Topics

16

South Tyneside Stop the War / Silence Is Shame 'Volume 13' - Draft Pieces

« on: February 05, 2013, 03:37:06 PM »

March of the Millions

by Alan Trotter

February 15th 2003 was the day when decent folk all over the world came together in unison to say NOT IN MY NAME over the imminent invasion of Iraq.

In London an estimated 2 million kindred spirits marched through the streets to voice their opposition to the threat of war speaking for the majority of the population in Britain.

Sadly we did not manage to persuade our leaders to change course and within five weeks of this march the missiles rained into Baghdad at a horrifying rate killing indiscriminately and the bloodshed continued with the death count climbing higher on a daily basis.

Looking back on the last ten blood stained years many horrifying things have taken place, the atrocities of Falujah and the carnage brought about by cluster bombs, the use of banned chemical weapons, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people both civilian and military, routine torture of prisoners, the practice of extraordinary rendition, the hypocrisy of the media frenzy over ‘little’ Ali Abbas, the abuses of Guantanamo Bay and our government willing to sacrifice our children by sending 17 year olds to fight in a unjust and illegal war, as well as the manipulation and lies to cover up abuses and outrages throughout these ten lamentable years.

We have seen the creation of the war on terror and the establishing of Islamaphobia to create divisions between people.
 
Our government continues to finance Trident and is spending billions of pounds on wars all over the globe and yet at home we are watching the destruction of the NHS (it’s fair to say military spending is killing us), the education and welfare system and the reduction of benefits to the most vulnerable in our society, while £700million is wasted on subsidizing arms exports every year (CAAT).

At what point are we going to say enough is enough?.

Who if anybody will be held to account?
Where are the guilty ones now?
Who’s next…………...?

Alan Trotter 

+

by Les Barker

The good guy with a gun
is still killing people
and he still thinks
he's a good guy with a gun.

January 2013

Les Barker is a poet best known for his comedic poetry and parodies of popular songs, however he has also produced some very serious thought-provoking written work.

for more of his work visit
www.mrsackroyd.com

+

The Great Escape

by Barry Clark

How often have we seen it?
How many times?

We know the story
We know the end, Don’t we?

It doesn’t get any better.
Does it?

Steve McQueen, The Great Escape, alpha male, actor
Hollywood star, recruiters dream.

Steve McQueen, writer, director, producer
War artist, designer of stamps.

When will The Great Escape be?
10 years? 20 years? More?

Still, we’ll always have the same old story
Same inevitable outcome

Are we not sick of it yet?
Has it not past its sell by date?

Steve McQueen, every soldier
Steve McQueen, conscientious campaigner

Lets end the war
Lets bring them home

Lets honour the dead
Lets make The Great Escape

January 2013

+

by Colum Sands

On Rathlin, just a few miles off the County Antrim coast, archaeologists have discovered the remains of what might be called a stone-age munitions factory. Porcellanite, a kind of flint stone unique to the island, was once quarried here for the making of axe heads and there is evidence to suggest that these weapons were exported to many parts of Europe from as far back as 4,500 years ago.
 
So, nothing new about the arms trade then, but wouldn’t it be good to think that humankind has moved on from the days when Neolithic man walked the earth. No matter how sophisticated a bomb or war machine might be, it is nothing more than an updated version of the club or axe once wielded by the caveman.

Have a look at what arms exports are worth to your country each year and ask yourself what kind of people are in power today. If the answer gives you the impression that modern day cavemen are still in charge, you have a right to feel concerned.

But there is hope. Think of around two million people taking to the streets of London ten years ago, raising a voice against the invasion of Iraq. Think of the power of online petitions like avaaz.org and the platform they provide for us to make change. They, and those of us all over the world who continue to take a stand against war, represent the development and progress of the human mind.

We all inherit the riddles of history and we all can work to solve them. We can change things for the better if we apply human intelligence and feeling rather than primitive brute force. That’s something to bear in mind not only in our everyday lives but also at the next time we approach the ballot box.   

January 2013

Colum Sands is a universal storyteller who draws on a long Irish tradition of poetic musicality to weave songs for the world.

for more of his work visit
www.columsands.com

17

For Your Information / 'British Have Invaded 90% of Countries'

« on: November 08, 2012, 02:28:07 PM »

'Britain has invaded all but 22 countries in the world in its long and colourful history, new research has found.'

By Jasper Copping

November 05, 2012 "The Daily Telegraph"

'Every schoolboy used to know that at the height of the empire, almost a quarter of the atlas was coloured pink, showing the extent of British rule.

But that oft recited fact dramatically understates the remarkable global reach achieved by this country.

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe.

The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British.

Among this select group of nations are far-off destinations such as Guatemala, Tajikistan and the Marshall Islands, as well some slightly closer to home, such as Luxembourg.

The analysis is contained in a new book, All the Countries We've Ever Invaded: And the Few We Never Got Round To.

Stuart Laycock, the author, has worked his way around the globe, through each country alphabetically, researching its history to establish whether, at any point, they have experienced an incursion by Britain.

Only a comparatively small proportion of the total in Mr Laycock's list of invaded states actually formed an official part of the empire.

The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment.

Incursions by British pirates, privateers or armed explorers have also been included, provided they were operating with the approval of their government.

So, many countries which once formed part of the Spanish empire and seem to have little historical connection with the UK, such as Costa Rica, Ecuador and El Salvador, make the list because of the repeated raids they suffered from state-sanctioned British sailors.

Among some of the perhaps surprising entries on the list are:

* Cuba, where in 1741, a force under Admiral Edward Vernon stormed ashore at Guantánamo Bay. He renamed it Cumberland Bay, before being forced to withdraw in the face of hostile locals and an outbreak of disease among his men. Twenty one years later, Havana and a large part of the island fell to the British after a bloody siege, only to be handed back to the Spanish in 1763, along with another unlikely British possession, the Philippines, in exchange for Florida and Minorca.

*Iceland, invaded in 1940 by the British after the neutral nation refused to enter the war on the Allies side. The invasion force, of 745 marines, met with strong protest from the Iceland government, but no resistance.

* Vietnam, which has experienced repeated incursions by the British since the seventeenth century. The most recent – from 1945 to 1946 – saw the British fight a campaign for control of the country against communists, in a war that has been overshadowed by later conflicts involving first the French and then Americans.

It is thought to be the first time such a list has been compiled.

Mr Laycock, who has previously published books on Roman history, began the unusual quest after being asked by his 11-year-old son, Frederick, how many countries the British had invaded.

After almost two years of research he said he was shocked by the answer. "I was absolutely staggered when I reached the total. I like to think I have a relatively good general knowledge. But there are places where it hadn't occurred to me that these things had ever happened. It shocked me.

