <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>defeat has snuck in through the back door, in the guise of a "democratic" "<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Labour" party. While we sit passively by and allow this to be done to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>us, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the state becomes more and more paranoid. They pass more and more laws <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>keep us down, and more and more laws to give our freedoms, our <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>birthrights, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to the corporations and businesses that I truly believe are destroying <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>world. When I go on protests now I risk being arrested not for whatever <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>offence I may or may not be committing (i.e. trespass, obstructing a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>highway, public order offences, etc) but being arrested under the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>'prevention of terrorism act'. Terrorism? When did protest become the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>same <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>as crashing planes into buildings? Companies can now apply for it to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>be <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>illegal to protest against them. Whole areas, streets and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>neighbourhoods <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>can be designated 'no protest zones'. Now, in many places there is a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>designated protest zone, where protestors are herded into prebuilt <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>steel <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>cages, well away from the eyes of the public and media, to be<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>'allowed' to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>protest.The police and state have more power and we have less, and yet<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>this <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>seems to worry no one.<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><br /><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Sometimes I despair. I'd leave the country, but where would I go?? <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>This <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>situation is happening everywhere. As the US brings freedom and<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span> democracy <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to some places at gunpoint, its allies too are forced to fall into <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>line of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>risk its wrath. Hence Canada and England and Europe looking more and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>more <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>like the police state which is America. The only places left to go are the 'undeveloped' places. Because they<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>are <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the only places where the big business/corporation/EU-US neoliberal <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>agenda<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>has not been able to take root yet. Or, thankfully, the places where <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>people still have cojones and see when they're being shafted, and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>actually<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>respond. Places like some of Latin America, where the businesses have <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>promised development and progress, and used these promises to blind the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>people while they rape and pillage and steal their natural resources. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Thank <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>god the people responded. Assuming Morales resists the inevitable <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>corruption that comes when you have money and power, thank god he's <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>kicking <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the businesses out and taking back the resources. These people are <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>realising something that we long ago forgot - that development is<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>something <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>which can only be achieved collectively by the people on the ground.<br /><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>All <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>this bullshit we're offered by the lackys and theorists of the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>neoliberal<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>new world order about 'trickle down benefits' from big business making <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>big<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>bucks is seen by people like Morales, like Chavez, like the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Zapatistas, the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>indigenous, the masses or poor people at the coalface, for the crock of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>shit <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>it is. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>What is more, as the world succumbs to climate change, as oil and gas <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>run <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>out, we need to realise, collectively, that we actually need less <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>development. That the only hope for long term survival is to buy less, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>use <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>less, waste less. For their to be less travel, less business, less <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>consumerism. These people we in the west so patronisingly refer to as <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>'peasants', 'tribal', 'indian', etc, know more than we could ever<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>understand about the natural world, about the respect needed to live in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>harmony with nature, about how to live naturally in a symbiotic <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>relationship with our world. But we laugh at them, kill them, displace <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>them, force them to move to the shitest parts of the worst cities, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>just so <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>we can steal their land, its contents, its riches. Whilst they much <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>hate <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and resent us, you can imagine they also must smile to themselves, as<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>they <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>know that ultimately we will bring this whole system crashing down <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>around<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>us, and they will be left as the only people with the knowledge to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>survive<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>when the world returns to its primordial state. