Independent.co.uk
'I will be dead within days of going back to Baghdad'

Although he has lived here for 35 years, Zyad al-Saadon is to be deported to Iraq

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Monday, 2 June 2008

"It would be like committing suicide. As soon as I step out of the Green Zone I would be walking around Baghdad with the word 'target' across my forehead." This is the fate awaiting Zyad al-Saadon, an Iraqi who has lived in Britain for 35 years. He faces deportation under the government programme for forced removal of failed asylum-seekers and foreign convicts.

He has been offered £500 from the British embassy in Baghdad if he goes voluntarily but nothing if his removal is enforced.

"They must be bloody mad if they think after all this time in Britain, a country I consider home, I'm going to voluntarily walk out of here [Dover immigration removal centre] and on to a plane to Baghdad. I'd be dead in days."

Mr Saadon, 54, is one of dozens of Iraqis facing removal to Iraq, despite making claims to residency or asylum in the United Kingdom. The Government argues that under the strict terms of immigration law there is no "internal armed conflict" in Iraq and encourages those in detention to voluntary return to Baghdad and Basra.

-------

Gus: no "internal armed conflict" in Iraq? Did I miss something?... is this year 2057?

Tony Blair accused Gordon Brown of generating 'hubris and vacuity' in a devastating private memo analysing his mistakes, which last night threatened to blow a hole in the heart of government.

The former prime minister believed his successor had presided over a 'lamentable confusion of tactics and strategy', attacking Blair's record instead of building on it and failing to spell out an agenda for the future, according to the scathing note penned after last September's chaotic Labour party conference. Such tactics would not win the next election, he concluded.

----------------------

Of course...

---------------------

The note leaked to the Mail on Sunday newspaper now threatens to trigger open warfare within New Labour, with its emergence so soon after David Miliband's broadside against the Prime Minister which was seen as part of an orchestrated plot to destabilise Brown by those loyal to his predecessor.

It came as Blair's close ally and former cabinet minister Stephen Byers accused Brown's government of trying to scale a massive electoral mountain with policies more fit for a 'Sunday afternoon stroll', in criticisms closely echoing Blair's own fears about the lack of a forward-looking agenda for New Labour.

"Gentlemen, you're trying to negotiate something you will never be able to negotiate. If negotiated, it will not be ratified. And if ratified, it will not work." Thus spoke a British civil servant who was dispatched from London to Brussels to inform European ministers what Britain thought of plans for an ambitious new European treaty.

In pictures: A cartoon history of the European Union

Mr Russell Bretherton, the Whitehall official in question, we might safely imagine, was wearing a bowler hat and carrying a rolled umbrella as he flounced out of the negotiations. For this was 1955. The leaders of Europe's war-wounded Continental nations were hatching an exciting new project for economic co-operation that would be run by an "organisation of supranational character". Their noble aim was to make future wars between them impossible. Britain was suspicious, and sceptical, and would stand aloof.

On 1 January 2008, it is 50 years since the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community three years after Bretherton's outburst, came into force. It should also perhaps be a celebratory milestone for Britain: 25 years since this country overcame its own internal demons about sovereignty and insularity, and took its place as a full member state of what would eventually be called the European Union.

Read more at The Independent 

Blair to appear on US satire show

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is to appear on US satirical TV show The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Mr Blair guests on the late-night show, which will be broadcast to a national television audience on Thursday.

He is the sixth current or ex-leader of a country - including two former US presidents - to have been on the show.

Mr Blair is appearing on the programme a day before he begins a teaching course on "faith and globalisation" at Yale University.

See toon at top.

If in doubt, lie
In an extract from his book about the Blair years, Sky News political editor Adam Boulton reveals the dishonesty and bullying that characterised Alastair Campbell's reign as No 10's chief spin doctor

    * Adam Boulton
    * The Guardian,
    * Monday September 22 2008

I first noticed Alastair Campbell during the 1987 party conference season in Brighton at the Grand Hotel, shortly after it had reopened following the 1984 IRA bomb attack. He was a still a journalist at the time, comparatively young and remarkably self-assured. He appeared late at night playing the bagpipes in the hotel foyer. An altercation followed between him and his friend, the political journalist Tony Bevins, and two hostile Scots. The pipe-playing soon stopped.

