Monday, September 3, 2012

Drone operations over Somalia pose danger to air traffic -UN

Link copied to clipboard

Published: 26 July, 2012, 07:04

US "Predator" drone (AFP Photi / Files / Joel Saget)

TAGS:Arms, Military, Africa, Politics, Terrorism, USA

While the US keeps a low profile on its drone operations around the world, the UN has released a report saying that unmanned aircraft over Somalia pose a danger to air traffic and potentially violate an arms embargo against the country.
The UN monitoring group on Somalia cites several narrowly averted disasters including drones crashing into a refugee camp, flying dangerously close to a fuel depot and almost colliding with a large passenger plane over the Somali capital, Mogadishu, the Washington Post reports.
It did not point finger at the United States but noted that at least two of the unmanned aircraft appeared to be made in the US.
According to the report, 64 unauthorized flights by drones, fighter jets or attack helicopters have been documented in Somalia since June 2011. It added that unmanned aircraft “routinely operate in Somali airspace” with at least 10 documented flights involving drones.
The US operates unmanned aircraft in the area from its bases in Djibouti, the Seychelles and Ethiopia. Last month the White House for the first time acknowledged that it “is engaged in a robust range of operations to target Al-Qaeda and associated forces, including in Somalia.”
In 2011, a senior US military official confirmed that an unmanned aircraft had fired on two leaders of Al-Shabaab, a Somali-based militant group linked to Al-Qaeda.
This came despite the 1992 UN Security Council arms embargo on Somalia, causing UN officials to say that they consider the use of drones there “a potential violation of the arms embargo” as the aircraft are “exclusively military” in nature.
However the US military plan to deploy more drones in the region with Pentagon notifying Congress earlier this month that it will give eight additional hand-launched Ravens to Kenyan forces deployed in Somalia as part of the African Union mission, the Washington Post reports.

US adopts Al-Qaeda's tactic of secondary attacks for drone strikes

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 21 August, 2012, 00:47
Edited: 21 August, 2012, 08:29

AFP Photo / US Air Force

TAGS:Arms, Conflict, Military, Terrorism, USA, Planes, Pakistan, CIA, Air Force

The US has been carrying out follow-up attacks after its drone strikes in Pakistan, specifically targeting people coming to the aid of the wounded. The tactic has been widely condemned, including by the UN – which considers it a war crime.
A Guardian report by Glenn Greenwald shows the US government's hypocrisy regarding such tactics. While the FBI has warned that “terrorists may use secondary explosive devices to kill and injure emergency personnel responding to an initial attack,” the US regularly applies the same methods.
A 2004 FBI alert warned Americans against secondary attacks meant to “incite more terror,” advising that such incidents can usually be expected within an hour of the initial attack.
“These devices may be hidden in everyday objects such as vehicles, briefcases, flower pots or garbage cans, or can be sequential suicide attacks in the same locations, and are generally detonated less than one hour after the initial attack, targeting first responders as well as the general population,” the alert read.
The second plane crashing into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 is considered a secondary attack.
While warning of such tactics, the US government has tried to justify its own employment of them. A 2010 video published by WikiLeaks shows two journalists being killed by an American helicopter targeting insurgents in Baghdad. After rescuers drove to the scene to bring the wounded to hospital, the helicopter once again opened fire – killing children in the process and putting bullets into those who were already visibly dead.
Initially, the US military claimed that all those killed were insurgents, saying it was the Iraqi militants' “fault for bringing kids in to a battle,” The Guardian reported in 2010.
The Geneva Convention concluded that those who “collect and care for the wounded” must be themselves protected from harm. UN special rapporteur Christof Heyns said attacks on rescuers are considered a war crime.
But attacking rescuers has now become the norm for American forces. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that the CIA has killed dozens of rescuers and funeral attendees in Pakistan.
The report states that 50 or more civilians had been killed as a result of helping victims – including pulling bodies out of rubble. Between May 2009 and June 2011, news media reported at least 15 attacks on rescuers.
This past weekend, Reuters reported that northern Pakistan saw “a flurry of drone attacks” at a time when most of the country was celebrating the end of Ramadan. At least one of the strikes was a follow-up attack, the International Herald Tribune reports.
Al-Qaeda allegedly ambushed funerals of their attack victims in Yemen over the past few months, sparking outrage by Americans who are condemning the acts. At the same time, the US continues to employ secondary attacks in its own affairs abroad, in a continuous war against terrorism

'US drone strikes help Saudi Arabia keep Yemen divided'

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 04 September, 2012, 01:57

Predator drone (AFP Photo / Getty Images)