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>And one of the ways that this neoliberal order, this US led global <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>hegemony <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>(which is noting more than the continuation of the previous British <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>empire, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>which began this process of neoliberalism, 'free' trade and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>globalisation) <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>has managed to be so successful (apart from being a sickeningly <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>powerful <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>military force led by a bunch of religious fundamentalists with their <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>fingers on the nuclear button) is by instilling this animalistic sense <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>individualism in us. Since the start of the last century there have <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>been <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>concerted attacks on anything which represented collectivity. The<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>unions <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>were busted, the idea and the spirit of the working class was crushed,<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>it was all replaced with this rampant individualism, couched in the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>religion of consumerism. The British people lie down while our hard <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>earned <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>freedoms and liberties are stolen because we see ourselves not as a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>group, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>a collective with common cause, but as individuals. And what can one <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>person <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>do? Besides, why would each individual wish to react, when it might <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>place <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>in peril their job, their money, their future earning potential, their <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>ability to watch TV, take three foreign holidays a year, and enjoy the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>expropriated products and services of the 'third' world. We are far to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>comfortable buying our 'made in china' electronics, and using them to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>purchase holidays in Indonesia, where we can lie in the sun while the<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>locals are forced to work 14 hour days to manufacture, for 10 pence a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>day,<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>clothes which we happily buy for £40. We see it as natural. They have <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>work in shit conditions for shit pay making our luxury goods, after <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>all, if <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>they don't how are they ever going to develop?? The hypocrisy is <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>sickening. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>We like to kid ourselves they are undeveloped because of some natural <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>law, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>or because or their sheer stupidity and laziness. we never stop to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>think <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>that it is the very system of globalized neoliberalism which has caused <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>this disparity. We have systematically stolen their resources, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>subjugated <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>them to our laws, stolen anything of any real value, then sold them the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>dream of McDonalds, TV, Nike, of unfettered consumerism as the goal to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>be <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>attained. We need to learn again what so many people struggling against this <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>global <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>power in the undeveloped corners of the world already now. The only <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>power <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>we have is the power of collective action. Individualism is destroying<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>us. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Here in Britain, when we do talk about issues like Climate Change, its<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>always in terms of what single action or actions can be taken by <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>government, by business, by individuals. The middle classes, once they <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>have <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>got rich and sent their children off to university to be tutored in the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>ways of business, build their dream eco-homes, and pat themselves on <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>back, because they have done their bit. But we don't realise, it is <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>all of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>us, together who must act. Whole communities must come together and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>rediscover the benefits of acting in the interest of others, not only<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of<span class="moz-txt-citetags"> </span>ourselves. All these ideas we have been told are old fashioned, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>backwards,<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>are, conversely, our future. We can only hope to consume less, use <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>less, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>have less impact on our environment if we see things through a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>collective <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>groups lens, not from within our own little gated communities. But the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>problem is that the government, at the behest of the criterion of <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>business, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>refuses to place an economic value on things like community, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>environment, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>planet. They will never act of their own free will to safeguard <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>tradition, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>communities, the environment, for the simple reason that they are <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>unable to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>make a profit form doing so. Likewise, individuals are prone to only <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>seek <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to make changes to their own lives, their own patterns of energy use <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>consumerism, if there is an economic benefit to it. We have to start<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to see <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>that our blindness to anything non-economic will ultimately destroy us.<span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>That's why I don't believe we should expect governments, even OK ones <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>like<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Bolivia or Venezuela, to do the right thing, to save their people, or <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>their<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>countries. That's why I think we must fight them to prevent them <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>removing <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the last spaces we have to be free in and to experience and live <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>liberty <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>in. Not as an end in itself, but in order to give us the room to act <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>collectively to establish a better and different order, freed from the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>shackles of their greed and corruption. We need to look at the whole <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>story <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>of human history and see that everything which has been achieved to the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>benefit of the greater good of mankind has been achieved through<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>collective <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>action. The vote, the abolition of slavery, civil rights, human right.<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>No <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>individual won these changes. No government introduced these changes <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>through their own benevolence. These changes occurred because we, the <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>people, made the tiny groups that try to run our lives scared, and in <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>doing <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>so, forced their hand.