Sim-O

or more accurately, fuck off.

The Guardian:

More than 1,400 rejected Iraqi asylum seekers are to be told they must go home or face destitution in Britain as the government considers Iraq safe enough to return them, according to leaked Home Office correspondence seen by the Guardian.

Hooray! Job done. Iraq is safe. Nice. Great.
Sorry? what’s that?

The Iraqis involved are to be told that unless they sign up for a voluntary return programme to Iraq within three weeks, they face being made homeless and losing state support.

Oh, right. Sounds harsh and not really making it voluntary but it shouldn’t be a problem, cos Iraq is now safe.

They will also be asked to sign a waiver agreeing the government will take no responsibility for what happens to them or their families once they return to Iraqi territory.

Oh. That kind of safe. Not the kind of safe that ordinary people mean when they say ‘safe’.

As BD in Justins’ comments suggests, maybe the Foreign and Commonwealth Office just haven’t got round to updating their travel advice yet:

The security situation in Iraq remains highly dangerous with a continuing high threat of terrorism throughout Iraq, violence and kidnapping targeting foreign nationals, including individuals of non-western appearance. You are strongly advised to seek professional security advice and make arrangements for your security throughout your visit.

Nadine Dorries:

I had no idea that England was far more important to the Islamists than America – following on from 9/11, I thought it would be the other way round.

Where do you get that idea? Is the UK called ‘Great Satan‘? Not as far as I’m aware. More like Satans’ Little Helper.

Nadine:

I suppose it stands to reason that here is the home, the mother country of the English language, of world finance, of law and innovation, and some of the most famous universities in the world.

Because Islamists are offended by English and business and education? Nothing to do with going to war with them, having troops in what they see as occupying their holy land, and generally the ruling elites of the UK and USA having sod all respect for Islamic tradition and culture.

Nadine:

Symbolism is everything to the Islamist in the midst of a Jihad, the holy war we are silently engaged in.

I’ve no idea about the symbolism, so moving on…

Nadine:

Apparently, the minaret of a mosque, which will be built in Oxford, will stand taller than the dreamy spires.

So what? If It’s had proper planning permission, just like every other building.

Nadine:

Standing taller is all that matters, it’s the most important thing. Symbolic.

As in most cultures. Places are always pleased to have the tallest this or largest that.

Nadine:

To the Islamist, America is a Johnny come lately, it’s England that matters.

Delusion. Of. Grandeur.

Nadine:

Whereas anyone walking by may not even notice the towering height, casting a shadow over a dreamy spire, to the Islamist it represents a triumphant call to arms.

And the passer-by will think it’s just another innocent call to prayer.

Oh, fuck off. It’s a church spire that might be not be quite the tallest thing in Oxford anymore. And the call to prayer doesn’t sound very triumphant to me. It just sounds like a call to prayer, really. It’s not going to be five times a day, as the doommongerers reckon, yes I’m looking at you Verity, it’ll be once on the most important prayer on the most important day, Friday.
And why not, churches broadcast their call to prayer once a week.

And it’s ‘dreaming‘ you bint.

Chicken Yoghurt did a post about this crap about swearing an oath of allegiance to the queen, and this morning on Radio 4 John Humphreys asked Lord Goldsmith (to paraphrase):
Humphreys:

What about republicans? Don’t you think they might have a problem with swearing allegiance to an institution they want to see abolished

Goldsmith:

No.

In the background you could hear the other guest cough and choke in astonishment.

How do these fuckwits that are either so lacking in either morals, common sense, intelligence or are liars get into these positions?

Information Clearing House:

Some Israeli and other Jewish opponents of Zionism’s colonial enterprise have described Israel as a “fascist” state. I think the more appropriate terminology is lunatic asylum. But I don’t blame the inmates (the Jewish citizens of the state) for what’s happening. They are as much the products of Zionist brainwashing as are the supporters of Israel right or wrong throughout the mainly Gentile Judeo-Christian world. I blame the wardens and management of the asylum (Israel’s military and political leaders)

Israel’s leaders still believe that by means of brute force and reducing them to abject poverty, they can break the will of the Palestinians to continue their struggle for their rights. The assumption being that, at a point, and out of total despair, the Palestinians will be prepared to accept crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of two or three bantustans, or, better still, will abandon their homeland and seek a new life in other countries. In my view the conviction that Zionism will one day succeed in breaking the Palestinian will to continue the struggle for an acceptable minimum of justice is the product of minds which are deluded to the point of clinical madness.