At around this time I also got a measure of how Labour regarded the man. Neil Kinnock was doing some end-of-conference interviews but got delayed. Waiting to speak to him on behalf of Sky News, I was asked to wait in the backstage office. After a while, Campbell wandered in and began to chat with Jan Royall, Kinnock's loyal secretary, who later became Baroness Royall and a Labour whip in the Lords. After about half an hour's wait I was thrown out on the grounds that no journalists were allowed in the office. There was no suggestion that Campbell should leave as well.

Campbell was an obsessive personality who had a habit of forming addictions to and dependencies on individuals. In the 1980s he was slavishly loyal to Kinnock and to Robert Maxwell, proprietor of the Mirror Group, who died mysteriously after plundering his own companies' pension funds. Campbell also confronted alcoholism with the support of Fiona Millar, his highly assertive partner.

Although he has sometimes been placed, erroneously, at the centre of the New Labour project and even been described as one of its architects, Campbell was not an automatic choice as press secretary when Tony Blair became party leader in 1994. Two other journalists were shortlisted for the post: Andy Grice, who would later become political editor of the Independent, and Philip Bassett, an industrial correspondent for the Financial Times and the Times.

Campbell was an intimate of Neil and Glenys Kinnock during the 80s and was supportive of Kinnock's reforms, but he was not in the nucleus of what became the New Labour project. His personal politics were somewhat to the left of Blair, as was shown in some of his articles during this period. Well into the 90s, Campbell was using his Today column to rail against the "barmy" idea of tuition fees. The true authors of the project were Blair, Gordon Brown, Peter Mandelson and Philip Gould, supported by Roger Liddle and Anji Hunter. Campbell knew them well, however. By the late 80s he was a regular visitor to Blair's office, kicking around ideas for his newspaper columns.

--------------------------

Gus: we can be assured that, even while not in doubt, the Blair Government doubled the dose of porkies. People like David Kelly died, but in some cookbooks they say one cannot make an omelet without breaking the eggs. Not on... As they say in Gustaphianaland, "smashing the eggs violently against the wall does not make a meal"... On this site we've always pointed to the deceit of Blair, Howard and Bush... They lied and lied and lied... Bush is the last one standing. He should be impeached... 

see toons everywhere and at top...

The gall of a spin master...

"Saddam Hussein can go off and do a broadcast, and you know, how many of our media then stand and say what an amazing propaganda coup that was. Bin Laden can sit in his cave and throw out a video, and you get BBC, CNN and all these other guys saying what a propaganda coup, when all is happened is they exploit, in their eyes, the weaknesses of our democracy, the weaknesses of our media systems. They exploit them to their own advantage, and I think sometimes our media allows them to do that."

Alastair Campbell on the use of the mass media

PM - Monday, 31 March , 2003 18:35:00
Reporter: Matt Peacock

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!!!

From Wikipedia :
In February 2003 he was a central figure in the alleged "dodgy dossier" controversy. A dossier on Iraqi concealment of Weapons of mass destruction and human rights abuses under Saddam Hussein was published on 3 February. The dossier purported to be based on intelligence but a large section had been taken (unacknowledged) from an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi available on the internet. The article was the basis of chapter two of his University of Oxford doctoral thesis, which was unfinished at that time.

A few months later he became embroiled in further controversy after the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan broadcast claims that the government had included evidence it knew to be false (famously described as "sexed up" by another BBC journalist) in an earlier dossier (about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction). In a later newspaper article Gilligan said that his source had specifically identified Campbell himself as responsible for the alleged exaggerations. Campbell demanded a retraction and apology from the BBC, but none was forthcoming.