"Other countries could write similar books – but they would be much shorter. I don't think anyone could match this, although the Americans had a later start and have been working hard on it in the twentieth century."

The only other nation which has achieved anything approaching the British total, Mr Laycock said, is France – which also holds the unfortunate record for having endured the most British invasions. "I realise people may argue with some of my reasons, but it is intended to prompt debate," he added.

He believes the actual figure may well be higher and is inviting the public to get in touch to provide evidence of other invasions.

In the case of Mongolia, for instance – one of the 22 nations "not invaded", according to the book – he believes it possible that there could have been a British invasion, but could find no direct proof.

The country was caught up in the turmoil following the Russian Revolution, in which the British and other powers intervened. Mr Laycock found evidence of a British military mission in Russia approximately 50 miles from the Mongolian border, but could not establish whether it got any closer.

The research lists countries based on their current national boundaries and names. Many of the invasions took place when these did not apply.

The research covered the 192 other UN member states as well as the Vatican City and Kosovo, which are not member states, but are recognised by the UK government as independent states.

The earliest invasion launched from these islands was an incursion into Gaul – now France – at the end of the second century. Clodius Albinus led an army, thought to include many Britons, across the Channel in an attempt to seize the imperial throne. The force was defeated in 197 at Lyon.

Mr Laycock added: "One one level, for the British, it is quite amazing and quite humbling, that this is all part of our history, but clearly there are parts of our history that we are less proud of. The book is not intended as any kind of moral judgment on our history or our empire. It is meant as a light-hearted bit of fun."

The countries never invaded by the British:

Andorra

Belarus

Bolivia

Burundi

Central African Republic

Chad

Congo, Republic of

Guatemala

Ivory Coast

Kyrgyzstan

Liechtenstein

Luxembourg

Mali

Marshall Islands

Monaco

Mongolia

Paraguay

Sao Tome and Principe

Sweden

Tajikistan

Uzbekistan

Vatican City'

18

News Items / Tony Blair protest at Leveson Inquiry: 'The man is a war criminal!'

« on: May 28, 2012, 02:10:21 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trxs-ypR804&feature=related

19

For Your Information / Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal

« on: May 10, 2012, 01:29:57 PM »

Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

'BUSH AND ASSOCIATES AUTHORISED TORTURE'

KUALA LUMPUR, 9 May 2012 - The third day of the Kuala Lumpur war crimes tribunal hearing saw the prosecution present its submission to establish that the accused parties are indeed guilty as charged for the Crime of Torture and Crimes Against Humanity.

In the last two days, three witnesses namely Abbas Abid, Moazzam Begg and Jameelah Hameedi gave their testimony of the tortures they had faced during their incarceration. Two additional Statutory Declarations (Ali Shalal and Rhuhel Ahmed) were read out and submitted to the tribunal.

The witnesses were taken prisoners and held in prisons in Afghanistan (Bagram), in Iraq (Abu Gharib, Baghdad International Airport) and two of them namely Moazzam Begg and Rhuhel Ahmed were transported to Guantanamo Bay.

The prosecution submitted that it didn’t matter where the location of the detentions were, the techniques used to torture the prisoners were brutal, remained constant and were ‘migrated’ from one location to other rather seamlessly.

According to the prosecution, the testimony of all the witnesses shows a sustained perpetration of brutal, barbaric, cruel and dehumanizing course of conduct against them. These acts of crimes were applied cumulatively to inflict the worst possible pain and suffering.

These acts of crime included:

a. Hooding for incredibly long hours;
b. Short shackling where the hands and legs of a detainee are tied together, for prolonged periods of time, up to 7-8 hours;
c. Shackling of the feet, body and hands for prolonged periods;
d. Chaining in physically impossible postures, including to the floor of a cell, for prolonged periods;
e. Shackling and chaining for long periods such as to cause severe and prolonged physical pain;
f. Depriving sleep;
g. Blasting loud noises continuously for prolonged periods;
h. Beating continuously causing severe pain;
i. Confining in solitary and (often while hooded) for prolonged periods;
j. Subjecting to extreme and physically unbearable conditions (extreme cold or hot, humid, devoid of sunlight);
k. Overcrowding prisoners in small cells;
l. Disallowing normal bodily functions in decent conditions (not allowing to go to toilet, have a bath, defection in full view of others, abruptly ending prisoners when carrying out such functions);
m. Withholding food and/or drinks;
n. Where food was provided, providing atrocious and terrible food;
o. Humiliating: including by women officers;
p. Using dogs to threaten and intimidate;
q. Using electrocution, including of sensitive areas such as genitals;
r. Threatening to harm family members;
s. Simulating torture of family members;
t. Threatening to shoot with gun pointed at the head;
u. Securing confessions through coercion and inducements;
v. Denying medical treatment;
w. Dispensing hallucinating drugs;
x. Suggesting suicide.

Testimony showed that Abbas Abid had his fingernails removed by pliers. Ali Shalal was attached with bare electrical wires and electrocuted and hung from the wall. Moazzam Begg was beaten and put in solitary confinement. Jameelah was almost nude and humiliated, used as a human shield whilst being transported by helicopter. All these witnesses have residual injuries till today.
After the testimony of the witnesses, the court was shown footage of the prisons, of prisoners being tortured and the conditions described by the witnesses in the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. This documentary also highlighted the cavalier attitude of some of the accused of their actions.

The prosecution stated that the treatment meted out to the prisoners disclosed torture and inhumane conduct. These acts amount to:
a. Torture under the Torture Convention 1984; as well as
b. Cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment in violation of Geneva Convention III and IV, 1949; and Common Article III to the Geneva Conventions.

According to the Torture Convention 1984 of which the US is a party, the prohibition against torture is absolute. Torture by public officials is “without doubt … regarded by customary international law as an international crime” per Lord Hope, Ex-Pinochet. Nobody is immune from its reach – not even heads of states as the Pinochet case decided.

The Torture Convention defines ‘torture’ as ‘the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official’.

Through legal contrivance the accused lawyers, in justifying the use of torture, the US redefined the meaning of torture to ‘actual organ failure and cause long lasting harm’.
This position was advanced in a memorandum by the Attorney General’s office to President George W. Bush, dated August 1 2002 and was given by the Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee.

The Prosecution submitted that the testimonies of the witnesses made it clear that the acts inflicted such as pain and harm could only be described as torture. This means that even if the threshold is raised in the manner suggested by Bush and his legal advisors, the acts were in violation of the Torture Convention.

Under the Geneva Conventions, which promise a minimum of humane treatment in “armed conflict not of an international character” to all civilians and non-combatants. Geneva Convention III protects all persons – whether they are captured or surrendered, whether in uniform or not.