<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span><br /><br /><br /><br />One last example of the way my country's going, before I get back to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>work!!! <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>The government is in the process of changing the rules which govern <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>being <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>in the army. The current illegal and immoral wars in Afghanistan and <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Iraq <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>have prompted an unprecedented number of soldiers to either refuse to <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>serve <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>in the first place, or go AWOL once they see what they're facing. One <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>recent example was Ben Griffin, who resigned from the SAS and refused <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>to go <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>back to Iraq, declaring "I didn't join the army to carry out American <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>foreign policy". Blair is now forcing the new 'Armed Forces Bill' <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>through <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>Parliament, which recommends sentences up to life imprisonment for <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>those refusing to serve in a war, whether it's legal or not. Although <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>this<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>would breach the Nuremburg principles which enshrine in international <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>law <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the responsibility of everyone to "refuse to obey illegal and immoral <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>orders from any government". The Bill also proposes that those who get <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>free education while in the Forces must remain a soldier until they're <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>40! <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>This bill will have its third and final reading on the 22nd May. It's <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>sailed through the first two readings <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>without a whisper of opposition. Imagine this scenario. A normal <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>civilian <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>member of UK society could go out, commit premeditated murder, and get <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>sentence of 'life' meaning, in reality, 16 years, of which he may serve <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>less than 12. The latter half of his sentence would be spent in a low <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>security prison with satellite TV, a gym, sports pitches, free <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>education, <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>the chance to work and earn money, and conjugal visits. Conversely, a <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>UK <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>soldier who refused to go to Iraq because the war is illegal and he<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>DID NOT <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>want to commit premeditated murder against an Iraqi civilian, could <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>face<br /><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>life in prison, meaning, in reality, 35 years in a high security <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>military <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>jail. We are now punishing those with a conscience more than those <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>without. <span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>This country is fucked.<br /></div><pre wrap=""><br /></pre>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1144336876300465672006-04-06T15:20:00.000+00:002006-04-06T15:34:17.030+00:00The IDF found guilty of murderA UK coroner has ruled on the death of British journalist and documentary maker James Miller, 34 from Devon, who was shot in the head by a soldier of the IDF whilst shooting a documentary on the conflicts in Gaza in 2003. James had been wearing a clearly identifiable flak jacket and helmet marked "Journalist" when he approached an IDF armored personnel carrier waving a white flag and shouting "I'm a British journalist" in May 2003. He was attempting to gain their permission for safe passage from the area at the time, having spent the day shooting footage for his documentary into the lives of children in the Gaza Strip. He was shot once with a high-powered assault rifle clean between the eyes. Despite a soldier from the IDF admitting to firing the shot, an Israeli investigation in April 2005 cleared the soldier of misusing firearms. Mr Millers family, like those of Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie, received no help from the Israeli authorities whatsoever, and have claimed that the Israeli authorities willfully and deliberately hampered the official investigation into the death.<br /><br />This week saw the UK coroners investigation into James' death. Having heard evidence from senior Metropolitan Police Det Insp Robert Anderson that Israel had been "uncooperative" during their own investigations into the shooting and had refused access to interview soldiers and witnesses, Coroner Andrew Reid had told the jury at St Pancras Coroner's Court, London, on Thursday to return a verdict of unlawful killing. He said they had to decide in the context of the case whether he had been murdered or was a victim of manslaughter. After around an hour of deliberation, the jury decided that Mr Miller had been deliberately shot on the night of 2 May 2003. A jury spokeswoman said: "We, the jury, unanimously agree this was an unlawful shooting with the intention of killing Mr James Miller. "Therefore we can come to no other conclusion than that Mr Miller was indeed murdered."<br /><br />Whilst this ruling can't ease the grief of Mr Miller's family, nor bring justice to the IDF and the soldier responsible for his death, it is important in so far as it is further proof of the cold calculated nature of the IDF and its operations on illegally occupied Palestinian land. Which makes you wonder why the hell licences for British arms sales to Israel last year amounted to nearly £25m, almost double the previous year (the licences covered the export of armoured vehicles and missile components). Israel was one of 11 countries described by the UK Foreign Office in its 2005 annual human rights report as "major countries of concern" and yet still gained government licensed military equipment. The sales cleared for Israel are the highest since 1999. This was before Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, sought assurances from Israel that equipment supplied by the UK was not being used against civilians and in the occupied territories. In 2002 the government said it was tightening controls on arms exports to the country after it found that assurances had been breached. So, it seems, nothing changes, and despite the evidence of abuse, despite the deaths of British and American journalists and activists, despite the unnumbered and unrecorded deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, we continue to sell them arms, to let them act with impunity, and to maintain their charade of being humane, moral, and civiliased upholders of democracy, justice and human rights.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1144330304370015822006-04-06T13:29:00.000+00:002006-04-06T13:31:44.400+00:00Fined for having a picnic.....Yesterday a man was fined £500 for having a picnic in Parliament Square. The reasons behind this seemingly farcical fine lie in S.132(1)(b) of the Serious Crimes & Police Act 2005. This makes it an offence to take part in a demonstration in a public place in a designated area without prior authorisation under S.134(2). The ‘offence’ in question took place in Parliament Square on 28th August 2005. Parliament Square is now a designated protest free zone under the "Serious Crimes and Police Act" as "unrestricted exercise of freedom of expression close to the centre of Government and Parliament poses a threat to democratic freedom" (a quote from the judge in the case).