The BBC's source, Dr David Kelly, identified himself to his employers at the Ministry of Defence. The government released this news and under questioning from newspapers desperate to identify the source gave sufficient hints for his identity to become public. Kelly committed suicide shortly afterward and the Hutton inquiry into the circumstances of his death pushed Campbell further into the limelight. The inquiry showed that Campbell had been working closely with the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), in which the different sections of the intelligence services meet, and made suggestions about the wording of the dossier. He had also been keen that Kelly's identity be made public writing in his diary, "It would fuck Gilligan if that were his source". However, Lord Hutton cleared Campbell of acting improperly, as JIC had taken all editorial decisions. Hutton also found that Kelly's name would have had to be made public to avoid allegations of a cover-up. The Hutton report was widely criticised in the media, however, and Campbell's "Presidential"-style press conference afterwards was perceived by some to be misjudged, with Campbell attacked for appearing to gloat over the BBC's misfortune. This criticism increased when Campbell sold a signed copy of the Hutton report at a charity auction.[citation needed] Comments in his recently published diaries are contradicted by some of the statements made during the Inquiry, leading some to call for a re-examination of the evidence, particularly telephone calls made to Dr. Kelly in the week before his suicide, although this seems unlikely as the Hutton inquiry had access to Campbell's diaries for the period.

-------------------
Gus: I'm depressed...
Presently Alastair Campbell is in Sydney town and doing appearances on talk shows, specially on the ABC to "discuss" (promote, the blabmasters give all publishing details etc) his new novel that make use of his experiencing depression back in the 1980s. To Gus, the man the blabshows hosts (including Lateline would you believe!!!) refer to as the Master of Spin" as if there was value in that, sold us the shonky war on Iraq on behalf of Tony Blair. To me SpinMeister is equivalent to being a "bloody big liar".

I am depressed that the ABC, the Australian national public broadcaster, goes so low as allowing its own blabmasters do the publicity-sale for Mr Campbell's new book. Not on. May his book self-destruct with its own spin.

See toon at top and read blog above this one...

Alastair Campbell has written a novel about humility. I'll say that again. Alastair Campbell, New Labour attack dog, bully boy and Machiavellian master of that new lynchpin of the new political culture, "spin", has channelled his considerable storytelling skills into a novel which pivots on an essay, and then a eulogy, on humility.

"Humility," according to the essay, "is knowing we are all as important to each other. And even the ones we think are really important, the ones we see on the TV or put on the pedestals, in the grand sweep of history, and amid the great forces of nature, they are grains of sand." Prime ministers, press secretaries, bestselling writers – all grains of sand. "We can learn humility," the essay continues, "if we learn from mistakes."

------------------

What a lot of bullshit PR... to repackage oneself into a shy chameleon while one is a viper. The forked tongue is recoiled... It seemed that Alastair enjoyed himself porkying for Tony Blair and did it with skilled abandon... See toon at top and read the blogs if you feel inclined...

Tony Blair gave an extraordinary speech about the global importance of religion yesterday, telling an audience which included the newly-inaugurated President, Barack Obama, that faith should be restored "to its rightful place, as the guide to our world and its future."

The former prime minister also said he believed the 21st century would be "poorer in spirit" and "meaner in ambition" if it was not "under the guardianship of faith in God." He had been invited by President Obama to lead the prestigious US National Prayer Breakfast, a spectacular event in the ballroom of the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Mr Blair also managed to rain on Gordon Brown's parade, meeting the President before any European leader. He dashed ahead of the Prime Minister and other political heavyweights, including Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Vladimir Putin, to lay on the hands and tell the President: "It is fitting at this extraordinary moment in your country's history that we hear that call to action; and we pray that in acting we do God's work and follow God's will."

------------------

Gus: at this point in time, when the planet is overheating mostly because humans are frothing it up, when the rigorous scientific history of the planet tells us that sideral change and evolution have made us who we are over millions of years, and when we are at a cross road of understanding, the god swill peddlers are pushing all the tricks from the book of illusions.

What is god's will? Whatever it is, it's contrary to proper development of curiosity and understanding. It's an illusion, basically a lie, designed to sooth our cosmic angst, when we should be spurred by it to live our life according to the planet's other participants, the flora and the fauna, and enjoying life, stylistically... without crapping on each other like batty bats in a colony (which we do, religion or not).

see toon at top and read more at The Independent

Miliband faces new 'torture cover-up' storm

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was last night facing fresh pressure over torture allegations after it was revealed that his officials asked the US for help in suppressing crucial evidence.

The Foreign Office solicited a letter from the US to back up its claim that if the evidence was disclosed, Washington could stop sharing intelligence with Britain. The claim persuaded two high court judges earlier this month to suppress what they called "powerful evidence" relating to the ill treatment of Binyam Mohamed, the British resident being held in Guantánamo Bay.