Liability may also arise under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998 (ICC). Although the US is not a party (though a signatory), Afghanistan is. It became a party on 10 February 2003. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over any person who is a national of a state party, or who has committed a crime on the territory of a state party: article 12.2.

The manuals (Army Field Manual 34-52: Intelligence Interrogation (1992) referred to colloquially as FM 34-52) of the US FBI and the Army relating to the handling of prisoners during interrogation and confinement incorporate Geneva Convention constraints. From about September 2001, there was a distinct move to seek ways to avoid the obligations under the Torture Convention as well as the Geneva Convention III.

There was a proliferation of legal opinions to the President and the Defence Secretary that the Geneva Conventions were inapplicable to the prisoners. These were acted upon Executive orders and other directives issued that were incompatible with the Geneva Convention III and the Torture Convention.

The prosecution submitted that the inevitable conclusion is that the US Executive branch, as represented by the President, the Vice-President and the Defence Secretary, intended by a conscious and wilful act not to treat the prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

The prosecution stated that the totality of the evidence established that President Bush issued executive orders to commit war crimes. As Commander-In-Chief of the US military leading the conduct of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, he intended these orders to be acted on. In this capacity, he received reports from the battlefields as well as other sources that pointed clearly to these violations. He did nothing to stop these war crimes from being committed. The fact that his executive orders were based on legal opinions is an issue that does not absolve him. Indeed, it makes those giving advice equally liable for war crimes.

President Bush issued a memorandum on February 7 2002 declaring that al-Qaeda prisoners were outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions as they were ‘enemy combatants’ not prisoners of war. This was a prelude to subjecting them to torture and inhumane acts.

He also detained the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay at the Southern tip of Cuba with the aim of taking them out of the jurisdiction of any legal system – “a legal black hole”.

Donald Rumsfeld, the then Defence Secretary, issued a Memorandum for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff dated 19 January 2002 approving the ‘advice’ given to him by legal counsel John Yoo and Robert Delabunty by a Memorandum dated 9 January 2002 that the CIA was free to ignore the Geneva Conventions as they did not apply to suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.

Rumsfeld denied knowledge of the abuses. Rumsfeld knew or should have known of the abuses and torture at Iraq and Afghanistan. He and his department were repeatedly warned of the abuse of detainees.

Rumsfeld established the ‘aggressive’ torture techniques programme and authorised these techniques, created an environment that promoted torture and inhumane acts by sending an unequivocal signal demanding ‘more actionable’ intelligence, and failed to prevent or punish acts of torture and other violations.

The Prosecution further submitted that Dick Cheney was the Vice President of the US at all material times when the complainants were subjected to violations of the Torture Convention and Geneva Convention III. It is logical to infer that he was privy to the policies and the orders issued by the president and Rumsfeld.

Cheney, for example, played a key role in opposing the amendment proposed by Senator John McCain to pass an amendment to the 2006 National Defence Authorisation Bill to prohibit “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of detainees in US military custody.

Cheney had knowledge of what was going on and in particular that the orders issued by Bush and Rumsfeld were issued and acted upon. He was part of the policy makers in this regard. He plainly knew that there were violations of the Torture Convention and/or the Geneva Convention III and failed to intervene to prevent such activity.

During the afternoon session, the prosecution submitted on the liability of Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes, Dick Addington, John Yoo and Jay Bybee. The prosecution stated that these lawyers gave advice that the Geneva Conventions and the Torture Convention did not apply; and that certain interrogation techniques were permissible.

The accused (lawyers) have suggested that there is no connect between the interrogation techniques employed and the legal opinion justifying these techniques, as the latter were merely to explore the “outer limits of the legal landscape”.

Prosecution submitted that the lawyers knew that their advice was being sought to be acted upon; and in fact was acted upon. And further that the advice paved the way for the violations of international law and the Conventions. The President and the Defence Secretary are clear that they would – and did - rely upon, and act, in accordance with advice of the lawyers.

Bush nails the lie that there was no connect between the techniques employed and the legal opinion justifying these techniques. He states categorically, in his memoirs:

‘Years later … many lawmakers became fierce critics. They charged that Americans had committed unlawful torture. That was not true. I had asked the most senior legal officers in the US government to review the interrogation methods and they had assured me that they did not constitute torture. To suggest that our intelligence personnel violated the law by following the legal guidance they received is insulting and wrong.’

Others who relied on these legal opinions were former CIA Director, Tenet, in his memoirs recounts that the CIA had to wait until legal opinion before they could embark on aggressive interrogation techniques.

Diane Beaver was in charge of Guantanamo acknowledges that there was never any question in her mind that Washington was closely involved as the lawyers for Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and the CIA visited Guantanamo before the list of the techniques was compiled. The lawyers had said they should do “whatever (was) needed to be done”,

The techniques in Guantanamo ‘migrated’ to Iraq, as the testimonies of the several complainants in this case bears out so lucidly. The report by the former Defence Secretary James Schlesinger attests to this fact.

The Nuremberg trial in the Altstotter case (Altstotter was Chief of the Civil Law and Procedure Division of the Ministry of Justice) pronounced that:
“… legal advisers who prepare legal advice that is so erroneous as to give rise to an international crime are themselves subject to the rules of international criminality”.

The Nuremberg Tribunal highlighted the fact that as a lawyer he knew of the crimes that were being committed and found him guilty of giving his name as “a jurist of note and so helped to cloak the shameful deeds…” “The cloak of the assassin was concealed beneath the robe of the jurist”.

The prosecution further submitted that the cumulative evidence establishes a joint enterprise to carry out acts that are war crimes.

The decision-makers at the highest levels – President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by the lawyers and the other commanders and CIA officials – all acted in concert. Rumsfeld wanted more aggressive techniques, the lawyers advised on how this could be accomplished and provided legal arguments to circumvent the law, Bush approved, and the techniques were transmitted and applied right down the chain of command. The torture was systematically applied and became an accepted norm.

The prosecution concluded their submission by stating that they have proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons were instrumental in inflicting torture and cruel inhumane and degrading treatment that violated the Torture Convention and Geneva Convention III. These are war crimes. The lawyers advising the administration played a decisive role in subverting the system of international rules that should have protected all the detainees, a system that the US did so much to put in place after the Nazi atrocities in World War II.

The charge against the accused here is very similar to the charge for which the Nazi war criminals were convicted at the Nuremberg trials: “the charge of conscious participation in a nation-wide governmentally organized system of cruelty and injustice, in violation of the laws of war and humanity, and perpetrated in the name of law by ... authority”: Alstotter case.