TAGS:Arms, Military, Middle East, Human rights, USA

Civilian-killing drone strikes are turning local populations against the US, Ryan Dawson, an American journalist, told RT. He added that the US' campaign in Yemen is part of a bigger scheme to help Saudi Arabia keep its tiny neighbor divided.
RT: Why is the American public not being made more aware of the civilian casualties being caused by these unmanned aircraft attacks?
Ryan Dawson: Well first of all, the claim that they are surgical is not at all accurate. They killed 14 people, I read in the recent report, and they killed eight people last week; again the US claimed that they were all al-Qaeda, but it turned out that one of them was Salem bin Ali Jaber, who was a cleric who was actually vocal against al-Qaeda, and we’ve seen this in Pakistan as well. They rarely even give names of the victims at all, so that part is almost discredited completely, that they are surgical strikes. I think there was a bump in the news coverage when a 16-year-old American was killed in an air strike, but there hasn’t been much coverage. It really depends though. If you’re getting all your news from the state owned media ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, then you’re not going to hear much about it but there is also a generation of Americans who are getting the news online and it’s pretty easy to find.
RT: Now the drone attacks in Pakistan, which was a staunch American ally, have alienated the civilian population from the cause. Will the same thing happen in Yemen, do you think?
RD: Unfortunately I think so, one of the more nasty things that has been happening in Pakistan is this policy of the follow-up attack, in which the drone will take out what we assume are militants but which are often civilians, and then do a second strike killing the people who have gone to aid those murdered in the original strike. That has been very disastrous in Pakistan, and last July in Yemen we had a similar process occurring – and that can do nothing but alienate the locals.
RT: While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq get all the attention, the air strike campaign in Yemen is rarely mentioned by Washington. What is the US trying to hide, if anything?
RD: Well actually even the war in Afghanistan didn’t get that much attention until recently; the US is hiding a lot. Part of this whole debacle is assisting Saudi Arabia – they are partners as well, and the fiasco in Syria aided the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), and NATO are hiring mercenaries there as well. This is in the Saudi’s interest; the conflict in Yemen has been going on since the Sixties. This isn’t just part of the random Arab Spring.
RT: Is the drone campaign reaching its military goals, given that whole areas of Yemen are still under militant control?
RD: That would depend on what you assume the military goals even are. Sometimes the military-industrial complex spends money just for the sake of it. It’s not always to win, sometimes it’s a process of killing what you create – and I don’t really agree that this is a conflict between Islamic militants versus the government. Yemen was just unified in 1990; they had a civil war in 1994. South Yemen has had its accession movement since 2007, and it wasn’t about religion or ethnicities, it was about resources. The majority of the oil is on that side of the country, although the majority of the profits have been allocated to the north. These are monetary issues. It has become more of a religious issue because of the press and because the US policy of killing civilians drives people in that direction. They don’t even have to see eye to eye ideologically, they just have a common enemy.
RT: The power vacuum created by the Yemeni version of the Arab Spring has enabled, some say, Islamist militants to move in, but has it also given America more room to operate there with impunity?
RD: Well I think they are doing that already, it’s the drone strikes that you asked, before Afghanistan and Iraq got more attention because they had more American boots actually on the ground. This is a playground for drone warfare, and it is assisting Saudi Arabia in its aim of keeping Yemen divided as they have been doing since the 1960’s – this isn’t Yemen’s first Civil War.

US foreign debt hits record high - $5.3 trillion

US foreign debt hits record high

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 18 August, 2012, 01:25

US foreign debt hits record high

TAGS:USA, Economy

The United States might officially be the worst neighbor on Earth: the US now owes its allies $5.2923 trillion, the most money the country has ever been indebted to its foreign friends in the history of the nation.
Statistics released this week by the US Treasury indicate that, as of June 2012, the United States has borrowed bucks from most of the world’s major countries and has accumulated a debt that is on the verge of doubling in only a few short years.
As of June, the amount of US Treasury securities held by foreign holders is close to $5.3 trillion, which includes $1164.3 billion from China and $1119.3 billion from Japan at the top of the list. The list of nation that have helped out the US doesn’t end there though: Brazil, Taiwan, Russia and the UK are also towards the top of the roster, which goes on to cite a substantial sum of money borrowed from the countries of India, Italy, South Africa and Peru, among others.
The latest figure of funds owed by America — $5.3 trillion — is substantially larger than what the country owed to the others when US President Barack Obama took office in January 2012. Only three and a half years after his inauguration, the United States’ debt to foreign holders has increased by $2.2 trillion, or 72.3 percent.
Should that rate continue, the United States could expect to owe its allies over $9 trillion in just another few years. According to Associated Press reporter Martin Crutsinger, though, that’s a good thing. In the AP’s write-up, he says that the demand for US debt has risen in recent times because of fears that financing European Union nations on the brink of collapse could be a bit more risky.
“US government debt is considered one of the world’s safest investments,” the AP reports