There is, however, one solid piece of evidence that a majority of Israeli Jews are not as mad as their leaders. It’s in the fact that 64% of them have said their government must hold direct talks with Hamas. Less than one-third, 28%, opposes such talks. (Those were the findings of a Ha’aretz-Dialog poll. It was was conducted, under the supervision of Professor Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University, before Israel’s escalation of its confrontation with Hamas in Gaza; and it could be, because of the international condemnation of Israel’s massively disproportionate action of the past few days, that even more than 64% now favour direct talks with Hamas).

That’s on the one hand. On the other is the fact that Hamas has long been calling for a ceasefire or truce, which, it has indicated, could be extended indefinitely. The problem is that Hamas’s leaders are insisting – they would be as mad as Israel’s leaders if they were not – that a ceasefire must be a two-way street. And that means Israel would have to end its incursions of Gaza and abandon its policy of targeted assassinations.

Israel’s leaders are not going to do that. Their present strategy for Gaza is to make life hell for all of its people in the hope that they will abandon Hamas. And when that doesn’t happen? Israel will seek to annihiliate Hamas. I mean competely, not bit by bit.

Question: When is a war crime not a war crime?

Answer: When the perpetrator is the Zionist state of Israel.

Jerusalem Post (my comments):

Defense Minister Ehud Barak is seeking legal approval to evacuate [cleanse] thousands of residents of Gaza City to locations in the south of the Strip to enable the IDF to attack terror infrastructure [anything that people might need, like water or electricity systems or houses] without hurting civilians [the fun’s gotta stop sometime], Channel 2 reported Wednesday evening.

The report came after the Security Cabinet decided Wednesday morning to act in an “ongoing and consistent” manner to end rocket attacks and other terrorist [resistance] activity from the Gaza Strip. The cabinet held a special meeting to debate the response [discuss what they can get away with] to ongoing rocket attacks on Ashkelon and the western Negev.

The ministers also decided that it would coordinate with various elements, including Egypt [who are currently building a wall to prevent Palestinians escaping from Gaza again], in order to weaken the [democratically elected] Hamas government without creating a[n obvious] humanitarian crisis.

Israel, they decided, will continue to further peace efforts while maintaining operational freedom to conduct counterterrorism measures [blow up what the fuck they want] and focusing on hasbara (public diplomacy) [public diplomacy ha ha ha, fucking propaganda] efforts to bolster Israel’s media image [to blame the Palestinians for their own plight].

Via Lenin

Do you want you every move on to internet tracked?
Logged by a company that make spy/adware?
Read Political Penguin and see what’s coming.

Privacy? What privacy?

via Obsolete

Blimey! It’s all action around here as one blogger calls the rozzers on another because he, well, doesn’t like being criticised.

Some of the stuff that goes on round here you wouldn’t believe.

Via Bloggerheads

The following is a statement made by Ben Griffin, an ex-SAS soldier that served Iraq.
His statement completely contradicts David Milibands statement on the denial of knowledge about extraordinary rendition.

The governments response? They effectively confirmed it by placing a gagging order on him.

Now, who do you believe? An ex-soldier that quit because of what he was asked to do, or the government that doesn’t want him to tell you what he was asked to do?

Via Justin.

Former SAS soldier blows apart Miliband denial of UK torture involvement.
Monday, 25 February 2008
Ben Griffin

This statement was prepared and read by Ben Griffin, ex-SAS soldier, at a press conference on Monday 25 February 2008.

Our government would have us believe that our involvement in the process known as Extraordinary Rendition is limited to two occasions on which planes carrying detainees landed to refuel on the British Indian Ocean Territory, Diego Garcia. David Miliband has stated that the British Government expects the Government of the United States to “seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and airspace, including Overseas Territories; that we will grant that permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations; and how we understand our obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture.” (Taken from a statement given to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary David Miliband on Thursday 21 February 2008)

The use of British Territory and airspace pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of Extraordinary Rendition in the first place. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 UKSF has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force. This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison.