This is because after 9/11, all the pronouncements from the top made a conscious decision to set aside international rules constraining such treatment. A combination of factors account for this: fear, ideology and almost visceral disdain for international rules and norms. There are others who have also committed war crimes but those that have been charged are the key players. Against them there is overwhelming evidence and they bear direct responsibility for war crimes.

The court was adjourned for the day to resume tomorrow at 9am.

ends




For further information, please contact

Dato’ Dr Yaacob Merican
Secretary General of the KLWCC Secretariat
Tel: +6012-227 8680

Ms Malkeet Kaur
Media Representative of KLWCC
 malkeet@dbook.com.my
Tel: +6012-3737 886


The Tribunal Members
Tan Sri Dato Lamin bin Haji Mohd Yunus,
Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre
Tunku Sofiah Jewa
Prof Salleh Buang
Mr Alfred Lambremont Webre
Datuk Mohd Sa’ari Yusof.

The Prosecution
Prof Gurdial S Nijar
Prof Francis Boyle
Mr Avtaran Singh
Ms Gan Pei Fern

Amicus Curiae (appointed Defence team)
Mr Jason Kay
Dr Mohd Hisham
Dr Abbas Hardani
Ms Galoh Nursafinas

The Charge
Crime of Torture and War Crimes against former U.S. President George W. Bush and his associates namely Richard Cheney, former U.S. Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld, former Defence Secretary, Alberto Gonzales, then Counsel to President Bush, David Addington, then General Counsel to the Vice-President, William Haynes II, then General Counsel to Secretary of Defence, Jay Bybee, then Assistant Attorney General, and John Choon Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney-General.

The Tribunal will adjudicate and evaluate the evidence presented on facts and law as in any court of law. The judges of the Tribunal must be satisfied that the charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt and deliver a reasoned judgement. The verdict and the names of the persons found guilty will be entered in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals and publicised worldwide.

About Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC)
The KLFCW established the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (The Commission), to investigate cases of war crimes that have been neglected by established institutions such as the International Criminal Court. The Commission seeks to influence world opinion on the illegality of wars and occupation undertaken by major Western powers.

The aim of The Commission is thereby to hold perpetrators of war crimes accountable for their actions especially when relevant international judicial organs fail to do so.

The Commission
The commission’s function is to:
i) receive complaints from any victim(s) of any conflict on:

(a) Crimes against peace
(b) Crimes against humanity
(c) Crimes of genocide
(d) War crimes

ii) investigate the same and prepare a report of its findings. To further call for more evidence or where The Commission is satisfied to recommend prosecution

The Legal Team
The legal team’s aim is to present the complaints of victim(s) of any conflict and to act on the recommendation of The Commission’s report and to frame charges and prosecute accused person(s).

The Tribunal
The Tribunal shall adjudicate on the charges filed against the accused person(s) The applicable standard of proof shall be beyond reasonable doubt.


About the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW)
Malaysia’s fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad founded the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW), a non-governmental organisation established under the laws of Malaysia on 12 March 2007.

The main objectives of the Foundation, as stated in its Statutes are, inter alia:

1. To undertake all necessary measures and initiatives to criminalise war and energise peace;

2. To provide relief, assistance and support to individuals and communities who are suffering from the effects of war and armed conflict wherever occurring and without discrimination on the grounds of nationality, racial origin, religion, belief, age, gender or other forms of impermissible differentiations;

3. To promote the education of individuals and communities suffering from the effects of war or armed conflict;

4. To foster schemes for the relief of human suffering occasioned by war or armed conflict;

5. To provide for mechanisms or procedures in attainment of the above purposes.


“WHY is it that the murder of one man is considered a criminal act whereas the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people committed in wars, is not considered so?"
-Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad


BERNAMA, Malaysia

20

For Your Information / Veterans For Peace UK - Officially launched 9/4/2012

« on: April 26, 2012, 01:03:21 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFHb_OFwZ3w

21

For Your Information / GlimpsesOfThe[BehindTheScenes]Watchers

« on: March 05, 2012, 11:58:40 AM »

'...

We are in the Gold Command Suite of the Metropolitan Police’s Special Operations Room (SOR) [[as if] looking
over the shoulder of] ... Commander Simon Pountain, who’s in charge of the Met’s public order
operation today.

From the claustrophobic and cramped confines of the squat, square room we watch multiple CCTV
screens as events unfold during the Day Of Action march and rally taking place in central London.
 
This is the first time access has been given to the Gold Command Suite and to Gold Command meetings,
and it took eight months of [']negotiation['] to get this far.

Locked away in the basement of a brutal concrete block close to Lambeth Palace and within sight of
Westminster Bridge, the SOR is geared up to deal with Britain’s biggest public sector strike since
the Seventies.

If the SOR is the nerve centre for the police operation, then Gold Commander Pountain is the brain:
trained and tasked to deploy nearly 5,000 officers and [']to maintain the peace['].

The commander has a lot on his mind right now, with another screen showing several hundred
protesters attempting to close off one of the main arterial roads in central London by marching
across the Strand.

He watches as, in the shadow of Charing Cross Station, lines of yellow jacketed police begin to
bisect the protesters, with one police line feeding through another at right angles to try to hem in
the crowd.

Two fast-response police cars containing Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) – who act as the eyes and
ears of the commanders on the ground – race up to the scene of the confrontation to help coordinate
operations.

Within minutes the protesters are pushed into a side street, freeing up traffic on the Strand and
allowing the police to deploy reserves who can eventually contain or ‘kettle’ the crowd if it is
deemed necessary.

Two [']armed['] police units are on call and nearby – they can use baton rounds (rubber bullets) should
police feel they have no other option to restore [']order['] in the face of a [']sustained attack['].

These armed units deploy in armoured vehicles, and include specially trained firearms officers, TSG
minders to protect them and a snatch squad to run in and grab [']leaders['] or [']troublemakers['] who have been
‘shot’. It’s decided they are not required today.

One of Pountain’s staff officers then takes a call on his mobile: a senior official from the Cabinet
Office is demanding a briefing within the next ten minutes about the events unfolding in London.
Pountain takes counsel from another aide before sitting down to watch the ‘Heli Tele’ again. He
feels relieved.

...

There’s a quiet hum inside the Special Operations Room with around 150 staff spread across 28
‘pods’, each with multiple computer screens. The open-plan space has three giant multi-screens, made
up of 32 screens in total. CCTV cameras can be accessed from across London.

This was the centre of police operations during last summer’s riots, and it will be the Met’s
Olympics operation room this summer. You enter from the left-hand side of the rectangular room and
on your left are three suites, with the furthest for the communications team.