US debt eclipses economy, reaching $16 trillion this week

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 04 September, 2012, 03:55

US debt eclipses economy, reaching $16 trillion this week

TAGS:Crisis, USA, Economy

The US government is about to announce its $16 trillion debt, a landmark number that has more than tripled during the last two presidencies. At 104 per cent of the nation’s gross domestic product, the debt is now larger than the US economy itself.
The federal government closed Thursday with $15.99 trillion in debt – but some budget analysts think it most likely reached $16 trillion by the end of the day, the Washington Examiner reported. The news comes as Republicans and Democrats formally nominate their presidential candidates, and the official announcement will likely come on the first day of the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday.
“This is a grim landmark for the United States. Yet the president seems strangely unconcerned,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions of the Senate Budget Committee.
Each day, the debt grows by roughly $3.5 billion, or about $2 million per minute.
Twelve years ago, before the election of George Bush, the debt stood at $5.6 trillion. In the months before President Obama took office, the debt was $9.6 trillion. During the last presidency, it has increased by $6.4 trillion – two-thirds of its 2008 amount. The current president has overseen the largest debt explosion in US history.
This year marks the fourth consecutive year with a $1 trillion budget shortfall.
A top adviser to President Obama said the commander in chief had a “plausible plan” to stabilize the debt – without reducing it.
“You can’t balance the budget in the short term because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy,” adviser David Axelrod told Fox News on Sunday.
About 30 per cent of the total public debt is intragovernmental holdings, including money borrowed from Social Security’s trust fund.
“The national debt is certainly a ticking time bomb. There’s no question that if we don’t do something about it, it’s going off,” said Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, an NGO promoting a balanced budget. “We’re spending about $200 billion on interest now. That’s much more than we’re spending on operations in Afghanistan, more than we’re spending on Medicaid.”
As the US debt makes history, the first group of baby boomers is now retiring and relying on government entitlements to get by.
While presidential candidate Mitt Romney, gave his speech at the RNC last week, a national debt clock ticked behind him to fill the convention's attendees with fear of a looming financial catastrophe.
The DNC is unlikely to feature a similar exhibit – but the federal government will likely announce its $16 trillion debt during the heat of the convention in North Carolina

Top US military commander: 'I don't want to be complicit' if Israel attacks Iran

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 31 August, 2012, 20:07

US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey (AFP Photo / Karen Bleier)

TRENDS:Israel vs Iran Iran tension

TAGS:Arms, Conflict, Military, Iran, USA, Israel

The highest ranking officer in the United States military has announced that he is against American participation in any Israeli-led attack on Iran, even as pressure to destroy the Islamic Republic’s rumored nuclear program remain unrelieved.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in London on Thursday that an Israeli attack would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” adding that he was against US cooperation in a unilateral assault.
“I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it,” Dempsey told reporters.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been adamant that the nation’s nuclear facilities exist solely for peaceful purposes and that the country is not in the market for procuring nuclear warheads, a sentiment echoed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who earlier this week told heads of state, "Our motto is nuclear energy for all and nuclear weapons for none."
So far, no foreign nations have been able to independently confirm or deny that claim. On Thursday, however, the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency wrote that Iran has been uncooperative with attempts to investigate their facilities and suggested that they could be procuring nukes.
Israel, a close ally of the United States, has also claimed that Iran’s intentions are motivated by manufacturing of warheads. In May of this year, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated, “Our position has not changed. The world must stop Iran from becoming nuclear. All options remain on the table."
From an executive standpoint, President Obama has also remained willing to strike if necessary, but has not pushed for pressure on Iran aside from the sanctions currently imposed by the United States.
"I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But (both) governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say,” President Obama said earlier this year to The Atlantic.
On Thursday, Gen. Dempsey commented that a strike against Iran over fears of their nuclear program, if conducted, could be without merit and might even erode the pro-Israeli alliance currently in place.
"International coalition" applying pressure on Iran "could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely,” Dempsey said, adding that “Intelligence did not reveal intentions” to procure nukes.
Gen. Dempsey was in the UK to attend the Paralympic Games, where he is serving as the head of the U.S. delegation

US acquits CIA of killing and torturing of prisoners

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 31 August, 2012, 17:01

The lobby of the CIA Headquarters Building in McLean, Virginia (Reuters / Larry Downing)

TAGS:Scandal, Human rights, Terrorism, Law, USA, CIA, Court

The US Justice Department ended a four-year probe into the CIA’s controversial, and at times brutal, treatment of detainees, closing two final homicide investigations without filing charges. The decision sparked outrage among human rights supporters.
US Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Thursday that no charges will be filed in the cases of two terror suspects who died in CIA custody – one in Iraq in 2003 and another in Afghanistan in 2002. "The admissible evidence would not be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt," Holder said.
Gul Rahman died in 2002 at a secret prison in Afghanistan known as the ‘Salt Pit’ after being bound to a wall in near-freezing temperatures. Manadel al-Jamadi, also a suspected militant, died in 2003 in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib, where his corpse was photographed, wrapped in plastic and packed in ice.
The two cases were the final verdicts in a widespread criminal probe by federal prosecutor John Durham into interrogation techniques used during the presidency of George W. Bush. Durham determined that a number of the detainees were never in CIA custody, and all the cases have now been closed without charges.
Durham examined the treatment of 101 detainees who were taken into custody by the US in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. The probe, which lasted more than four years, began in 2008 in the wake of an investigation into the CIA's destruction of videotapes of interrogations of terror suspects. The case was later expanded to include the deaths of the two prisoners.
Thursday’s decision sparked outrage among human rights groups.
“It is hugely disappointing that with ample evidence of torture, and documented cases of some people actually being tortured to death, that the Justice Department has not been able to mount a successful prosecution and hold people responsible for these crimes,” Human Rights First President Elisa Massimino told The New York Times. “The American people need to know what was done in their name.”
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, slammed the decision as "nothing short of a scandal," adding that, “The Justice Department has declined to bring charges against the officials who authorized torture, the lawyers who sought to legitimate it, and the interrogators who used it. It has successfully shut down every legal suit meant to hold officials civilly liable.”
Jaffer claimed that today’s ruling “sends the dangerous signal to government officials that there will be no consequences for their use of torture and other cruelty.”
CIA Director David Petraeus thanked his team for cooperating with the investigation, Reuters reported. “As intelligence officers, our inclination, of course, is to look ahead to the challenges of the future rather than backwards at those of the past,” he said.
Former CIA Director Michael Hayden, under whose watch the alleged torture took place, said he was “heartened” that the investigation into the CIA’s conduct and practices had ended. “I am sorry that CIA officers had to go through yet another review of their activities,” he said.