In response to the British request, John Bellinger, the state department's chief legal adviser, said in a letter to the Foreign Office last August: "We want to affirm the public disclosure of these documents is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence information-sharing arrangements between our two governments".

In their judgment, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones made it clear that without Miliband's claim about what they called the "gravity of the threat" from the US, they would have ordered the evidence to be revealed. Though the judges repeatedly used the word "threat", Miliband subsequently denied the US had threatened to stop sharing intelligence with Britain.

----------------

Blair did not know? Or was it done under the black armband of hypocritical christianity?... see toon at top. Christ, if he died, died in vain... Even Blair keep pushing the duplicitous barrow  — with a leap of faith, a double barrel twist and a pike. Astonishingly promoting hypocrisy with skewed beliefs...

Charities are going to the wall, leading philanthropists are cutting back and patrons of the arts are closing their wallets. But in these financially straitened times, Tony and Cherie Blair are emerging as the UK's answer to Bill and Melinda Gates.

Documents filed at Companies House show the former prime minister and his wife have been busy establishing a series of charities that have global reach and expansive ambitions. Many politicians decide to set up charitable organisations after they leave office, but the Blairs' ambitions are different in that their scale dwarfs those of their British predecessors.

Everything from striving for the promotion of women entrepreneurs to encouraging healthy Geordies, eradicating fatal illnesses and bringing lasting peace to the Middle East are to receive the Blairs' philanthropic touch.

And while many charities are having trouble raising funds, not to mention attracting the suitably connected personnel necessary to achieve their goals, the Blairs are encountering no such problems. The names of those lending support to their charitable trusts read like a Who's Who of movers and shakers from sport, religion and philanthropy.

"The Blairs are using all their resources to tackle things they care about," said Sue Wixley of New Philanthropy Capital, a think tank that connects charities to donors. "In this case, the Blairs' resources are their contacts."

The potent mix is already paying handsome dividends. Recently filed accounts for the Tony Blair Faith Foundation reveal that the charity, which aims to promote greater understanding between religions, received donations of £3.6m in its first year of existence.

--------------------

Promoting harmony between dark-age beliefs. Chuppa-chuppa, hooba-hooba charity... Still, I might concede it could be better than promoting modern war alla catholic Aussie Tony, with other religious conspirators like Bush and Howard...

Not only that, the three of them promoted massive greed on credit as an engine for fuelling their economic illusions... Now, we are paying the atrocious price for their recklessness... Ugly.

see toon at top

from the Guardian

Alastair Campbell testimony...

...

He also said he felt it was "never in doubt" that WMDs would be found in Iraq within a "relatively short timescale" of the invasion and when he was told by Scarlett on 28 April 2003 that there might not be any it was a shock.

Referring to the row with the BBC that resulted in the suicide of the government weapons scientist David Kelly, Campbell said the controversy surrounding the dossier "was in large part caused by a piece of dishonest journalism". He acknowledged that the London Evening Standard had published a misleading headline with respect to the "45 minutes" claim but said it was not his job to correct the story.

--------------

The king of bullshitting on behalf of Blair carries on bullshitting... Where did the journalists get their information from, including the claim of 45 minutes?... Who was feeding the press with poisoned barley?... Who protected David Kelly? No-one... His information was contrary to that of the fanciful sexed-up dossier that was using dubious sources. Kelly was shot in flame in a kangaroo court... We're only scratching the surface at the Chilcot inquiry... The truth? Bush, Blair and Howard lied through their teeth. The information from non-reliable "sources" was loaded and they all knew that. They had to know there was NO WMDs in Iraq to attack the way they did.

Remember John Cecil Masterman and the double cross system... He mentions at the beginning of his book a quote from a famous general that it would be foolish to attack an enemy without knowing its strength, its weaponry and its position. The war against Iraq — according to all the "evidence" shown by the sexed-up dossiers and ultimately the presentation to the United Nations by Colin Powell — was contrary to this important doctrine. YES, the premise presented to the public to go to war was that they didn't know where the WMDs were, no how dangerous they were, nor how much Saddam had... but "Saddam had plenty" although the weapons inspectors couldn't find any... Balls!. Blair, Bush and Howard  — and their generals (who would have insisted on the knowledge there were NO WMDs in Iraq) — had to know there was no WMDs in Iraq in order to attack. Bush, Blair and Howard bullshitted beyond credibility. Unfortunately too many people still bought the furphy...