<br /><br />So, apparently, exercising your legal, moral and human right to freedom of congregation, freedom of expression and freedom to protest opposite the Houses of Parliament now constitutes a threat to democratic freedom. And in order to protect this democratic freedom it has been necessary to curtail the democratic freedom of groups and individuals to exercise their freedom democratically. The clearly Orwellian nature of this doublespeak aside, I would proffer only one question: which seems more free and democratic at this point in time? The Houses of Parliament (a bunch of predominantly white middle class men elected under an unfair and undemocratic voting system to represent the queen, our head of state, aided and abetted by a bunch of uber-rich white upper middle class men in gowns and wigs who aren’t even elected – which is to say The Lords) or ordinary members of society gathering peacefully outside their seat of ‘representative’ government to gently suggest that ‘our’ government listen to our views and, say, stop the illegal war to impose ‘democracy’ in Iraq? Perhaps the constant presence of dissenting voices outside their cosy parliamentary offices is finally beginning to upset the residents at Westminster.<br /><br />After all, it is widely recognised that the original legislation banning protest outside our seat of government was bought in to try to remove Brian Haw. Brian Haw is an anti-war protestor who has been camping out in Parliament Square since 2001 (yup, that’s right, he’s been sleeping on some cardboard laid out on the pavement for over 5 years to protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq), displaying such threatening placards as ‘Don’t Attack Iraq’ and ‘Troops Home Now’. This has clearly upset the conscience of our members of parliament so much that they have designated such radical and dangerous protests as "Serious Crimes" and legislated to ban every UK citizen from protesting with a mile of the Houses of Parliament.<br /><br />But back to Mark Barrat, the unfortunate man facing a £500 whole in his bank balance for having a picnic in the designated no protest zone. Mark's court case took up just one afternoon of court time, and he represented himself and did not contest any of the 'facts' of the case. His defence was twofold: first - did a picnic by a campaigning group and a banner-making workshop (with no planned demonstration that day) really constitute a demonstration in terms of the law? and second - did the use of this law really accord with human rights legislation in terms of the rights of freedom of expression and free assembly?<br /><br />The SOCPA (2005) act does not define a demonstration, and so the judge’s written verdict relied on a dictionary definition and seemed to imply that since Mark was known as a campaigner against this draconian legislation, and as the campaign held picnics each week on Parliament Square, then being at that picnic was of itself a demonstration. This interpretation has huge human rights significance. It would suggest that the designated zone is pretty much a no-go area for anyone who holds political views - any attempt at meeting others or having political or campaigning discussions could be met by arrest, not insignificant fines, and a criminal record for life!<br /><br />Indeed a further protestor, peace campaigner Milan Rai, is in Bow Street Magistrates Court next week facing the even more serious charge of being the organiser of a protest within the no-protest zone around Westminster. He faces a fine of up to £5000 and a maximum of five years in jail. And his alleged crime? Milan and a co-campaigner stood in the middle of Parliament Square and quietly and solemnly read out the names of all those killed in Iraq – US and UK soldiers and Iraqi civilians. And, in the name of protecting the democratic freedom of Parliament (as laid out in the SOCPA legislation) Milan Rai now faces the very real threat of an extended stay at her majesty’s pleasure for having the temerity to utter the names of the war dead close enough to Parliament to trouble the conscience of those upholders of freedom and democracy who therein resideSir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1143038678539395682006-03-22T14:42:00.000+00:002006-03-22T14:44:38.560+00:00The value of an Iraq's lifeWe learnt a few interesting facts and figures today which, like everything else we learn day by day at the moment, only serves to cast more doubt and more disgrace on the heads of our political and military leaders for the murder, death, lawlessness and horror they have visited on Iraq, and on anyone else suspected of being a “terrorist”. First of all we learnt the value of an Iraqi’s life in the estimation of the “coalition of the willing”: £1,400. One and a half grand for the life of an innocent man woman or child murdered in Iraq. This money is not due to the thousands of Iraqi’s the coalition claims to have killed legitimately – the famous “enemy combatants” and “foreign fighters” who we are constantly told are undermining democracy in Iraq – and is only paid out to victims of “collateral damage”.<br /><br />Semantics aside, if you are “collateral damage” then, by definition, you were innocent. If you are innocent and you are killed you have been, a priori, murdered. So, what we learn this week is that the Americans murder Iraqis then value their lives at £1,400 pounds. Or the equivalent of an eight year old Daewoo Nubira in metallic green, a Sony LCD TV, or one years car insurance for a newly qualified driver. Not a great deal in other words. The specific information came to light as part of a newly launched US military investigation into claims that US marines brutally murdered at least 26 innocent Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of a marine in a roadside bomb blast. What should be called, but sadly in our mainstream media never is, terrorism. For terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians with the intention of causing terror harm, distress, injury or death.<br /><br />Thus, interestingly, the death of a US marine in a roadside bomb, whilst a sad and unnecessary loss of human life, does not back up claims that Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism, as the targeting of military apparatus and personnel is entirely legitimate (in relation to the ‘terms of war’ or ‘rules of engagement’ at least). Unless of course that what the media actually mean to imply when they talk a about ‘terrorism’ in Iraq is that the US armies proclivity for gunning down any civilian within firing range makes the country one of the worst centres of terrorism outside of Bin Laden’s cave complex. The story does give an interesting insight into the mindset of the US (and probably all) military personnel, and the contempt with which they approach the lives of those in whose country they are illegally stationed. We learn that following the death of a US soldier in a roadside bomb, the rest of the troop began going door to door around the immediately surrounding houses.<br /><br />First they burst into the house of the Waleed’s, shot the head of the house, then turned and gunned down all but two of the remaining family members. They later claimed to have ‘heard the sound of a gun being readied to fire’. Which of course justifies gunning down a family with high calibre assault rifles. The marines then claimed to have heard gunfire from a second house. They kicked down the door and casually tossed a hand grenade into that home. Imagine. Without even pretending to try to verify the identities of those within the house, they throw a grenade in. Then they call it “collateral damage” as if people being blown up by a grenade are an unfortunate and unforeseen consequence of throwing incendiary devices into family homes. The “collateral damage” in this house included eight members of the same family, including four children under the age of ten. The marines then entered a third house and gunned down four young men inside, claiming they were “insurgents”. Because in the eyes of a young US marine on his first tour of duty any man of middle eastern origin is considered an “insurgent”, a “terrorist”.<br /><br />The marines later collected the 24 corpses of the dead Iraqi’s and delivered them to a nearby hospital claiming they had been killed by shrapnel from an insurgents bomb blast. The hospital found that in all cases the cause of death had been a gunshot or gunshots to the head or chest at very close range. For suffering this unimaginably brutal and needless death the relatives of the dead were paid £1,400.<br /><br />Elsewhere in the news this week the meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee unearthed some interesting evidence for the government’s claims that 90 days detention without trial was an absolute necessity in the “war on terror”. Remember at the time the new anti-terror bill was being steamrollered through parliament we were told that the police required 90 days of detention without trial for terror suspects, and that there was “compelling” evidence to back up this claim? Evidence so “compelling” that at the time they were unable to tell us what it was? Well, yesterday we found out. We discovered that (and hear I quote the Committee themselves) “the only written material that you [Charles Clarke] based the 90 day detention proposal on were three police press releases and two sides of A4 describing one case.”