Sweden, while publicly protesting, aided US invasion of Iraq - report

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 04 September, 2012, 07:51

Iraqis check the damage of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) headquarters in Baghdad 28 October 2003, which was attacked (AFP Photo / Karim Sahib)

TAGS:Politics, Europe, Iraq, USA, War

A Swedish intelligence agency gave crucial information to the US about targets for a bombing raid in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a Swedish newspaper reports, citing previously classified documents from the US military's Central Command.
The information regarded Swedish-built bunkers in Baghdad that were officially designated as civilian shelters, but that the Pentagon suspected of being used by the Iraqi military or officials from the government of Saddam Hussein.
Documents obtained by Expressen, the Swedish newspaper that broke the story, show that "intelligence exchanged with Sweden and the US" gave American military planners information on what to hit in an aerial assault to be carried out in March 2003.
Expressen had earlier reported of a clandestine January-February 2003 meeting between high-ranking American military experts and MUST, Sweden's military intelligence agency. As a result of that report, an investigation was launched by a Swedish prosecutor into whether a MUST employee had leaked classified information to the US.
But the inquiry was cut short after it was determined that espionage had not taken place.
And as American experts were meeting with Swedish intelligence, Sweden's leaders were protesting any invasion of Iraq that proceeded without the United Nations' approval. At the time of the invasion, in late March 2003, then-Prime Minister Goran Persson called the unilateral invasion "unfortunate."
"Unlike the United States, Sweden views a military attack on Iraq without the support of the UN Security Council as a breach of human rights," he said the day after the opening assault on Iraq by US-led forces.
Now, the discovery that Swedish intelligence gave the US information instrumental to that attack has brought former Left Party head Lars Ohly to call for a further investigation into whether MUST was authorized to aid the US in such a way – and if so, by whom.
"If a Swedish agency acted without the government's knowledge or permission, that's serious because that means the government doesn't have control over its public agencies," Ohly told Expressen.
Persson said he "has no recollection" of whether he was informed of Swedish intelligence's collaboration with the US in the run-up to the war.

RT interviews Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine

'Judaization' of Jerusalem targets Islamic relics – Muslim cleric

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 04 September, 2012, 08:00

Al-Aqsa Mosque.(AFP Photo / Ahmad Gharabli)

(88.8Mb)embed video

TAGS:Conflict, Religion, Scandal, Protest, Politics, Human rights, Psychology, Corruption, Paula Slier, Israel, Security