The next thing for the Chilcot inquiry is to question the generals on their secret knowledge versus official orders. See toon at top...

G'day Gus,

As a constant critic of the Howard "New Order" and the "misdemeanors" of many of his ministers which were dealt with by reward, I have been sickened by the blatant contempt he still has for Australians.

I still have a list of the shonky behaviour of his untouchables and their various rewards, but one thing stands out in my mind and that is that Howard never ever allowed the "buck" to reach him.

Recently, the two new administrations in both the US and Australia have had their leaders make it clear in public that - the "buck" stops with them and them alone, but the opposite procedure of Howard's mob still resonates without the media picking up their obvious dishonesty.

The "Bali Nine" is a perfect case in point.  As I remember it, Scott Rush's father discovered that his son was about to embark on drug smuggling and, trying to save Scott from this crime, he went to the Federal Police and with the proviso that the information would lead to the arrest of the nine IN AUSTRALIA, he told them what he knew.

The Federal Police did not keep their word and the Howard appointed Police Commissioner took the "buck".  However it was later revealed that the decision was made at the highest level of government and Howard was as guilty as sin.  All it did was to put these young criminals in the hands of a government not yet democratic and to turn them over to the possibility of a death sentence.

Mr. Rush's son Scott was one of those sentenced to death even though it was his first offence.  Was there a more tragic result caused by the vicious dishonesty of Howard which allowed this to happen?  A double-cross to a concerned father by a person who has never considered what is really best for Australians - only the Bush Americans.

Were these actions by the Howard mob consistent with protecting our Australian citizens?  At all times?  Like the hangings in Malaysia and other Asian countries during the Howard years.

We now have the fiasco of the Liberals, led by the "Mad Monk", claiming that the Rudd government is not protecting our borders.  But, when you ask the same rabble would they return to the Howard methods they decline to answer.  People should remember the deception of millions of dollars being spent on sending people to Islands like Nauru so that the appearance of "stopping" the boat people from reaching "Australian soil" would be sanitized by the neo-con media.  Fair dinkum.

Will Bush; Blair and Howard ever face justice for their crimes against the people they so badly represented?  As long as the MSM is protected by the BBH's in their efforts to have a monopoly on all information to the public - the MSM will protect them in return.

It is in the interests of the International Jewish Organizations to reach that goal in Australia, now that they appear to have major control of the media companies in England and America.

Well might Howard sing God Bless America – ‘cause no one will bless him.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

Yes Ernest, the fed police did screw up big time "for whatever reason", under the rules of Keelty, himself under the thumb of John Howard. They all should have been sacked forthwith. "The drug run was let go to catch Mr Big"... They caught no-one of significance and created a massive heartache for parents. John Howard, like many in the Liberal party, supports the death penalty. Sad. The death penalty and wars are the pits of human behaviour. John Howard indulged in both, boasting an ugly moral rightitude seasoning to boot, while lying through his teeth to go to war in Iraq... Ugly. see toon at top.

From the Independent

Meanwhile at war central...

Tony Blair froze out anyone with concerns about the Iraq war and was not challenged on the issue by a Cabinet that had been "conditioned" to accept that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq inquiry has been told.

-------------

note from Gus: Clare Short was not impressed with Blair during that time and resigned in May 2003.

She accused Mr Blair of breaching assurances he had given her on the role of the United Nations in governing post-conflict Iraq.

She also accused the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of “secretly” negotiating a UN Security Council resolution which contradicted assurances she had given in the Commons to MPs.

She had earlier threatened to resign over the issue of Iraq, calling Mr Blair's position on the war 'reckless'. However, she changed her mind and decided to stay.

--------------------

Lord Turnbull, who as Cabinet Secretary was Britain's most senior civil servant, said that Mr Blair largely surrounded himself with those who would not disagree with him, while those who did have concerns were given almost no time to discuss the issue.