<br /><br />Furthermore, as if this wealth of evidence weren’t enough to bring us all smartly into line behind an unconstitutional piece of legislation which would terminate peoples legal right to presumption of innocence without proof, and peoples basic human rights to not be incarcerated for 3 months for no reason other than the unpublished view of an unnamed “security source”, we also learnt of another “compelling” piece o evidence on which Charles Clarke based his informed position. The opinions of Lord Carlise. Lord Carlise is an important law lord and judicial heavy weight, so one assumes that if Charles Clarke is taking is advice then his opinions are well founded. But no. We learnt this week that Lord Carlise’s reasons for backing 90 days detention without trial were based on one single case.<br /><br />As is this weren’t bad enough, we then learnt that Charles Clarke took Lord Carlise’s suggestion of 90 days detention without ever bothering to investigate, research, look into, or familiarise himself with the one particular case Lord Carlise based his opinion on. So, we now know that in New Labour speak “compelling evidence” means a couple of press releases, two sides of A4, and the opinion of a senile and unelected old codger based on a single case you yourself never bothered to look into. Wow. That’s almost as compelling as the case for Saddam having WMD……Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1142005071830637622006-03-10T15:33:00.001+00:002006-03-16T10:10:31.556+00:00More Musings on MemoryI know that this blog seems to be getting stuck on one theme, but I guess I’m trying to figure out a few ideas in my head. Mostly, I’m trying to figure out why we (or at least the majority) seem to have such a short attention span, why whilst we may find current events appalling, we seem to be unable to accept the inevitability of this based on what we know about previous activities by our governments. For instance, last week marked the sixth anniversary of Jack Straw releasing General Pinochet, the ex-Chilean CIA backed fascist dictator, who was wanted on an international arrest warrant for his crimes against humanity during his regime. At the time I remember the incredulity amongst large sections of the British public that our home secretary, a Labour Home secretary, would release a man who carried out appalling human rights violations which many Labour ministers must have marched against in their youth. And yet now, these same people seem to have feel difficulty believing that a Labour government would systematically ignore its principles.<br /><br />This same collective amnesia applies in other areas too. For instance in relation to the ongoing troubles in Palestine. Whilst it no longer makes the news, the situation is unchanged, if not worse. There are still ‘targeted assassinations’, most recently in Balata refugee camp, there are still road blocks, check points, the apartheid wall, the daily humiliations heaped upon the Palestinians, the continuing efforts to undermine democratic structures and civil institutions in the Occupied Territories, and yet people seem to believe that the situation there is ripe for the Palestinians to ‘seize the initiative’ and set up a ‘viable state’. Likewise, in a case which bought to mind the previous indiscretions of the Israeli Defence Force, especially with regards to Tom Hurndall, a young Israeli activist anarchist and refusnik, Marita Cohen, was shot in the head with a rubber baton round during a demonstration against the seperation wall last week. And yet, where this was reported in the news, it was reported in a shocked sense, apparently oblivious to the previous form the IDF has in this area.<br /><br />Then we have the continuing information leaking about the Stockwell shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes. On Panorama this week I witnessed the distasteful spectacle of a senior Metropolitan Police Officer explaining that the Met does NOT have a "shoot to kill policy" but an "immediate incapacitation" policy for its Special Branch Firearms officers. Asked to explain what an "immediate incapacitation" policy was he calmly explained that this was a policy where the marksmen shot the 'suspect' in the head, but that shooting someone in the head does not constitute a shoot to kill policy. Semantics aside, there’s little chance that anyone shot in the head is going to survive is there? Especially when they’re shot at point blank range seven times with exploding ‘dum dum’ ammunition as Jean Charles de Menezes was. And yet the sophistry seems to work, as I have yet to hear anyone explain that the Stockwell shooting was almost inevitable if you trace its lineage back to its origins in the shoot to kill policy of the British army in Northern Ireland. So I guess I’m just trying to figure out how we can make these connections and make people see that you can’t believe something is inherently good if the evidence points to the contrary, that a leopard never changes its spots.Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1140034979787886002006-02-15T20:14:00.000+00:002006-02-15T20:22:59.796+00:00Interesting to see the leaked UN report out this week condemming Guantanamo as breaching international law:<br /><br /> "A leaked draft of the document, written over 18 months by five independent experts in international law appointed by the UN Commision on Human Rights, says the inmates atGuantanamo are being denied their rights to mental and physical health to a degree that sometimes amounts to torture"<br /> (The Independent, 14/02/06 p.24)<br /><br />The US responded "The law of war allows the US - and any other country engaged in combat - to hold enemy combatants without charges or access to counsel for the duration of the hostitlities". Which is clearly a statement full of holes. Such as where this mystical 'law of war' comes from, or what is classified as a war (the war on terror for instance? a war which is, by definition, almost indefinate), or decides when the hosatilities are over (for instance in Afghanistan, where hostitlities are officially over, or Iraq where only 'major combat hostilities are over)?Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1139848464592935892006-02-13T16:13:00.000+00:002006-02-13T16:34:24.603+00:00I meant to say earlier, when talking about the very real presence of police and state violence and oppresion in the UK (something the general public seems loathe to admit exists, in contrast to the very real evidence of those of use who have been prevented from legitimately protesting under anti-terror legislation over the last two years, of those of us who have been beaten black and blue by riot police on demonstrations and at free parties), that even recently there have been questions raised - questions noticably absent from the discourse of the mainstream media. Actually, thats not quite true. One notable case has been discussed in great detail: the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by Metropolitan Police Officers last year. But then that was almost unavoidable, occuring when and where it did.<br /><br />It seems that for all their attempts to deny, distort and re-write the truth, the Met might actually face some real criticism, and maybe even succesful legal action, over their horribly amateur and misguided actions. But the incident was not entirely in isolation. At the more general level of police violence, and seeming immunity from prosecution or censure, there have been, and continue to be, incidents where the Police's actions seem excessive, disproportional, and downright biggoted and retributional in nature. Two recent examples spring to mind.<br /><br />Last month, while the mainstream media's attention was focussed firmly on protests against the Danish cartoons, a man died in suspicous circumstances in South East London. On 10th January Police looking for suspects in the murder ofWPC Breshenevsky in Bradford raided a house in the the Somali community in the Woolwich/Plumstead area of London. The house the Police raided did not contain the suspect, but another man was present and alone in the house at the time. Inside was Nuur Saeed who was later found outside seriously injured. It seems he fell head first from a second story balcony. He died on January 22nd from a massive brain injury. It may indeed have been an accident, but the lack of interest in the story, and the ongoing allegations of harrasment within that area's Somali community against Police in light of the WPCs murder, beg further investigation. (For further info see <a href="http://www.activistnetwork.org.uk/pn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=549">here</a> and<a href="http://www.irr.org.uk/2006/february/ha000002.html"> here</a>)<br /><p>Last August another young black man died in London in unclear circumstances. Paul Coker died on the floor of a cell in Plumstead Police Station (For more info click <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5265005-103690,00.html">here</a>). His family are now facing the same wall of silence that the de Menezes family are so angry about. Again, the death may have been accidental, but in light of the all to regular spectre of 'death in police custody' type headlines, one wonders at what point we might, collectively, wake up and smell the oft lamented stench of 'institutional racism' within the ranks of the Police?