USUK made use of Uzbek torture
Former British ambassador, Craig Murray, says UK and USA sent prisoners to Uzbekistan to be tortured

Here Craig Murray describes the US ally, Uzbekistan, as a totalitarian dictatorship left over from the former Brezhnev, Soviet regime which holds over ten thousand political prisoners. "They still operate the old, Soviet gulags."

"Torture in Uzbekistan isn't unusual. It happens to several thousands of people every year ... The intelligence from these torture sessions was being received by the CIA and passed onto MI6 because MI6 and the CIA share all their intelligence."

"When people were being tortured they were being told to confess to membership of Al Qaeda. They were being told to confess to have been in training camps in Afghanistan and told to confess to have met Osama Bin Laden in person. And the CIA intelligence constantly echoed these themes. They spoke of Uzbeks having been in Al Qaeda, in training camps and meeting Osama Bin Laden. In fact we were now in 2002-2003 when we didn't know where Osama Bin Laden was and the way he managed to see thousands of Uzbeks every year it would have been easier to track him down I felt!"

"It wasn't hard to put two and two together and work out the fact that every political prisoner I knew of in Uzbekistan was tortured and the fact that we knew of what they were being forced to confess under this torture and the CIA material came up with the same, rather dodgy narrative. It wasn't hard to put two and two together and realise that the intelligence material was coming from torture."

"Before I did anything I wanted to make sure I was on safe ground so I asked my deputy to go to the American Embassy and say to them, 'My ambassador is worried because he thinks your intelligence is coming from torture.' She came back and reported to me the reply from the CIA head in the station at Tashkent [which] was, 'Yes, of course it's coming from torture, We don't see that as a problem in the context of the war on terror.'"

"I did see that as a problem, particularly when I discovered that the CIA were bringing in people, flying in people to Uzbekistan and handing them over to the Uzbek security services ... I falsely presumed that these people they were bringing in and handing over to the security services were Uzbeks who had been captured elsewhere and brought back to Uzbekistan. I did not realise that they were of many other nationalities being handed over to be tortured."

"But they were being tortured, I knew, [but] that Uzbekistan was a destination for the extraordinary rendition system from all over the world I really didn't quite realise at the time. We now know, following for example the Council of Europe's investigation that 90% of the aeroplanes that stopped at the famous secret prison in Poland had Tashkent as their next destination."

"I complained back to London. I said we're getting this evidence from torture. It's illegal, it's immoral and it's unreliable. It's vastly exaggerating the strength of Al Qaeda in Central Asia ... I got called back to London and I expected there to have a sensible talk about the merits and demerits of intelligence and how much evidence I had that it was obtained under torture. I was absolutely stunned, genuinely stunned --it changed my whole world-view in an instant-- to be told that London knew that it was coming from torture, that it wasn't illegal because our legal advisers thought that under the United Nations' convention against torture it is not illegal to obtain or use intelligence gained from torture as long as we didn't do the torture ourselves."

Murray's first-hand evidence clearly illustrates how Blair and the British government were complicit in Bush's brutal, fake war on terror.



Craig Murray's Blog

Uzbek Terror and the USUK

Ex-ambassador Craig Murray exposes the horrific tortures taking place in Uzbekistan and the reasons why the USUK are secretly complicit in them.

"Anyone interested in hydrocarbon resources needs to be in Uzbekistan," he observes. He highlights two incidents of torture after which he began to realize that greatly exaggerated CIA intelligence reports were resulting from them. He reports that the CIA were flying in people to be tortured.

"I knew the CIA people who were doing it," he claims.

"When Bush came into power the relationship between the US and Uzbekistan became very cosy" Now Obama is planning to warm up the relationship and to beef up the Uzbek dictator, Karimov.

"To find out that respect for international law and human rights had gone out of the window and that people I knew and worked with were prepared to justify torture and that people knew we were using torture to beef up the terrorist scare ... when something like that hits you it really does plunge you into questioning everything you ever believed in."

Pipelineistan and the end of Empire

As the number of deaths of British service-people mounts and the British MSM focuses on the mounting mortality rates the BBC's Question Time was bound to discuss the topic. Normally, Question Time is so tightly controlled by David Dimbleby's team that there is very little likelihood that either the panel or the audience might express a view challenging the right-wing establishment status quo. The panel speakers themselves are carefully picked in a way where anyone resembling a leftie has little or no chance of getting on.