Meanwhile No 10 rejected calls to publish secret letters sent to President George Bush from Mr Blair in 2002 which suggested that Britain would join the US in military action if it was needed. Gordon Brown also rebuffed calls to voluntarily appear at the inquiry before the next election.

In his evidence, Lord Turnbull said Mr Blair wanted to "move quickly" and kept debate to a minimum. "There was never any opportunity seriously to say 'Iran is the real problem' or 'Korea is the real problem' or whatever. Certainly by September 2002 that decision had been made," he said. Lord Turnbull said that with the exception of Robin Cook, who resigned after the decision to invade Iraq, "none of [the Cabinet] suggested a serious change of direction... They were all conditioned to buy the intelligence presentations."

He said that Mr Blair had been a "regime changer" from the outset, but felt obliged to seek UN permission for the invasion.

Other secret documents released yesterday revealed the extent of doubts within the military over the legality of the invasion without a second UN resolution. Sir Kevin Tebbitt, the most senior civil servant in the Ministry of Defence, wrote to Lord Turnbull to say that "full UN cover" was "devoutly to be desired" to resolve the legal question-marks. That never came.

--------------------

The Dutch government supported the invasion of Iraq despite it having no legal backing under the law of the Netherlands, a long-awaited investigation concluded yesterday.

The report also said that Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende had little to do with planning the Netherlands' participation in the war.

The Netherlands gave political support to the US-led invasion, allowed the use of its logistics facilities and some US troops passed through the Netherlands on their way to join the invasion.

"The United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq from the 1990s did not give a mandate to the US-British military intervention in 2003," the Dutch Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said in its 550-page report.

The Netherlands gave political support to the war because of a risk that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and to support its Nato allies, the US and Britain, who led the invasion, the committee said.

The report said the Dutch government did not adequately inform parliament in 2002 and 2003 about a US request that it support planning for the invasion, and about the timing of Dutch logistical support for the invasion.

---------------------

See the lying evolving monkey at top...

G'day Gus,

I note your quote as follows"

"Tony Blair froze out anyone with concerns about the Iraq war and was not challenged on the issue by a Cabinet that had been "conditioned" to accept that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq inquiry has been told."

Wouldn't the same context apply to Howard? His first tenure brought about many sackings and replacements - all of whom were re-instated or promoted or given a sinecure for their "patience"!

Could it be that some of the MSM may at last be breathing some truth into the six long years of Iraq's suffering?  However, Afghanistan still remains, after some nine years, as an example of US interference with the local politics of foreign nations and their support for dictators to ensure their influence is heeded.

South America still suffers from US bargaining with drug lords, or dictators, or tribal elders etc.

If ever the European Union and the Asia Pacific nations accept that America is the biggest terrorist in the world then sanctions applied to the US may result in the world being a better place for peace. After all, they are in more debt than ever before, caused of course by their own methods of deregulation and forced on the world.

Without any research IMHO, sanctions imposed on Iraq for many years before the illegal invasion and; the US controlled "Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan being militarily supported; and now the sanctions on Iran are about to be increased - one could ask, who or what brings so many nations into that line which is obviously opposed only to "selected" nations running their own affairs?

There is some "cleansing of guilt" re Iraq only, being exercised in England possibly to prevent any International Court of Justice (in the future) from having them arrested for crimes against humanity since the airing of some salient points in this charade could jeopardize such an inquiry?  Shades of Howard's so-called Royal Commissions and his personal terms of reference.

 And you don't have to duck anymore Downer.

The sanctions which seem to have the UN's rubber stamp (to cover the rent no doubt) don't rack up in my mind.  Who - or how many - are involved in these criminal sanctions and are they as murderous as the sanctions on Iraq?  Who enforces them? Who prevents the world's peace lovers from helping the oppressed?

I believe I can name some - the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF); Egypt; the US; England and many small nations like those in the "Coalition of the Willing" who were symbolic then and nothing more.

Just how powerful is the "free" media when it can literally dictate the information that will be provided to the people from which they are supposed to make a decision?  If a government places rules of behaviour on the media then that media claims that it is not "free".  If the government is democratically elected like in Iran, don't they have a right to legislate the laws of the country for the best interests of the country and to regulate the excesses of any businesses in their nation, including the media? 