<br /></p>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1139844079692200322006-02-13T15:00:00.000+00:002006-02-13T15:21:19.706+00:00<p class="MsoNormal">I guess what’s bothering me throughout the last two posts, what I'm trying to get at, is the feeling that the current conjecture (i.e. the war in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region><st1:place>Afghanistan</st1:place></st1:country-region>, <st1:place><st1:placename>Guantanamo</st1:PlaceName> <st1:placetype>Bay</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, etc) is, at its simplest, the manifestation of our modern consumer-capitalist, neoliberal western world. And as such it reveals to us in concrete terms things which, in normal circumstances, stay hidden below the threshold of our normal vision. So, the presence of Guantanamo Bay, flying in the face of international law and global moral opinion, merely serves to highlight the racist, violent and controlling nature of our new world order.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The war in <st1:country-region><st1:place>Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>, in all its brutality, reveals to us the close ties between our system of politics and our economic beliefs (through the inexorable ties between the military-industrial complex and the neoliberal global economic order). Overall, the many ignorals of law, ethics, and common decency reveal the vicious nature of this globalizing force, emerging from behind its polished sheen of accountability, progress, development, and democracy. Which is why I'm so angry and amazed at the relative lack of protest directed at the leading governments in this movement, the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> and US, from within their own borders.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br />True, there is a groundswell of opposition to the war in Iraq, to the war on terror and its attendant attacks on our civil liberties, but the people more generally opposed to this new world order seemed so stunned at the brutal displays of power, violence, and disregard for law, that we seem, collectively, to have been stunned into silence. It seems to me that the ongoing events present the perfect opportunity to make the linkages from what manifests itself in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the daily brutalities of neoliberal globalization (both at home and abroad): prisoner abuse is as likely in Britain's asylum holding centres, deportation centres, and prisons as that the government is now forced to admit is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan; police brutality and draconian legislation curbing freedoms to assemble and protest are happening in Britain, not just in some far away land; the impoverishment of the lower classes through the privatization of services and the casualisation of work are prevalent globally; the disregard for law and human rights is not only characteristic of Guantanamo Bay; and the desire to be bound only by those treaties and institutions which remain in our interests does not only characterise our actions abroad in exceptional circumstances.</p>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1139833511510440162006-02-13T12:10:00.000+00:002006-02-13T12:25:11.520+00:00Typical. Now its the UK troops again....<p class="MsoNormal">So, no sooner had I finished considering why it is impossible to win a 'war on terror' when you cant even uphold basic human rights, let alone legal rights, and what pops into the news? Another <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> troop abuse scandal. As with all the others this is 'an isolated incident', 'a few bad eggs', 'totally abhorrent', etc, but it makes you wonder how stupid they think we might be that they keep trotting out the same old excuses. It's not that I believe its a deliberate policy or anything of that nature, but I do believe that there is a tacit acceptance of these kinds of behaviour, and that it is only when they come to light publicly that the armies PR machine jumps into action defending the kind, loving nature of the British army, and reminding us of how they have won 'hearts and minds' in Basra.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">The army know that their troops are in a highly tense and volatile situation, and it is therefore in their interests to let them blow off steam however this can best be achieved. From turning a blind eye to drug use and the presence and use of prostitutes, to allowing theft and assaults to form a part of routine activity overseas, the army is stuck with the problem of how to control thousands of men stationed overseas, away from their friends and family, and facing real and imminent danger. And their answer has been the same as always - the easiest way to relieve tension is to let the men get a little carried away now and then.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br />Thus the spectacle of Nicholas Witchell, reporting the abuses, attempting to legitimate the brutality by explaining that the Iraqi's being beaten had 'probably been throwing stones at the British patrol'. Where is the moral equivalence between throwing stones at troops dressed in body armour and armed with assault rifles, and getting the shit kicked out of you by three or four soldiers armed with batons? Not that moral equivalence should even come in to it. As I mentioned t'other day, there's little or no hope for the 'war on terror' (however badly conceptualised and vacuous this term) if the <st1:country-region><st1:place>UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> and US troops can't start treating others with the basic standards of human decency. And so, from <st1:city><st1:place>Guantanamo</st1:place></st1:City> to Abu Graib, from Bagram to <st1:city><st1:place>Basra</st1:place></st1:City>, the lack of humanity threatens not only the day to day lives of those on the receiving end of this brand of 'freedom and democracy' but also the wider status of 'the west' as the pinnacle of human development. Perhaps, finally, the old lies are beginning to unravel?</p>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1139679655899536502006-02-11T17:38:00.000+00:002006-02-11T17:40:55.923+00:00Guantanamo Bay: Human vs.Legal Rights<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><st1:place><st1:placename><b style=""></b></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Last night I watched Channel 4 news, where John Bellinger, counsel to the US State Department and the man who provided the legal justification for the war in </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Iraq</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, stated that holding prisoners in </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Guantanamo</span></st1:PlaceName><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Bay</span></st1:PlaceType></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> is OK, because they have no legal rights. This clearly seems abhorrent at face value, but as Mr Bellinger continued to speak, I became struck by a notion that periodically lodges in my head when I think about the current state of Human Rights and International Law. And that is how culpable we, the public, are in allowing to pass without criticism comments, statements and observations which clearly breach commonly held moral assumptions, common sense, truth, or the law. On the one hand it seems that the speed and pace with which certain governments, leaders, and sections of the mainstream media bombard us with ‘facts’, information and claims is so rapid and unrepentant that we don’t have time to analyse what is being said and respond accordingly, because by the time one has it is no longer ‘current’, no longer ‘news’. The most obvious example comes from the run up to the war in Iraq, when so many lies and deceptions were thrown at us that we seemed unable to answer and defeat each point by point. It was as if we were being deliberately drowned in a sea of obfuscation. On the other hand it seems, conversely, that the lies we are presented with are so staggeringly and clearly untrue that we are frozen in incomprehension and withdraw to try and understand the implications of being so brazenly lied to. Either way, the net result is the same: lie upon lie passes us by with little or no challenge, analysis or retort. We are therefore subject to the spectacle of being told things which directly contradict things we were told previously, or even being told two dialectically opposed facts by the same person, almost in the same breath, with little or no opportunity to highlight these inconsistencies.