Whilst the government has stated its desire that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp be closed, it has remained silent over these other secretive prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinately without charge. All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, International Law and the UN Convention Against Torture.

Early involvement of UKSF in the process of Extraordinary Rendition centres around operations carried out in Afghanistan in late 2001. Of note is an incident at the Qalai Janghi fortress, near Mazar-i-Sharif. UKSF fought alongside their US counterparts to put down a bloody revolt by captured Taliban fighters. The surviving Taliban fighters were then rendered to Guantanamo Bay.

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003 this joint US/UK task force appeared. Its primary mission was to kill or capture high value targets. Individuals detained by this Task Force often included non-combatants caught up in the search for high value targets. The use of secret detention centres within Iraq has negated the need to use Guantanamo Bay whilst allowing similar practice to go unnoticed.

I have here an account taken from an interpreter interviewed by the organisation Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/reports/2006/us0706/2.htm). He was based at the detention and interrogation facility within Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport during 2004. This facility was used to interrogate individuals captured by the joint US/UK Task Force. In it are the details of numerous breaches of the Geneva Convention and accounts of torture. These breaches were not the actions of rogue elements the abuse was systematic and sanctioned through the chain of command. This account is corroborated by an investigation carried out by NYT reporters into Camp Nama and the US/UK Task Force, which appeared in the New York Times on March 19 2006. Throughout my time in Iraq I was in no doubt that individuals detained by UKSF and handed over to our American colleagues would be tortured. During my time as member of the US/UK Task Force, three soldiers recounted to me an incident in which they had witnessed the brutal interrogation of two detainees. Partial drowning and an electric cattle prod were used during this interrogation and this amounted to torture. It was the widely held assumption that this would be the fate of any individuals handed over to our America colleagues. My commanding officer at the time expressed his concern to the whole squadron that we were becoming “the secret police of Baghdad”.

As UK soldiers within this Task Force a policy that we would detain individuals but not arrest them was continually enforced. Since it was commonly assumed by my colleagues that anyone we detained would subsequently be tortured this policy of detention and not arrest was regarded as a clumsy legal tool used to distance British soldiers from the whole process.

During the many operations conducted to apprehend high value targets numerous non-combatants were detained and interrogated in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of civilians in occupied territories. I have no doubt in my mind that non-combatants I personally detained were handed over to the Americans and subsequently tortured.

The joint US/UK Task Force has broken International Law, contravened The Geneva Conventions and disregarded the UN Convention Against Torture. British soldiers are intimately involved in the actions of this Task Force. Jack Straw, Margaret Beckett David Miliband, Geoff Hoon, Des Browne, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown. In their respective positions over the last five years they must know that British soldiers have been operating within this joint US/UK task force. They must have been briefed on the actions of this unit.

As the occupiers of Iraq we have a duty to uphold the law, to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. We are also responsible for securing the borders of Iraq on all counts we have failed. The British Army once had a reputation for playing by the rules. That reputation has been tarnished over the last seven years. We have accepted illegality as the norm. I have no doubt that over the coming months and years increasing amounts of information concerning the actions of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will be become public.

Whilst the majority of British Forces have been withdrawn from Iraq, UKSF remain within the US/UK Task Force.

Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.”

Ben Griffin
25 February 2008

It’s quite an unsettling feeling. I’ve never really felt quite like it.
I’ve run over a rabbit before, but they’re small and don’t do any damage so they go under the wheels and you think ‘oh, dear’, and that’s it. You forget about it.

But this time it wasn’t a rabbit. It was a deer. I think it was a muntjac, and fortunately, for both of us I think, I hit it’s head at about 50(ish)mph.

But, because of the thump it makes and the size of it lay in the road I couldn’t just keep driving and think about something else. I had to face what I did and move it out the way, see it twitch and watch the small stream of blood from it’s mouth get larger as it trickled down the hill.

I’ve always been of the view that if I can eat it, then I can’t be squeamish, or not face up to the realities of where the meat actually comes from. It’s one thing to say it, but to look into the eyes of a deer I have killed while it twitched for a minute or two (hopefully already unconscious) is not something I wish to do too often.