But it's difficult to control everyone all the time and more so a bolshy audience. And on the subject of Afghanistan, last Thursday night's audience was bordering on the bolshy. The celebrity Trisha Goddard surprised me with saying some sensible things about Afghanistan and even going so far as to conclude that it had become our Vietnam. The Libdems' Lembit Opik cut in saying that maybe we shouldn't have trained Osama Bin Laden in the first place to which Dimbelby could only reply "That's hindsight for you."

As usual, the discussion was initiated by a question from the audience about whether British forces should be given more helicopters in order to reduce road-side casualties. The essential question about what Britain is doing there in the first place was studiously avoided. Along with our rulers the British MSM takes it as a given what it has been told about the threat to British security from ghostly Al Qaeda terrorists who would take over Afghanistan if 'our brave heroes' weren't out there. The real, geostrategic reasons about the need to safeguard Pipelineistan's oil and gas in the interests of the multinationals (ie "western security") is taboo. For that the reader needs to look around carefully on the Internet for articles by William Engdahl and the like. Or read Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.

The idea of hegemonizing the European Heartlands came first from Halford Mackinder and was adopted as a key strategy in British imperial foreign policy in the early 1900's. US historian Guido Giacomo Preparata, in his eye-opener of a book, Conjuring Hitler, illustrates how the British used the Heartlands geostrategic blueprint as a diplomatic weapon to draw Germany into two wars against the Anglo-Americans. Brzezinski went on to develop the blueprint for the inheritors of the British Empire, the USA, in its misnamed 'Pax Americana' and it is clearly a key aspect of the Neocons' Project for the New American Century, total world domination.

The Project (or PNAC) is what Bush II and his sidekick, Tony Blair, enthused about so much. And through understanding how the Bush II regime was so influenced by the Neocons we can see how 911 was used to justify an entirely fake 'War on Terrorism' and the subsequent occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq. To be explicit: the fake War on Terror was never more than a cover for Anglo-American ambitions for global domination through military force.

Neither the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan were wars in the sense of two roughly equal nations fighting each other. Instead they were invasions which led to the massacre of what now amounts to millions of civilians. These were never intended as wars to be won. Their purpose, as we can see now eight years later, is to be long-term military occupations intended to keep both countries tightly under the control of the US. That is why we are constantly told to expect a rise in the death toll of military personnel in an endless war.

You'll never hear this version of events spoken of on the MSM and for obvious reasons. The prospect of an endless list of mortalities in a war that goes on forever is intolerable and would not be accepted by any public. Instead, the MSM dons a fake face of concern that the problem is really about a lack of helicopters!

As a result of the long-term Anglo-American relationship, both British governments and the military find themselves in an unhealthy symbiosis with the Americans. Britain is no longer a global power but its rulers hang on desperately to an imperialist past. A series of incompetent British governments have found it all too easy to hang onto the 'special relationship' because of the supposed advantages that this brings to Britain at the international top table. Only with disasters like Iraq and Afghanistan does it become clear that far from any advantages to be had that both the British people and their rulers are having to pay a high price for what is in effect a one-sided relationship where when the Americans say 'Jump' the British have no choice but to jump.



British governments are terrified of upsetting their American bosses. Recently, on a BBC News 24 interview, Paul Rogers from the Bradford University Department of Peace Studies said as much. The live interview was not repeated in later BBC newscasts!

Significantly, on a recent Radio 4 interview, military chief Sir Richard Dannatt confirmed that fear:

"say what would happen if the United Kingdom was to leave this operation unilaterally or indeed if the coalition, if the alliance was to leave this operation. Then we would face, in the circumstances of the UK leaving, I think any relationship we have with the United States – special, interesting or otherwise, I think we would sever. I think we would severely prejudice the future structure and well-being, even existence of Nato. And if the coalition was to leave, or the alliance was to leave precipitately then I think we'd be handing an um enormous, um, propaganda information victory if you like to... well, how do we want to describe it? Al qaeda, islamist extremists, those who were behind the attacks that were manifested in 9-11 and perhaps even in the UK in.. in 7-7. So when we say we must succeed, we will succeed, actually the possibility of failure here is really unthinkable"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ljmmn/Today_17_07_2009/

It was a long time coming but now most accept that Britain has become a puppet of the Americans. More than any other leaders' it has been the servility of Blair and Brown that has brought this about. Why is it that when the vast majority of Brits opposed their government's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan that British service-people continue to fight and die in those countries? Typically, serving the interests of a foreign power vastly eclipse the need to serve those of their people. Is this not treason?