Israel has a secret agenda of destroying the Arab-Islamic identity of Jerusalem, and forcing the Muslim population out of the city and their land, Dr. Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine told RT.
Sabri accused Israeli authorities of the deliberate ‘Jewishization’ of Jerusalem, and of attempting to gradually take control of the historic Al-Aqsa Mosque.
RT: Israel allows Muslims to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, but on the other hand it forbids men under the age of 40 from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan. How do you explain this contradiction?
Dr. Sheikh Ikrima Sabri: This contradiction is due to the fact that they let our brothers who live in the areas occupied in 1948 carry out the Hajj, since it’s their legal right. There are also some political benefits to be gained from demonstrating that there is freedom of religion. As for the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the rules are the strictest there, since it’s on their territory. If it were situated somewhere else, no such measures would be taken. Now, their focus is on Al-Aqsa. The occupation authorities aren’t criticized only for that, though; most of their actions deserve criticism.
RT: You’ve said that Jewish authorities are trying to desensitize Muslim sensitivities to Al-Aqsa. Why do you say this?
IS: The Israeli occupiers are trying to make it seem like the Al-Aqsa Mosque is not really that important. They say that Muslims have the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, so they don’t need Jerusalem or Al-Aqsa. They also want to weaken the link between Muslims and Palestine, since Al-Aqsa connects 1.5 billion Muslims with Jerusalem and Palestine.
This link is made of belief and faith. They think that if they weaken that link, Muslims are going to lose interest in Al-Aqsa. In reality, though, the Muslims that don’t live in Palestine feel closer to Al-Aqsa because they know it’s in danger, as are their beliefs. And so, whatever the occupiers do to diminish Al-Aqsa’s significance is bound to fail.
RT: You have also said that if the Israeli government and fanatical Jewish groups sense a weak Muslim reaction, they’d see it as a green light to move forward. What in fact should Muslims do?
IS: Sadly, Muslim countries are now more concerned with their domestic issues, neglecting the issues of Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem and allowing the Israeli occupiers to carry out their hostile plans. And they have quite a few of those, including the ‘Judaization’ of Jerusalem and taking control of Al-Aqsa. They are making the most of the numerous domestic problems that Arab and Muslim countries are busy addressing right now so that they can carry out their plans without any resistance.
RT: Why do you believe that you’re the Muslim world’s first line of defense against Israeli and Jewish ambitions in Jerusalem?
IS: The thing is, Jerusalem is isolated from other Palestinian territories. Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not allowed to enter the city. The only people who can get into it are Palestinians that live in the areas occupied in 1948. They can do that because they live there.
So it’s only the people who live in Jerusalem and the areas that I mentioned who can come to Al-Aqsa. These are the people who protect it, who coordinate action to preserve it. If these people stop going to Al-Aqsa, there will be no one left to protect it. We are grateful to them for what they do.
RT: What do you think of Israeli claims that the walls and checkpoints are for security reasons?
IS: Israel’s claims that the wall was built for security reasons have nothing to do with reality. This is not true, because they do not observe the 1967 borders. They have occupied a lot of Palestinian territories, in addition to those that were seized in 1948. Secondly, making all people feel like prisoners is not the way to solve security issues. The way to do that is to ensure the security of all people, and grant them full human rights. That would be a fair approach. A wall is not a solution.
RT: Over the years, have the Israelis changed their treatment of Palestinians who want to come and pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque?
IS: The occupation regime treats Palestinians in a way that is far from humane. They are cruel, oppressive, they don’t have mercy. There is one issue that is not reported in the media – I am talking about Palestinian women who don’t always get a chance to give birth at a hospital. The occupiers stop ambulances at checkpoints, and sometimes because of these delays ambulances cannot get to the woman in labor on time. As a result, they cannot give birth at a medical facility, sometimes the baby dies, and even the mother herself can bleed to death.
We have registered over 300 cases of such inhumane behavior on the part of Israeli authorities. I have met with a number of delegations of American scholars and asked them if they had heard of this. And they all said no. The Western and Zionist media don’t report these cases. My opinion is that these checkpoints are set up to inflict more suffering, to kill unborn babies whose mothers have to give birth on the way to the hospital.
RT: How far has the Israeli excavation under the Al-Aqsa Mosque gone, and how much of a problem is it to the structure of the building?
IS: Excavation works are extensive. They are digging in two directions: From Silwan going south, and to the west of the mosque. And because of this digging, houses and Muslim artifacts get damaged. Actually, they haven’t discovered any Jewish artifacts during the excavations. One Jewish archeologist admitted that they had not found a single stone related to Jewish history.
There is no doubt that this dig will cause the destruction of the mosque – there are already cracks in its southern and eastern walls. They remove soil from under the mosque, uncovering the foundation. It’s like the building is hanging in the air. Geologists say that an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.0 will collapse the structure. Before they dug out these tunnels, the mosque withstood even the worst earthquakes. The dig is very dangerous. We have protested against it several times, but the authorities have ignored us.
RT: Several Israeli extremists have gone as far as to call for the Al-Aqsa mosque to be torn down and for the first and second Jewish temples to be built on its place. What do you have to say about this?
IS: Jewish extremist groups have a lot of power in Israel. They came to power along with the Likud party. The current government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is working with these extremist groups. And so now they are revealing their secret agenda, including the plan to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Some of them say that there should be separate visiting days for Jews and Muslims. Others claim that the mosque should be under Israeli control, because it is part of Israel. They say that it is located within the Old City limits.
These aggressive statements reveal their true intentions regarding the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Why are they not talking about control over the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? They are only interested in the Al-Aqsa Mosque. We think it’s really dangerous. People don’t think that such claims are backed by the state, but in reality the state supports the extremists who make these statements.
RT: You have complained about what you call the totally inadequate manner in which Muslim states reacted to the Israeli efforts to take over the Al-Aqsa Mosque. What should Muslim states do?
IS: We believe the al-Aqsa Mosque is not only a sacred place for Palestinians, but for all Muslims. It means that all Muslims must share responsibility in its preservation. It has strategic importance in that it serves Muslim communities across the world – in Russia, the US or Europe. All Muslims must do what they can to help our cause. You can use different leverage – diplomatic, political or economic. Every country must know the truth and be aware of its responsibility. We do what we can do here on the ground, but our resources are limited. We cannot oppose all of Israel’s plans alone.
RT: In what way and why are Israeli authorities harassing you and other spiritual leaders?
IS: Israel wants to carry out its plans gradually, step by step, without much fuss or objection. But we keep bringing it up, and by doing so we have exposed the plans of the occupation authorities. That’s why they use media and press conferences to pile pressure on us, to gag us, to crush those who stand in the way of the occupiers. It only proves that there is no freedom or democracy in Israel. They only have democracy for the Jewish people – it does not apply to us.
RT: Do you see the Palestinian issue being resolved in the future?
IS: There are still no signs that this issue will be resolved in the near future, particularly with the Netanyahu cabinet in power. They want to start negotiations from scratch. Israel does all it can to obstruct and stall the process to prolong the existence of its state. These talks didn’t make any difference for Palestinians. These talks are a waste of time. We can talk about talks for decades. That’s why I don’t think they make any sense.
RT: What do you think about the way that then Palestinian authority is handling the issue of gaining independence?
IS: The Palestinian authorities are weak. They are looking for a solution, they want to prove they have achieved something. But the talks have actually been a failure. So at the moment, we don’t have any solution on the horizon. It means we need to unite, to revive our economy and science to be invincible when D-Day, the moment for a solution, comes.
RT: Is it fair to say that Israel is trying to obliterate the Arab-Islamic identity of Jerusalem?
IS: Israel’s policy on the ethnic issue is based on ‘Judaization,’ the confiscation of lands and construction of settlements. They are working to increase the size of the Jewish population and cut the number of Arabs. They do it by putting pressure on Arab merchants and Arabs in general to push them out of Jerusalem into the suburbs or other towns.
By referring to a crisis in the housing sector, Israel stopped giving permits for construction. And so when a young man grows up and decides to set up a family he will not be able to find or build a home. Even if he finds one, the rent will be too high to afford, and he will be forced to leave. So even without declaring its intentions, Israel is ridding Jerusalem of Arabs.
Israel doesn’t talk publicly about this, but according to my observations, the population of Jerusalem is growing. In 1967, there were 70,000 Arabs; today there are more than 300,000. In one of his prophecies, Muhammad was asked where his followers should go after he leaves, and he said that Muslims should stay in ‘Bayt al-Muqaddas’ – that is in Jerusalem – where they lived at the time. In this way, he blessed all generations to come to live in this city.