After all they are a profit making business besides being the only method of information for the voters. Where is the measure of responsibility?  They are so wealthy and powerful that they can drain the resources of any opponent other than their lackeys in office.  One could reasonably argue that the laws of regulation in business in general, should apply even more so to the media? 

God bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

Tony Blair's cabinet was "misled" into thinking the war with Iraq was legal, ex-International Development Secretary Clare Short has told the UK's inquiry.

She said Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had been "leaned on" to change his advice before the invasion.

Mr Blair "and his mates" decided war was necessary, and "everything was done on a wing and a prayer", Ms Short said.

She quit the cabinet two months after the March 2003 invasion, in protest at planning for the war's aftermath.

In her evidence to the Iraq inquiry, during which she was highly critical of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, she said the cabinet had not been a "decision-making body" and called Parliament a "rubber stamp".

Ms Short, who was given a round of applause after her three-hour appearance, added that she had been "conned" into staying on as a minister until May 2003, despite her misgivings about the war.

---------------'

the toon above created in 2003 when Clare short resigned...

A senior judge could be called on to investigate a complaint that Cherie Blair handed down a more lenient sentence to a man who had been convicted of fracturing a person’s jaw because he was religious.

Mrs Blair, a devout Roman Catholic who sits as a part time judge under the title Cherie Booth QC, spared Shamso Miah from jail last month after he was convicted of assaulting a person at a bank queue in east London.

The 25-year-old from Redbridge, north-east London, was given a two-year suspended sentence instead of a six-month jail term because, Mrs Blair said, he was a “religious person” who had not been in trouble before.

In response the National Secular Society made an official objection to the Judicial Complaints Office which handles complaints against members of the judiciary. Last night the OJC said the complaint was being “considered under the Judicial Discipline Regulations”. If it finds that Mrs Blair may have breached those regulations, a senior judge would then be brought in to investigate and could recommend formal disciplinary action.

Mrs Blair was hearing the case at the Inner London Crown Court on 23 January. The court heard how Mr Miah, who described himself as a devout Muslim, had punched Mohammed Furcan in the face following an argument with over who was first in a queue at a bank.

-----------------

read more at the Independent.

The point is not so much the leniency of the sentence but the word "religious person" inserted in the verbal explanation of the sentence. See toon at top.

Three fire engines raced to Tony and Cherie Blair's home in Buckinghamshire after smoke was seen billowing from the £6m property. The cause of the alarm: four incinerated slices of toast.

Although Mrs Blair tried to abort the automated emergency call, triggered by a smoke alarm in the Grade I-listed property, firefighters from the nearby village of Wotton Underwood were swiftly followed by a crew from Aylesbury and another from nearby Thame. The three fire crews left after giving staff tips on fire-safety precautions to employ at the Blairs' 18th-century mansion, South Pavilion.

A spokesperson for the couple said: "The Blairs were cooking breakfast when the smoke alarm went off. Because they live in a Grade I-listed building, the smoke alarm is automatically connected to the local fire station, so the fire brigade sprang into action immediately.

"In fact, it was just smoke without a fire but by the time Mrs Blair rang the fire service to tell them they did not need to come, they were already on their way. [It was] all rather embarrassing and she'll certainly be sending them a big thank you note."

-----------------

see toon at top...

Tony Blair was warned a matter of weeks after American forces began rounding up terror suspects that British nationals held by the US in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay were being tortured, secret documents disclosed in the high court reveal.

He expressed concern about their treatment after initially being sceptical, he admits in a hand-written note on a Foreign Office (FO) document dated 18 January 2002. It appears among heavily redacted MI5 and FO documents released in court hearings in which British nationals are suing the government, MI5 and MI6.

The partly redacted FO note refers to a visit to Guantánamo Bay by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). "There will be intense press interest in any conclusions they reach on humanitarian issues," it says, adding that the ICRC was unlikely to make its views public.

An official adds: "This will continue to be a difficult issue to handle, both in procedural and legal terms with the US and in handling parliament and the media here."

Under the official's comment, Blair writes: "The key is to find out how they are being treated. Though I was initially sceptical about claims of torture, we must make it clear to the US that any such action would be totally unacceptable and v quickly establish that it isn't happening."