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p>So I decided to download and transcribe John Bellinger’s comments on last night’s news, and deconstruct the inaccuracies and contradictions in his statements. As the man who provides the final say in legal issues to the US State Department, it is fair to say that he sings from the standard issue George Dubya songsheet, and represents (more eloquently than many of his colleagues) the stated views of the White House. I began by considering his response to a question from Jon Snow asking whether prisoners in </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Guantanamo</span></st1:PlaceName><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Bay</span></st1:PlaceType></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> (and by extension other US prisons for ‘Enemy Combatants’ outside </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> territory) are subject to the Geneva Conventions:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">“People have an aspiration that they would like the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">Geneva</span></st1:place></st1:City><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;"> conventions to apply, and we typically apply the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">Geneva</span></st1:place></st1:City><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;"> conventions, but all one has to do as a lawyer is to look through the terms of the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">Geneva</span></st1:place></st1:City><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;"> conventions and they, one, don’t apply by their terms to Al Qaeda, they apply between high contracting countries. Al Qaeda is not a contracting party to the </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">Geneva</span></st1:place></st1:City><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;"> conventions”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p>I then downloaded and read the majority of the Geneva Conventions, and whilst I am not a lawyer and wouldn’t claim to have much idea about international law, it became abundantly clear that any party committing themselves to the Geneva Convention is expected to apply them, carte blanche, to anyone it interacts<span style=""> </span>with in a combat situation (as no party to the Geneva Conventions can absolve itself, or another party, of liability for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, c.f. <a href="http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention1.html#51">Convention I, Art. 51</a>; <a href="http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention2.html#52">Convention II, Art. 52</a>; <a href="http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention3.html#131">Convention III, Art. 131</a>; <a href="http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention4.html#148">Convention IV, Art. 148</a>). The idea of ‘enemy combatant’ is present within the Conventions, but only as a descriptive term for any individual fighting for the army, guerrilla force, or combative force you are opposing. Furthermore, it is clear that any enemy fighter captured must be considered as a Prisoner of War. The only other possibility is that they are considered as a mercenary (subject to repatriation to their country of nationality and trial there) or a civilian (at which point they must be released or charged in a civilian court). On the subject of classifying the prisoners at Camp Delta Mr Bellinger asserts that “it’s probably right that these people are not entitled to be classed as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.” Probably? One minute he is claiming as an irrefutable fact that these men are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, the next he is suggesting they “probably” aren’t! He continues, <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial;">“Well, it’s not clear that they do have legal rights. All of us as lawyers, myself included as the legal advisor to the State Department, think that in general terms that all human beings need to be treated according to law and the rule of law. The problem is when one is dealing with essentially an army of terrorists who are trying to kill civilians. The legal rules that apply to people like that are simply not clear. So I can understand that people would like to apply the Geneva conventions, but anybody, you barely have to be a lawyer to read the terms of the Geneva Convention to see that these people do not qualify as prisoners of war.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">So, essentially, in the same breath as he claims that all people should be subject to the rule of law, he denies these men their right to protection under the only piece of international legislation drawn up to deal with, and protect, people in exactly the situation of those men captured by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. And when one actually takes the time to think about what is being said one sees a classic example of the blurring of issues to attempt to deflect our attention from the lies we are being told. The discussion focuses specifically on </span><st1:place><st1:placetype><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Camp</span></st1:PlaceType><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placename><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Delta</span></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> at </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Guantanamo</span></st1:PlaceName><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Bay</span></st1:PlaceType></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">. In </span><st1:place><st1:placetype><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Camp</span></st1:PlaceType><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placename><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Delta</span></st1:PlaceName></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> there are a<span style=""> </span>number of prisoners (the exact number is unknown as the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> admits there are prisoners held there who even the red Cross have not been allowed access to – a clear breach of international law). Depending on the questions raised we are lead to believe either that, a) these men are Al Qaeda terrorists suspected of involvement in unspecified plots or actions, or b) these men are ‘enemy combatants’ from Afghanistan or Iraq who were captured fighting the US (and are usually accused of having links to Al Qaeda). In this instance Mr Bellinger implies that the men in </span><st1:place><st1:placename><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Guantanamo</span></st1:PlaceName><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> </span><st1:placetype><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Bay</span></st1:PlaceType></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> are involved in “trying to kill civilians” – that is to say, they are terrorists. However, earlier in the week it had been announced that (according to a report by two lawyers, Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux) more than half of the detainees, who are being held without charge, have never committed any "hostile acts" against the US.<span style=""> </span>They estimated that 55% "are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">United States</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> or its coalition allies", after analysing government documents regarding the prisoners.<span style=""> </span>Furthermore, according to the documents, only 8% were classed as al-Qaeda fighters and 60 prisoners "are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the [</span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">] government asserts are terrorist organizations".<span style=""> </span>So, whilst Mr Bellinger claims it is perfectly acceptable to hold these men, without trial, in a country they are neither from nor were fighting in, as the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to terrorists, it is actually the case that over half these man have not been involved in any acts hostile to the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">. And only one in ten is associated with Al Qaeda. So, these men are held, without trial, illegally, without the protection of international law, at the behest of the US government who, in many cases, are not even able to verify the identities of the men they are holding (the report suggests that some of the detainees were caught by people seeking US bounties and their identities were never properly verified). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">In light of these facts it seems distasteful to hear My Bellinger claim in his next breath that “what we have said though is that we are complying with our international legal obligations.” There are a number of issues which might call into question </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">America</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">’s compliance with international law. As well as Guantanamo, off the top of my head, one might consider the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign state, without the mandate of the United Nations as breaching international law; or the US corporate restructuring of the Iraqi oil markets in order to facilitate US profits at both the oil head and the petrol pump; or the illegal imposition of non-negotiable terms and conditions in the documentation transferring power from Paul Bremer to the Iraqi government. There are undoubtedly more examples, but these will serve for now. Perhaps the most salient question is that of ‘Extraordinary Rendition’, or kidnap as it might more simply be known. This process involves the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> illegally removing a citizen or combatant from a country where they have been detained and removing them to a third country other than the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, often covertly, where they are detained, and many would argue, tortured. Mr Bellinger attempts to explain this as follows:<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;">“Let’s say that someone who might have been connected with the World Trade centre bombings, the London bombings, lets say that person is found in some third country, and that third country intelligence service says ‘we found this individual, he hasn’t committed a crime in our country, we’re going to expel him’, and we happen to find that in an additional country, he is wanted somewhere else. So, that person can be expelled from the country where they’re found to the country of their nationality, and that helps overall in the fight against terrorism rather than letting those people simply walk free. This is the sort of cooperation amongst intelligence services that is fairly useful.”