See no evil: London gives Mubarak cronies free pass on 'stolen billions' held in UK

Get short URL

Link copied to clipboard

email story to a friend print version

Published: 04 September, 2012, 00:42

Hosni Mubarak (AFP Photo / Khaled Desouki)

(38.5Mb)embed video

TAGS:Crime, Scandal, UK, Politics, Corruption, Egypt

The UK has failed to freeze millions in assets belonging to key figures in the regime of former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak. Investigative journalist Tony Gosling says the growing scandal shows the true face of British foreign policy.
From £10 million luxury homes in posh London neighborhoods to businesses registered to members of Mubarak’s inner circle despite their inclusion in a British Treasury sanctions list, the six-month investigation, led by the BBC, has shown systemic failures by the UK government to seize stolen fortunes stashed in the UK.
While some $135 million worth of assets belonging to Mubarak, his immediate family, and over a dozen other Egyptians have now been frozen in the UK, publicly-accessible records from the Companies House and Land Registry show that regime figures who embezzled billions from Egypt before Mubarak’s ouster 18 months ago have parked unspecified fortunes in Britain without intervention by the country's authorities.
"The UK is one of the worst countries when it comes to tracing and freezing Egyptian assets," Egypt's new Legal Affairs Minister Mohamed Mahsoub said.
Assem al-Gohary, the head of Egypt's Illicit Gains Authority, says that while the British government is legally obligated to help Egypt recover the money, it has asked for Cairo to provide evidence of the assets' whereabouts despite their being held under British jurisdiction.
“This is a collective crime from both the British and Egyptian governments," Mohamed Mahsoob, a public investigator who led the drive to find Egypt’s “stolen billions,” told the Guardian.
While the British Foreign Office has said that the apparent reluctance to seize the stolen assets is based on the need to facilitate their return lawfully, investigative journalist Tony Gosling says British and Egyptian elites have been colluding all along.
RT: London is apparently demanding more evidence from Cairo before agreeing to freeze these assets – is that a legitimate demand?
Tony Gosling: It’s really good to see the BBC doing this report. The important thing to remember here is the speed in which the assets were seized, both of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya and of course the $100 million or so of President Assad in Syria. This money was seized by the British government in milliseconds. With Mubarak’s money and his friends’ money, it’s 18 months down the line and there’s still letters going back and forth between the British and Egyptian governments asking questions, [saying] we can’t seize the money. Not only that, they have allowed companies to be set up by people that were supposed to be on the Egyptian sanctions list. Those companies have been allowed to continue trading; these companies have been shut down [voluntarily] with no questions asked. So I think the sort of hidden message, in British foreign policy towards Egypt, is that we don’t actually recognize this new regime. We are actually wedded to our previous business contacts in the old Mubarak regime.
RT: What are the benefits for Britain in protecting some of the core cronies in the Mubarak regime by safeguarding their fortunes?
TG: I think there are too many business connections between the two. Essentially we are talking about hidden connections that have to do with arms dealing. We had David Cameron of course do a big arms-selling tour of the Middle East during the Arab Spring. Let’s not forget where this money came from in the first place. We have in Britain at the moment a big privatization program going on – many of our state assets are being sold off to friends of the leading Conservative Party, who are themselves billionaires… but those assets were seized over in Egypt by Mubarak’s friends themselves.
So it’s really a privatization scam of state assets that have been sold to individual friends of Mubarak, and the Egyptian people should have that money back straight away.[But] those business contacts between Britain, Egypt and the military-industrial complex over here that likes to sell arms to Egypt seem much more important than honoring their diplomatic commitments.
RT: President Hosni Mubarak and his inner circle were accused of stealing tens of billions of dollars – the UK has already frozen over one hundred billion – what effect did this have on its vital banking sector?
TG: I can tell you what happens when there are delays in seizures. We’ve got a complete contrast with certain countries [whose] assets are seized immediately. What happens is they move their assets around the world, hide them even further, even in just a couple of days. For example, when these assets were seized in Switzerland, they were seized within 30 minutes to stop any of [these funds] being moved around the planet.
The more important background to all of this is that British Foreign policy, as it’s talked about [officially] by people like William Hague and David Cameron, this is evidence that we’re not actually doing what we say we are going to do. So where is this other kind of shadow foreign policy coming from?
If you start looking at groups like a private club called the Royal Institute for International Affairs, Chatham House – these are funded by the financial elite, the military industrial complex and by the BBC too. And these people from the Royal Institute for International Affairs and Chatham House are actually setting, to a large extent, through their organs, their papers like International Affairs, what British Foreign policy is. They’ve got far much more clout than the foreign office. And they essentially tell people like William Hague what to do. So a lot of this has to do with who is setting this foreign policy, and that’s why we’ve got a contrast between what we’re hearing from Hague and Cameron and what is actually happening on the ground.