It appears that the public continues to be at a loss to why we are in Afghanistan at all. A few, just a few, seem to have sniffed the rotting carcass of British imperialism beneath it. Instead the focus has been on an incompetent government that has let down its soldiers and we see British generals running to Downing Street with a shopping list of weaponry as if that is going to solve the dilemma.

The dilemma will never be solved outside of the total withdrawal of British forces. But even that would be only the first step, the second being a fundamental re-drawing of British foreign policy which looks to the reality of a multipolar world beyond the mirage of the neocons' desire for global domination.

Just as the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad marked the final folly of Hitler's attempt to dominate Eurasia it looks like Afghanistan will mark the end of the Anglo-American empires of evil.

Blair applauds Brown giving the Salute

"Shared Values" means Joined at the Hip through Eternity

Today's announcement by Britain's new Zionist foreign secretary, David Milliband, of the expulsion of four Russian diplomats in retaliation for Russia's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, alleged assassin of double-agent Boris Litvinenko, signals a watershed deterioration in relations between Russia and the Anglo-Saxon Alliance.

Russia has, quite properly, stated that it has no legal remit to extradite Lugovoi and has even offered to try him at home. This, however, was not acceptable to Britain. There is an interesting similarity between Britain's refusal to compromise on this issue and Bush's refusal to do the same regarding the recent Russian offer to run a joint Russo-American missile shield in exchange for the US dropping plans to install forward bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Thus, all the indications point to the Anglo-Saxon Alliance deliberately heightening tension between itself and Russia. Whilst Bush might see an opportunity in doing so to create a new Arms Race (for the exclusive profit of US corporations and the further empowering of its domestic Military-Industrial Complex) quite what Britain has to gain from it is a mystery. What it could lose, however, is much clearer.

Apart from billions in business-deals, Britain and continental Europe is ever more dependent on the importation of Russian gas. Upsetting the Russians, as the Germans would tell you, is therefore not a good thing. So why is Brown's new government determined to do exactly that?

Using my by-now well-known Remote Viewing techniques, I was able to home-in on a recent high-security telephone conversation between The Shrub and Mr Gordon Brown-nose-Bush:

_________________________________

Bush: Morning, Gordy, lissen' I need you to do me a favor.

Brown: Why yes, Mr President, anything you say Mr President. Another blow-job or would you prefer to shaft me?

Bush: Now quit assin' around, Gordy. You know that's all going to have to wait until our next Bohemian Grove convention. It's not you I need shafting, it's those Russkies.

Brown: Anything you say, grovel, grovel, delighted to be of service in any way, as always, grovel, grovel!

Bush: Right. Now, remember that Litvinenko poisoning we had your intelligence people organise and blame on the Russians? That was neat, so was your demanding the Russkies should hand over Lugovoi when you knew, all along, there wasn't a cat's chance in hell of that happening! Now I want you to up the ante --

Brown: Up the aunty? [mouth quivers] What the BBC again? But Tony's shafted them, already!

Bush: No, no, you've got a one-track mind, Gordy. Not the aunty, the ante ... I want you to up the stakes by creating a huge diplomatic row with the Russkies. Our MIC over here is howling at me to start another Arms Race, it's good for the US economy you know and even better for the Bush family corporate interests.

Brown: Certainly, Mr President, I'll give instructions to Foreign Secretary Milliband.

Bush: Oh, and while you're at it, all that stuff from Millipede about a new line from the Brown government, it's gone as far as we can allow it, so can you cut that crap and have him say something about 'shared values' between two great nations attached at the hip all the way to Armageddon? [puts down phone].

Brown: Jawohl, mein Führer! [salutes & collapses in chair, sits back, loosens his collar, sweating profusely].