Evidence has since emerged that the British government knew the US was mistreating and torturing UK nationals and residents after January 2002 and for years afterwards, but did not seriously protest about it.

Evidence, notably in the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, shows that MI5 co-operated with the CIA, which was active in mistreatment and torture.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/sep/28/tony-blair-early-torture-warning

-------------------------

see toon at top...

The invitation to fire questions at Tony Blair via Twitter was intended to honour Interfaith Harmony Week. There was little concord, however, as the "AskTony" tech event was hijacked by hostile inquiries about the former prime minister's tax affairs, the Iraq war and his tempestuous relationship with Gordon Brown.

Mr Blair, a known technophobe, uploaded a picture of himself seated at a keyboard to convince sceptics that he was actually posting replies in person to the questions sent to his Faith Foundation. Ruth Turner, the Foundation's chief executive, revealed that her boss had been taking "Twitter lessons" but warned "he thinks quicker than he types".

However, he was smart enough to avoid loaded questions such as "How did you manage to earn £12m and yet only pay £400k in income tax?" and "Did you ever throw a mobile phone at Gordon, and if not, why?"

Amid unhelpful queries over the whereabouts of those WMDs, the wisdom of making nice with Colonel Gaddafi and his relationship with Carole Caplin, one mischievous member of the public did pierce Mr Blair's shields. Adam Jacobs, a medical statistician, asked: "How's this whole Middle-East peace gig working out for you?" "Very tough, but then I always knew it was going to be," replied Mr Blair. But he failed to answer Jacobs' first question: "When you read 1984 were you aware that it was a novel, and not an instruction manual?"

"Is Malcolm Tucker a good characterisation of Alastair Campbell?", a researcher for a Tory MP asked. Mr Blair replied: "I've never seen the programme [The Thick Of It], but people tell me Malcolm Tucker's a bit better looking. Is he?"

Serious questions included Mr Blair's opinion on Christopher Hitchens, the late atheist intellectual. "Chris was great, deeply spiritual if not religious. People of faith should never be afraid of secular dialogue," Mr Blair wrote.

After revealing he had "read more, thought more, studied more" since leaving office, Mr Blair announced after an hour: "Sorry everyone, time's up, but thanks for your questions."

The "AskTony" initiative was perhaps summed up by Samantha McGowan, a WaterAid worker: "Why oh why would you open yourself up to all that abuse? Ouch."

Question Time: Tweets to 'Ask Tony'

In hell @Gunna_burn

Did you ever throw a mobile phone at Gordon, and if not, why not

Jimmy Wales @jimmy_wales

How can US+Europe/UK help the Palestinians with their internal conflicts and to get better leaders?

Mr Scaff @scaff1974

Do you and Harry Redknapp use the same accountant?

Mark Lambert @sitsio

What's your opinion on the philosophical dichotomy between relativism & objective reality?

SorryI'llGetMyCoat @woweegoodstuff

How did you manage to earn £12m and yet only pay £400k in income tax?

Blair Gets Roasting At Twitter's Online Dispatch Box

The new generation of secret courts proposed by the government could suppress evidence of British collusion in torture, according to the chief UN official responsible for investigating wrongdoing by security and intelligence agencies.

Concern about the government's plan – contained in the justice and security bill – was expressed by Prof Juan Méndez, the UN's special rapporteur on torture. "If a country is in possession of information about human rights abuses, but isn't in a position to mention them, it hampers the ability to deal effectively with torture," he said. Méndez, himself a victim of torture in his native Argentina in the 1970s, was speaking at the thinktank Chatham House on Monday night.

After attacking the US for what he called the "extensive use of state secrets" to suppress evidence of torture and other abuses, Méndez referred to the so-called control principle, which allows governments to determine how its intelligence can be used once shared with another state.

Ministers maintain that the new secret courts are needed to protect its intelligence-sharing relationship with the US and other governments, while critics say they are intended to conceal evidence of crimes committed by the British government, including involvement in the rendition and torture of British citizens suspected of being terrorists.

The issue was at the centre of high court hearings about the treatment of Binyam Mohamed, the Ethiopian-born UK resident secretly rendered to Guantánamo Bay after being seized in Pakistan in 2002.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/11/un-official-secret-courts-torture/print