The first and second suites house the Silver and Gold Commands and both comprise an ante room
looking onto the SOR and a suite at the back for meetings.

Gold Commander Pountain sets the overall strategy; straight-talking Yorkshireman Peter Terry is the
Silver Command for the day and is responsible for police tactics, with minute-by-minute control of a
team of Bronze commanders beneath him.

Three Bronze commanders deal with the march route: each responsible for a sector, each of which is,
in turn, broken down into ‘sub-bronze’ quadrants, each with a ‘sub-bronze’ commander.

Perhaps the most important Bronze commander today is Bronze 1, Julia Pendry. The 46-year-old chief
superintendent commands 250 level 3 ordinary bobbies on the beat and another 200 level 2 riot-
trained officers.  

Gearing up in her New Scotland Yard office for a ‘recce’ along the march route, Pendry looks on as
her colleagues don the full gear of groin and body armour, shin pads, ‘hooves’ (feet protection) and
flame-proof overalls.

‘It is hugely important to have the right look and feel for the march,’ she says.
‘It is important that people can exercise their democratic rights but it is difficult to get the
balance right. The level 3 officers will wear yellow jackets and helmets and the public order
trained officers will have flat caps.’

This ‘soft’ policing extends to having level 3 officers in front of the barriers and keeping riot-
trained  officers behind the barriers for the duration of the march through central London. Only
when the TUC stewards, [']who have a well-established rapport with the police['], cannot [']manage['] a
situation will the police  be called in to deal with it and any action is governed  by [']strict police
protocols['].

‘Anything within my footprint or bubble immediately around the march is down to me,’ says Pendry, as
she walks down the Strand.

‘If anyone or any group deviates off the march it goes to a geographic bronze. Eagles 1 and 2 – the
helicopters – have public order commanders on board and if we see any [']spontaneous movement of people[']
they can move resources from other commands to deal with the [']problem['].’

...'

From an article by Adam Luck
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2108745/Law-public-disorder-Inside-secret-bunker-Mets-men-work-rioters-control.html

22

South Tyneside Stop the War / Who Were/Are 'All In It (Together)'?

« on: January 05, 2012, 12:04:00 PM »

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

'Werritty/Miliband: They Were All In It'

by  Craig Murray on Jan 5th

'David Miliband and William Hague are implicated in three entirely new Adam Werritty/Matthew Gould meetings admitted by the FCO in response to one of my FOI requests. Gould’s meetings with Werritty, in his capacity as Principal Private Secretary to first Miliband and then Hague, were entirely left out of Gus O’Donnell’s “investigation” into Werritty’s activities.
 
I have now received the following FCO response to my Freedom of Information request on Gould/Werritty:
 
"Thank you for your email of 24 November 2011 asking for “all communications in either direction ever made between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty, specifically including communications made outside government systems”. I am writing to confirm that we have now completed the search for the information which you requested.
 
I can confirm that the FCO does hold some information relevant to your request.
 
There are entries in diaries indicating that there were two meetings at which Mathew Gould and Mr Werritty were both present while he was serving as Principal Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary on 8 September 2009 and 16 June 2010.
 
Since Mr Gould was appointed as HM Ambassador to Israel on 11 September 2010 there were three further instances on 1 and 27 September 2010 in London and a dinner on 6 February 2011 in Tel Aviv. The meeting on 1 September and the dinner on 6 September are already matters of public record as they are included in the report by the Cabinet Secretary “Allegations against Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP” published on 18 October 2011. Mr Gould attended the Herzliya Conference in his official capacity. Mr Werritty was also a participant. This is already a matter of public record.
 
The FCO holds no information relating to written communication (either electronic or mail) between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty at any point."
 
So Gould attended one meeting with Werritty as David Miliband’s Principal Private Secretary, and one as William Hague’s Principal Private Secretary. Private Secretaries in the civil service do not hold meetings on their own account. It would be very peculiar indeed for a Private Secretary to meet an outside lobbyist on his own, or to formally meet on business anyone outside the civil service without his minister’s permission. Even then, I cannot stress too much how rare this would be; the FCO has batteries of civil servants covering all subjects and geographical areas; private secretaries do not normally meet outsiders except when accompanying their minister.
 
What was Miliband’s business with Werritty? Does it relate to the later meeting between Werritty, Gould, Fox and Mossad at the Tel Aviv meeting? Does David Miliband’s involvement with Werritty explain the ludicrous charges of anti-semitism levelled at Paul Flynn from within his own party when he tried to dig deeper into what Gould and Werritty were up to?
 
Those who can count will realise that the FCO letter refers to two instances where Gould met Werritty before he became Ambassador to Israel, and three after being appointed Ambassador, but actually lists four not three – 1 and 27 September 2010 and 6 February 2011, plus the Herzilya Conference from 4-6 February 2011 (this is not the same event as the Tel Aviv dinner as it took place in a quite different town).

Either the meeting on 1 September or 27 September is a new admission. The O’Donnell report refers to only one September meeting, the infamous “briefing meeting” for Gould in the MOD between Gould, Fox and Werritty. Just before Christmas, Caroline Lucas obtained a parliamentary answer that stated there was no MOD official present at that meeting and no record was taken. The FCO letter above is the first admission of a second September meeting.

The FCO list omits the “social occasion” in summer 2010 to which Fox invited both Gould and Werritty, despite the fact that this had already been revealed in a parliamentary answer to Jeremy Corbyn. Presumably it is omitted from this Freedom of Information request because there is no written record of it within the Foreign Office. That might also explain the extraordinary omission of the “We Believe in Israel” conference in London which Fox, Gould and Werritty all attended shortly after the Herzilya Conference in Israel. In this context, am I the only one to find the formula: “The FCO holds no information relating to written communication (either electronic or mail) between Matthew Gould and Adam Werritty at any point” somewhat unconvincing. Have they even asked Gould about communications outside the FCO system?
 
We now have these Gould/Werritty meetings:
 
1) 8 September 2009 as Miliband’s Principal Private Secretary (omitted from O’Donnell report)
 2) 16 June 2010 as Hague’s Principal Private Secretary (omitted from O’Donnell report)
 3) A “social occasion” in summer 2010 with Gould, Fox and Werritty (omitted from above and omitted from O’Donnell report)
 4) 1 September 2010 in London (only one September meeting in O’Donnell report)
 5) 27 September 2010 in London (only one September meeting in O’Donnell report)
 6) 4-6 February 2011 Herzilya Conference Israel (omitted from O’Donnell report)
 7) 6 February 2011 Tel Aviv dinner with Mossad and Israeli military
 8 15 May 2011 “We believe in Israel” conference London (omitted from above and omitted from O’Donnell report)
 
Only two of these eight were recorded by Gus O’Donnell in his pathetic “investigation” into the Fox Werritty affair.
 