We're one crucial step closer to seeing Tony Blair at The Hague

Desmond Tutu has helped us see the true nature of what the former prime minister did to Iraq and increased pressure for a prosecution

- George Monbiot
- guardian.co.uk, Monday 3 September 2012 17.30 BST
- Jump to comments (600)

Tony Blair arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice in London to give evidence on media ethics to the Leveson inquiry in May 2012. Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

For years it seems impregnable, then suddenly the citadel collapses. An ideology, a fact, a regime appears fixed, unshakeable, almost geological. Then an inch of mortar falls, and the stonework begins to slide. Something of this kind happened over the weekend.
When Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to The Hague, he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the protocol of power – the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to another – and named his crime. I expect that Blair will never recover from it.
The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.
That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair's cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His attorney general warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.
His foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that for the war to be legal, "i) there must be an armed attack upon a state or such an attack must be imminent; ii) the use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable; iii) the acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack." None of these conditions were met. The Cabinet Office told him: "A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists."
Without legal justification, the attack on Iraq was an act of mass murder. It caused the deaths of between 100,000 and a million people, and ranks among the greatest crimes the world has ever seen. That Blair and his ministers still saunter among us, gathering money wherever they go, is a withering indictment of a one-sided system of international justice: a system whose hypocrisies Tutu has exposed.
Blair's diminishing band of apologists cling to two desperate justifications. The first is that the war was automatically authorised by a prior UN resolution, 1441. But when it was discussed in the security council, both the American and British ambassadors insisted that 1441 did not authorise the use of force. The UK representative stated that "there is no 'automaticity' in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the council for discussion as required in paragraph 12." Two months later, in January 2003, the attorney general reminded Blair that "resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the security council".
Yet when Blair ran out of options, he and his lieutenants began arguing that 1441 authorised their war. They are still at it: on Sunday, Lord Falconer tried it out on Radio 4. Perhaps he had forgotten that it has been thoroughly discredited.
The second justification, attempted again by Blair this weekend, is that there was a moral case for invading Iraq. Yes, there was one. There was also a moral case for not invading Iraq, and this case was stronger.
But a moral case (and who has launched an aggressive war in modern times without claiming to possess one?) does not provide a legal basis. Nor was it the motivation for the attack. In September 2000, before they took office, a project run by future members of the Bush administration – including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz – produced a report which said the following: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Their purpose, they revealed, was "maintaining American military pre-eminence". The motivation for deposing Saddam Hussein was no more moral than the motivation for arming and funding him, two decades before.
But while the case against Blair is strong, the means are weak. Twenty-nine people have been indicted in the international criminal court, and all of them are African. (Suspects in the Balkans have been indicted by a different tribunal). There's a reason for this. Until 2018 at the earliest, the court can prosecute crimes committed during the course of an illegal war, but not the crime of launching that war.
Should we be surprised? Though the Nuremberg tribunal described aggression as "the supreme international crime", several powerful states guiltily resisted its adoption. At length, in 2010, they agreed that the court would have jurisdiction over aggression, but not until 2018 or thereafter. Though the offence has been recognised in international law for 67 years, the international criminal court (unlike the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals, which hear cases from before they were established) will be able to try only crimes of aggression committed beyond that date.