</span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p>There are so many inaccuracies and untruths in this statement it is difficult to know where to start. Firstly, if an individual is found in one country, where he is innocent of committing a crime, but is wanted for a crime in another country there is legislation in place to deal with this – extradition. Of course the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> may be loathe to pursue this particular path as it would necessitate having some evidence that would stand up in a court of law. Secondly, it is interesting to note that Mr Bellinger doesn’t claim the captured individual should be returned to the country where they are wanted for a crime, per se, but to the country of their birth. What the legal precedent for this is, or what the benefit of this is, is not clear. Though considering what we know about the extraordinary rendition flights crossing </span><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Europe</span></st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> to </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Romania</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Poland</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> from other parts of the world, it would appear that the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> has been capturing huge numbers of Romanian and Polish terrorists and criminals and repatriating them to the countries of their birth! <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p>What is perhaps most disturbing about his current trend within the US and British administrations for ignoring the precedent of international law is their own proclivities for calling on other leaders, governments and countries to uphold the rule of international law. Places like </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Iran</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Venezuela</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">, and </span><st1:city><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Palestine</span></st1:place></st1:City><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> currently. How hypocritical it must look to the ordinary citizens of these countries to be told to uphold the international law which the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> and US flout so openly. Worse, perhaps, for those with a sense of history. A sense of history which might extend to remembering that the US is one of only two countries to have vetoed a motion in the UN calling for all countries to uphold international law: during the US supported Contra counter-insurgency against the democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua the UN proposed a motion calling on all countries (i.e. the US) to uphold the rule of international law. The </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> vetoed this proposal, against the wishes of every other country in the world. The same US government who ignored international law in supporting insurrections against democratically elected governments in Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran, or Chile, or who ignored international law when carpet bombing Cambodia and Vietnam (in breach of <a href="http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html#51">Protocol I, Art. 51 </a>, Sec. 5a and<span style=""> </span><a href="http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html#57">Protocol I, Art. 57</a>, Sec. 2b of the Geneva Convention), or who ignored international law in using chemical and biological weapons against the Vietcong (prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare). But we are not meant to raise issues like this, are we? They’re outdated, yesterdays news, irrelevant to the ‘facts on the ground’ for the ‘war on terrorism’. But how are we supposed to combat terrorism if it is not within the framework of international law. The precise reason why we consider these people terrorist is that they go against the otherwise universally accepted notions we have of law, order, civility, and morality. How are we to combat them by disregarding our own sense of these things? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p></o:p>I started this rambling monologue by noting that I am not an expert on international law. So even if there are legal arguments to be made about these issues (status of captured fighters, rendition, invading foreign countries, etc), is it not the case that we should colour all our judgements with the lens of morality? However abhorrent another’s actions, however vitriolic and hateful their stated aims may be, it is imperative we treat them the same as any other member of our society. Imperative because only in being above hatred, bitterness, revenge and recrimination will we be likely to act in a just manner. And justice is supposed to be the guiding principle of our laws and international relations: it’s why they are enshrined in law and have guided national and international politics since the end of the World Wars. So how else are we to interpret the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> decision to exempt certain human beings from their basic legal rights? As an attack on their human rights and as a clear sign of the disregard and disdain the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> has for things it can not understand. For to deny someone their legal rights is to deny them their human rights, as human rights are enshrined in law, and to do this is to dehumanise them, to make them no more than an object, a thing. The kinds of things we find barbaric and totalitarian in the regimes around the world we criticise and censure. For what kind of country would force-feed detainees, without anaesthetic, simply to keep them alive long enough to try in a kangaroo court without knowing the charges against them or having access to a lawyer, and then execute them? The New York Times reported this week that in Guantanamo Bay h<span style="">unger strikers are being strapped to chairs for hours to force-feed them through tubes, before</span> being restrained to stop them vomiting and placed in solitary confinement for extended periods to stop them drawing encouragement from each other. It is claimed that their treatment is regularly so rough that they are left bleeding from the nose and mouth. Having been captured abroad, these men have been incarcerated (and often tortured) in situ, then hooded, bound and flown to Camp Delta, where they are placed in orange jumpsuits (contrary to <a href="http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention4.html#90">Convention IV, Art. 90</a> of the Geneva Convention), caged, tortured further, not subject to due legal process, and then prevented forcibly from starving themselves to death, despite most having no proven links to terrorist networks or evidence of serious wrongdoing. In some cases people have been detained on a case of mistaken identity.<span style=""> </span>How does denying these men their Human Rights to legal recourse, the right to life, the right to equality before the law, the right to recognized as a person before the law, <span style=""> </span>the right to dignity, in short, the right to be treated as a human being help bring them to justice? How does it reflect and impact on how the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> and US are perceived abroad? How does it not play into the hands of the very people the </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">UK</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> and </span><st1:country-region><st1:place><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">US</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> claim to be fighting to eradicate. How does it give us a right to call on others to uphold the rule of international law? How does it give us the right to talk about freedom, justice and democracy?<o:p></o:p></span></p>Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22206328.post-1139507383393762292006-02-09T17:49:00.000+00:002006-02-09T17:49:43.410+00:00Just making sure I can make this seemingly simple piece of kit work....Well, it looks like I can. More anon......Sir Rants a Lothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05293290747860909897noreply@blogger.com1