It is simply impossible that Matthew Gould, a senior British diplomat, attended all of these meetings and events, yet no formal minute or note of any of them exists. Yet that is what the FCO appears to be claiming. In particular the meetings as Principal Private Secretary on 8 September 2009 and 16 June 2010 simply must have been minuted. The FCO admit they hold diary entries detailing participation, but so far have not responded to my request to release them.
 
I have no doubt that the near total blackout on serious media investigation into what Werritty was really up to, relates directly to the fact that he was meeting with Gould as Private Secretary to both Miliband and Hague, in this sense. There is a silent cross-party agreement among the political establishment to ally the UK strongly with the interests of Israel (and thus against the interests of the Palestinians). Werritty’s activities were therefore countenanced by both New Labour and Conservative leaderships, and the nebulous “Establishment”, including the mainstream media, have closed ranks around this.

My sources within the civil service remain adamant that the purpose of all this activity was diplomatic preparation for an attack on Iran. When those sources first contacted me, and told me to look at Gould Werritty, I genuinely had no idea that Gould and Werritty had any connection. Getting the information has been extremely difficult, but I have proven that the Gould/Werritty connection was indeed far more extensive than the Establishment were prepared to admit, and directly implicated Miliband and Hague with Werritty. It was deliberately underplayed by Gus O’Donnell’s report, in a blatant act of political lying by the then Cabinet Secretary.
 
I still do not have positive evidence that the purpose of this activity is an attack on Iran, but I trust my source and his or her tip-off that the place to dig was the Gould-Werritty relationship has proven to be entirely accurate. It ties in with information I have received from another source, this time a senior journalist whom again I trust, that Werritty met with Robert Gates on two occasions. I would be grateful if any of my US-based readers could try to track that down using FOI.'

23

South Tyneside Stop the War / Making Our Own History ... looking back(wards) ... and moving forwards ...

« on: January 01, 2012, 05:52:25 PM »

Making Our Own History ... looking back ... and moving forwards ...

+

Some footage, filmed by Alan Trotter, from last October's [2011] Anti-War Assembly in London:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItQGZizOA4A&feature=plcp&context=C30ec1c7UDOEgsToPDskJaNkNLKyCoU6L9nqx29_mG

+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rssOmPyVf70&feature=plcp&context=C388da08UDOEgsToPDskLhl2UjDA3KX1WsWiN2LMth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnsSX3V9YP8&feature=plcp&context=C36b380dUDOEgsToPDskL91GMXv-UiHWklfwWJrWG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l71edJUYLyg&feature=plcp&context=C382428dUDOEgsToPDskIv-xuYMn0kEtHyN1R88GZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Fx8pw0cLII&feature=plcp&context=C3e56d9cUDOEgsToPDskIbKudt9-jZnyKC90VRfyBe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qEO3EzOTS0&feature=plcp&context=C37af51cUDOEgsToPDskLRMqfPmuENevQCIqEwfsDU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1JRJhPfp0E&feature=plcp&context=C341ff28UDOEgsToPDskI-nAN-cpJqXTHYAOSQshVP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETufhlI4SAU&feature=plcp&context=C3e22695UDOEgsToPDskIqD94Dwi0mRgGF6nX2zR9i

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79pm5hWI-Cs&feature=plcp&context=C3b319a2UDOEgsToPDskJQmvx0obN03iP0pZ2pfHyp


+

http://www.northeaststopwar.org.uk/southtyne/html/2011.html

+

Some archive footage from London, March 2004 (7 years ago!), filmed by Rachel Nettleship, I think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvSff08zLOo&context=C37fc971ADOEgsToPDskICDRTYAeA8fYQKgVOcM1tJ

+

http://www.northeaststopwar.org.uk/southtyne/html/2004.html

+
 

24

South Tyneside Stop the War / lighting candles, not cursing darkness - Stop The War 10 years on ...

« on: October 02, 2011, 05:13:08 PM »

Stopping 21st Century Catastrophe - lighting candles, not cursing darkness,

by Alan Trotter

It is a sad fact that the hopes and optimism we all had for a peaceful future at the turn of the century were soon ravaged by our elected gangsters.

As we look back to the beginnings of the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war and its consequences what do we see?

We see a terrible catalogue of:
 
+ illegal invasions
+ destruction
+ lies
+ death
+ use of cluster bombs and other terrible weapons
+ slaughter
+ abuse of human rights at Guantanamo Bay and other torture camps
+ more lies
+ rape
+ murder
+ carnage
+ more torture
+ dodgy dossiers, non-existent ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and other dishonest reasons for war
+ billions of pounds wasted on war during times of financial crisis
+ even more lies ...

And, while all this early 21st century catastrophe has been going on most of the professional media has been backing up the government in justifying illegal invasions and occupations and other outrages.

To those in positions of power and influence, the human cost does not seem to have any importance any more.

If a British soldier is killed it ranks fourth or fifth item on National news and is reported in seconds, it doesn’t seem to matter that this soldier has family and friends who will be grieving.

The individual outrages should not be forgotten.

Who could forget the pitiful enduring image of ‘little Ali’ Abbass who’s horrific injuries shocked the civilized world?

And there was the outrageous killing of John Charles de Menezes, an innocent man on his way to work in London. 

Perhaps the most shameful images were of civilians being abused by soldiers - Lynndie England humiliating a naked detainee and using dogs as part of their torture technique.

When George Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan who would know the dreadful consequences and where his 'war on terror' - AKA 'overseas contingency operation' - will end?

Throughout these fearful years The Stop the war Coalition has worked relentlessly, with their partners in the wider peace movement, to keep the public informed of the truth of what is happening in their name.

What does the future hold for us all?

In these days of unrelenting cutbacks we cannot afford this madness of wholesale slaughter.   

It is difficult to remain constantly optimistic, but there is a saying that 'it’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness'.

We must act and think positive:
+ get all our troops back home
+ stop the deliberate targeting of the Muslim community
+ show tolerance and create cultural, social and economic welfare that are in the interests of all
+ create a truly anti-war government and society.

Alan Trotter   
     

25

South Tyneside Stop the War / [Re]Historical [Re]Views and/or [Re]Re-W\writing His[S]tory ... etc ...

« on: June 09, 2011, 12:44:54 PM »

... I wrote the following pieces relating to the death of Dr David Kelly some years ago ... having reviewed the evidence ... I see no reason(s) to change my conclusions ....