The other possibility is a prosecution in one of the states (there are at least 25) which have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws. Perhaps Blair's lawyers are now working through the list and cancelling a few speaking gigs.
That the prospect of prosecution currently looks remote makes it all the more important that the crime is not forgotten. To this end, in 2010 I set up a bounty fund – www.arrestblair.org – to promote peaceful citizens' arrests of the former prime minister. People contribute to the fund, a quarter of which is paid out to anyone who makes an attempt which meets the rules. With our fourth payment last week, we've now disbursed more than £10,000. Our aim is the same as Tutu's: to de-normalise an act of mass murder, to keep it in the public mind and to maintain the pressure for a prosecution.
That looked, until this weekend, like an almost impossible prospect. But when the masonry begins to crack, impossible hopes can become first plausible, then inexorable. Blair will now find himself shut out of places where he was once welcome. One day he may find himself shut in.
Twitter: @GeorgeMonbiot
A fully referenced version of this article is available at www.monbiot.com

Tony Blair should face trial over Iraq war, says Desmond Tutu

Anti-apartheid hero attacks former prime minister over 'double standards on war crimes'

Toby Helm, political editor
The Observer, Sunday 2 September 2012

Jump to comments (…)

Tony Blair has strongly contested Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s views. Photograph: Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be hauled before the international criminal court in The Hague and delivered a damning critique of the physical and moral devastation caused by the Iraq war.
Tutu, a Nobel peace prize winner and hero of the anti-apartheid movement, accuses the former British and US leaders of lying about weapons of mass destruction and says the invasion left the world more destabilised and divided "than any other conflict in history".
Writing in the Observer, Tutu also suggests the controversial US and UK-led action to oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 created the backdrop for the civil war in Syria and a possible wider Middle East conflict involving Iran.
"The then leaders of the United States and Great Britain," Tutu argues, "fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us."
But it is Tutu's call for Blair and Bush to face justice in The Hague that is most startling. Claiming that different standards appear to be set for prosecuting African leaders and western ones, he says the death toll during and after the Iraq conflict is sufficient on its own for Blair and Bush to be tried at the ICC.
"On these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in The Hague," he says.
The court hears cases on genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. To date, 16 cases have been brought before the court but only one, that of Thomas Lubanga, a rebel leader from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has been completed. He was sentenced earlier this year to 14 years' imprisonment for his part in war crimes in his home country.
Tutu's broadside is evidence of the shadow still cast by Iraq over Blair's post-prime ministerial career, as he attempts to rehabilitate himself in British public life. A longtime critic of the Iraq war, the archbishop pulled out of a South African conference on leadership last week because Blair, who was paid 2m rand (£150,000) for his time, was attending. It is understood that Tutu had agreed to speak without a fee.
In his article, the archbishop argues that as well as the death toll, there has been a heavy moral cost to civilisation, with no gain. "Even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.
"Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?" Blair and Bush, he says, set an appalling example. "If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth?" he asks.
"If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?"
In a statement, Blair strongly contested Tutu's views and said Iraq was now a more prosperous country than it had been under Saddam Hussein. "I have a great respect for Archbishop Tutu's fight against apartheid – where we were on the same side of the argument – but to repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown.
"And to say that the fact that Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of his citizens is irrelevant to the morality of removing him is bizarre. We have just had the memorials both of the Halabja massacre, where thousands of people were murdered in one day by Saddam's use of chemical weapons, and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million including many killed by chemical weapons.
"In addition, his slaughter of his political opponents, the treatment of the Marsh Arabs and the systematic torture of his people make the case for removing him morally strong. But the basis of action was as stated at the time.
"In short, this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say. But surely in a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree.
"I would also point out that despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in size, with the child mortality rate cut by a third of what it was. And with investment hugely increased in places like Basra."
• This article was amended on 2 September 2012 to remove an incorrect paragraph concerning ongoing criminal proceedings at The Hague

Bishop Desmond Tutu :Why I had no choice but to spurn Tony Blair

Why I had no choice but to spurn Tony Blair

I couldn't sit with someone who justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie

- Desmond Tutu
- The Observer, Sunday 2 September 2012
- Jump to comments (529)

Desmond Tutu: pulled out of a seminar which Tony Blair was scheduled to attend. Photograph: Str/REUTERS

The immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.
Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly sophisticated communications, transportations and weapons systems necessitated sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.
If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer.
On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.
On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.
But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.
Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?
Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level.
If it is acceptable for leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?
My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it. You are a member of our family, God's family. You are made for goodness, for honesty, for morality, for love; so are our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in the US, in Syria, in Israel and Iran.
I did not deem it appropriate to have this discussion at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit in Johannesburg last week. As the date drew nearer, I felt an increasingly profound sense of discomfort about attending a summit on "leadership" with Mr Blair. I extend my humblest and sincerest apologies to Discovery, the summit organisers, the speakers and delegates for the lateness of my decision not to attend