A Citizen’s Considered Report on
the Hutton Report of 28.01.04
By Philip Talbot
Summary of Conclusions.
Here I set out the conclusions I have reached so far on the Hutton
Report into the question of how Dr David Kelly came to his death and
on a group of five other issues.
On the issue of Dr Kelly’s death:
I am not satisfied that the Hutton Inquiry which produced the Report
of that name was a fit body to establish the cause of death. The
inquiry was set up mostly according to the instructions of a Prime
Minister who was himself involved in the circumstances leading to Dr
Kelly’s death, and had a narrow remit that seemed deliberately intended
to cover up details of the man’s death as well as of wider
matters. The circumstances leading to the death should have been
fully considered by a full inquest at a coroner’s court, with the option
of a jury of independent randomly selected citizens to reach a judgement
about the evidence - as is proper for a death in suspicious
circumstances on the British mainland.
On other issues:
1. On the issues relating to the government’s dossier of 24 September
2002 entitled IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,
my conclusions are as follows:
a. The dossier was obviously misleadingly titled, possibly deliber
ately, since evidence now clearly shows that Iraq had no substantial
usable stocks of ‘weapons of mass destruction’.
b. The dossier contained much dubiously sourced insubstantial gossip
in the guise of substantial ‘intelligence evidence’. The public should
be better informed that most ‘intelligence’ in fact takes this form.
c. The specific ’45 minute claim’ as to how quickly the [factually nonexistent]
Iraqi ‘weapons of mass destruction’ could be launched had
no credible identifiable source. It related to something so remote and
insubstantial - and in fact unreal - that even the Prime Minister now
acknowledges that he did not know then, or even six months later
when he ordered the illegal attack on Iraq in March 2003, that the
claim made in the dossier, and later repeated several times from by
his own mouth, related only to notional ‘battlefield’ weapons. In other
words, the claim in the dossier was false, and the Prime Minister -
whether actually lying deliberately, or ‘merely’ speaking in a state of
ignorance [disgraceful in the circumstances, given the seriousness
of the issue] - did not know what he was talking about.
d. The dossier that purported to be a serious ‘intelligence assessment’
was primarily a piece of political propaganda produced by a
government wishing to scare the public into supporting illegal war
plans.
e. As Mr Hutton himself suggests the dossier is more often ‘suggestive’
rather than factual - i.e. it points minds in certain directions, and
is, in slang terms, ‘sexed up’ in a ‘nod and wink’ sort of way.
f. When several newspapers further overstated the already overstated
claims made in the dossier as to the weapons potential of the then
Iraqi regime, the government did nothing to correct those
overstatements - and hence deliberately connived to allow misinformation
to remain in the public domain. This indicates fundamental
bad faith in the government’s conduct of its business. It is reasonable
to conclude from this that the government generally and the Prime
Minister in particular were more interested in the fiction of propaganda
than the truth of fact in the run up to the Iraq war.
2. On the issues relating to Dr Kelly’s meeting with the BBC reporter
Andrew Gilligan in the Charing Cross Hotel, London, on 22 May 2003,
my conclusion is that Mr Gilligan failed to keep an accurate record of
the conversation, and so could not properly substantiate claims he
made in later reports based on that meeting.
3. On the issues relating to the BBC arising from Mr Gilligan’s broadcast
on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme of 29 Mary 2003, in
which he claimed the 24 September 2002 dossier was ‘sexed up’ and
that the government probably knew then the 45-minute claim was
dubious, my conclusions are as follows:
a. The substance of the report was probably true, the phrasing careless.
b. The lack of editorial checking of Mr Gilligan’s report within the BBC
prior to broadcast is astonishing.
c. Had the report been through proper editorial scrutiny before broadcast,
then it could have been more carefully phrased, and would then
better have been able to withstand the predictable attack on it by
unscrupulous government spin doctors such as Alistair Campbell.
4A. On the issue of whether the government behaved in a way that
was dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous in revealing Dr Kelly’s
name to the media, my conclusion is that it did. The government did
not in fact have to have a conscious ‘naming strategy’ - of the sort
considered and dismissed by Mr Hutton. Its members knew well
enough that they could rely on Westminster ‘village chatter’ to reveal
Dr Kelly’s name. Everyone involved, from the Prime Minister downwards,
knew that this was the way the system worked. So it is
‘dishonourable’, ‘underhand’, ‘duplicitous’ of the Prime Minister and
others to continue to claim they were wholly innocent over this matter.
4B. On the issue of whether the government failed to take proper
steps to help and protect Dr Kelly in the difficult position he found
himself in, my conclusion is that quite obviously they did not. In what
Mr Hutton might describe as ‘slang terms’ members of the government
flung Dr Kelly to the wolves while fleeing into a forest of coverups
to protect themselves.
5. On the issue of the factors that might have led Dr Kelly to take his
own life, I note that Mr Hutton based his own conclusion on a single
source: a psychiatrist who, it appears, had never actually met Dr
Kelly. My own conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence in the
public domain to reach a conclusion about Dr Kelly’s relative state of
mental health, and that the full circumstances leading up to his death
- and wider matters - have yet to be properly investigated.
Philip Talbot

26

South Tyneside Stop the War / Latest List of Shame _ MPs who support bombing and firing missiles at Libya

« on: March 22, 2011, 03:20:48 PM »

The House of Commons voted overwhelmingly on
21 March 2011 in favour of military action in
Libya by 557 to 13 – a majority of 544.

Below is the full list of the MPs from the
Conservative, Lib-Dem, Labour and other
parties who voted with the British Coalition
Government to support the American-led missile
and bomb attack on Libya.

They include South Shields MP David Miliband.

The other South Tyneside MP Stephen Hepburn
of Jarrow and Hebburn seems not to have voted
at all.

Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Amess, Mr David
Anderson, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Austin, Ian
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bagshawe, Ms Louise
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Baker, Norman
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barclay, Stephen
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Barwell, Gavin
Bayley, Hugh
Bebb, Guto
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berger, Luciana
Berry, Jake
Betts, Mr Clive
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blackwood, Nicola
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Mr Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Brown, rh Mr Gordon
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Buck, Ms Karen
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burden, Richard
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burnham, rh Andy
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Alistair
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Cable, rh Vince
Cairns, Alun
Cameron, rh Mr David
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Cash, Mr William
Caton, Martin
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Cooper, rh Yvette
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
Davey, Mr Edward
David, Mr Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Geraint
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick

De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Dorries, Nadine
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Dromey, Jack
Duddridge, James
Dugher, Michael
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Eagle, Maria
Edwards, Jonathan
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Eustice, George
Evans, Chris
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, Michael
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, rh Mr Frank
Field, Mr Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fovargue, Yvonne
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francis, Dr Hywel
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Mr Roger
Gapes, Mike
Garnier, Mr Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goggins, rh Paul
Goldsmith, Zac
Goodman, Helen
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Gove, rh Michael
Graham, Richard
Grant, Mrs Helen
Gray, Mr James
Grayling, rh Chris
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Damian
Green, Kate
Greening, Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gwynne, Andrew
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harman, rh Ms Harriet
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Havard, Mr Dai
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Mr Oliver
Healey, rh John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Henderson, Gordon
Hendrick, Mark
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Holloway, Mr Adam
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huhne, rh Chris
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana

Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Mr Marcus
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Kawczynski, Daniel
Keeley, Barbara
Kelly, Chris
Kendall, Liz
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Khan, rh Sadiq
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Lavery, Ian
Laws, rh Mr David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lloyd, Stephen
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Ian
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
Main, Mrs Anne
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
Maude, rh Mr Francis
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKinnell, Catherine
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McVey, Esther
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mearns, Ian
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh David
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Nicky
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, Grahame M. (Easington)
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Osborne, rh Mr George
Osborne, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard
Owen, Albert
Paice, rh Mr James
Paisley, Ian
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Pearce, Teresa
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Perkins, Toby
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Phillipson, Bridget
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Pound, Stephen
Prisk, Mr Mark

Pritchard, Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reeves, Rachel
Reid, Mr Alan
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Rudd, Amber
Ruddock, rh Joan
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Sarwar, Anas
Scott, Mr Lee
Seabeck, Alison
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spellar, rh Mr John
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Swales, Ian
Swayne, Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Tapsell, Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thurso, John
Timms, rh Stephen
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Trickett, Jon
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walley, Joan
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Weir, Mr Mike
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Chris
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Phil
Wilson, Mr Rob
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Bill Wiggin and
Mark Hunter

27

South Tyneside Stop the War / CND e-lobbying

« on: February 07, 2011, 03:03:17 PM »

http://cnd.iparl.com/lobby/48

Dear Mr D. Miliband,  

I write to ask you to consider signing

EDM 909 Trident Replacement which has

been tabled with cross-party support.

Since you are no longer a government

minister, nor even a member of the Shadow

Cabinet, I take it (as read) that you now

have no ready-made throwaway excuses for

refusing to explain your long-term

failure to support basic Labour movement

Principles - including Early Day Motions

restating such principles.

Despite the Strategic Defence and

Security Review delaying the timing of

the Trident Main Gate decision, the

review did not question whether nuclear

weapons should remain a part of our

nation's defence.

However the National Security Strategy,

launched only the day before, regarded

nuclear threats from other states as

being 'low likelihood'.

MPs must be allowed full scrutiny of the

Trident replacement programme. Analysis

associated with the SDSR including the

Value for Money Review should be made

available and time should be provided for

MPs to fully debate the government’s

proposals ahead of the Main Gate

decision.

Please add your voice to those seeking a

full and open review of our nuclear

weapons policy and add your name to EDM

909 Trident Replacement - or at least have the common decency to

make some attempt to explain your

failures to do so.

Yours sincerely      
      
Mr P. Talbot
NE34 7LN
      

28

South Tyneside Stop the War / Monarchism And Militarism

« on: November 16, 2010, 02:14:03 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

29

South Tyneside Stop the War / ReStating The Nuremberg First Principles Of International Law

« on: September 28, 2010, 05:01:05 PM »

Cuttin' Thru Flim-Flam Flannellings SpinningS Word-plays - And Other Deliberate Over-Complications of the Legality/Illegality of the Iraq Attack

Or Simply Clarifying International Law

Funamental principles of international law, set down after World War Two, indicate quite clearly and simply that the attack on Iraq in 2003 WAS ILLEGAL.

However, as reported by the mainstream mediums, the flim-flam in (and surrounding) the various 'official enquiries/inquries' into the  (in fact clear-cut 'illegal') attack on Iraq in 2003 has suggested that 'International Law' is complex and dense and difficult to understand - even for 'experts' and - by implication - pretty much beyond the understanding of most citizens of the world.

In fact, perhaps rather surprizing so, the fact is that, as law goes, in its basic statements, modern International Law is quite clear-cut - because it was well-founded to be just that in the desperate days after the worst war in human history, generally known as 'The Second World War' or 'World War Two'.

Until 1946 national leaders responsible for waging wars causing the deaths of millions escaped the legal judgement of their crimes

The Nuremburg judgements of that year put the concepts of war crimes into a legal framework for the first time.

They also  made it clear that it was not only Heads of State that  could  be  indicted, but all  those individuals responsible for planning, supporting, condoning, funding or taking part in aggressive war.

This is reflected in English law, in Article 25 of Chapter VI of  the Manual of Military Law which states:
"The privileges of Parliament do not apply to criminal matters and the members of either House are subject to the same rules regarding criminal responsibility as any other citizen with the exception that they cannot be made criminally responsible  in the ordinary courts for anything said by them while in  their places in Parliament when it is sitting.”

In other words, in short, while you can say what you like in Parliament about any issue and always remain within the law, you cannot otherwise act illegally - and so people who take the physical actions of going through voting lobbies to vote for an illegal war stand accused of a war crime.

The Nuremburg Principles became international statute criminal law when they were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950.

As these seven principles are the world’s primary international laws against war, it is the duty of every citizen of the world to be aware of these laws and to uphold and abide by them.

The Seven Nuremburg Principles

1. Any  person  who commits  an act which constitutes  a crime  under international law  is responsible  therefor and  liable to punishment.

2. The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international  law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

3. The fact  that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State  or responsible Government official does not  relieve him  from  responsibility under international law.

4. The fact that a person acted pursuant  to order of his Government  or of a superior does not  relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

5. Any person charged with a crime under international law has  the right to a fair  trial on the facts and law.

6.  The  crimes  hereinafter  set  out  are  punishable  as crimes  under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation,  initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation  in a common plan  or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes: Violations of  the  laws or customs of war which  include, but are not  limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or  in occupied  territory, murder or ill treatment of  prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of  public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or  religious grounds, when such  acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection
with any crime against peace or any war crime.

7. Complicity in  the commission of a  crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth  in Principle 6 is a crime under international  law.

30

South Tyneside Stop the War / Welcome Back To The Political Wilderness David Miliband ...

« on: September 28, 2010, 01:08:00 PM »

It is a fair under-statement to say that most people in South Shields are, like me, 'not disappointed' that their town's MP David Miliband has failed to win the Labour Party Leadership contest.

And it is also fair to say that of those most South Shields people who were 'not disappointed', many, perhaps even most, of them were 'almost completely indifferent'.