_________________________________

When you hear Millipede, sorry Milliband, talking about 'shared values' you'll know what he really means. Britain and the USA are inseparably part of the same usurious, international extortion racket aimed at ensuring that Anglo-Saxon imperialism and 'values' remain in a blood-soaked ascendant, yea, unto the very end of the world.

The Show, and the Nightmare must go on. Anglo-Saxon values rule, ok?

Oh, and by the by. Remember how the Bliar refused to hold an investigation into the BAE/Saudi Bribes scandal? Now the US Department of Justice is demanding that Brown hands over all the incriminating data over to it. Blair's excuse for refusing an enquiry was that 'it would compromise national security.'

Bullshit, of course. Blair, like Bush, could never differentiate between his own interests and the nation's.

So what is Brown going to do, hand over the information? Because, as has been pointed out, if he does won't he be compromising Britain's national security? Oh, I forgot. Of course he won't, because 'shared values' means there's no difference between Britain's and US security and interests.

Joined at the hip through eternity, remember?

Deek Jackson on the BAE/Saudi Cover-Up



Link

Günter Grass

War Crimes, USUK Hypocrisy & Collective Responsibility

On BBC Radio 4, I have been listening to an abridged version of Peeling the Onion, an autobiography by the German writer, Günter Grass.

Grass, famous for his satirical writings on Nazi Germany, will be remembered for his major works, The Tin Drum and Dog Years. When Peeling the Onion was published last year in Germany there was a lot of kerfuffle among literary circles about Grass having served, as a teenager, in the Waffen SS which was later condemned collectively for war crimes.

In his books, Grass spends a lot of time examining the case for the German population's joint responsibility for war crimes as well as his own. He also reminds us how the newly-formed German Federal Republic was prepared to accept the Allies' decision to reinstate many Nazis to positions of power and, in an index in Dog Years, lists companies like I.G.Farben which played an active role in the Nazi economy.

The Germans have anguished for over half a century over their collective responsibility for giving Hitler power. Even today it remains a sensitive issue.

But, in the light of more recent war crimes committed by the USA and Britain in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan I am forced to the conclusion that it is inevitably the victors in war who not only write the history books but who make and execute judicial judgements. As witness they did, through their Iraqi puppets, with Saddam Hussein.

If Germany had won the war it would have been the likes of Churchill who would have been deemed war criminals and led to the hangman's noose. It lost and paid the price. So did Iraq, though the comparison between a massively strong Third Reich and a weak, defenceless Iraq facing the combined imperial might of the USUK must end there.

We can now see the farce in how war crimes are judged. It was right and proper for Nazi war criminals to have faced trial. But the whole exercise deteriorated into a cosmetic when later we discovered just how many Nazi war criminals were, because it was convenient, reinstated by the Allies. And if that shameful business didn't underscore the manifest dishonesty of the judging of war criminality then Iraq most certainly has.

Apart from a few, unreported independent hearings, such as the Istanbul and Brussels Tribunals, no one in the Western establishment has dared to point to the war criminals who lied to and dragged their countries into war against a defenceless Iraq. Although there are plenty of them around, not one journalist has had the courage to admit to his or her collective responsibility in that war crime.

Aware of the blood on its hands, the BBC has done everything it can to hush-up its own responsibility and to not report on these embarrassing independent tribunals.

In for a penny, in for a pound, says the BBC, not only ignoring its criminality but going the whole way, steeping itself in even more guilt by enthusiastically joining in the fake "War on Terror", the hollow rationale of mediocre politicians like Bush and Blair which enshrouds the USUK's responsibility for more than a million unnecessary deaths in the Middle East.

By doing so, the war criminal politicians and their servile media have pushed themselves into a corner with no way out. All the war criminals like gutter journalists Melanie Phillips, Richard Littlejohn and Christopher Hitchens can do now is to bang the war drums even harder every chance they get, hoping that the noise will distract us from their murderous nature.

And then there is the collective responsibility that each of us in the USUK must bear. Yes, right from the start, some of us marched against our criminal rulers and proclaimed, "Not in Our Name!" We were dragged into this war crime. Well, those of us who protested were. But what about the much greater majority who stayed silent and who, with us all, have allowed the war criminals to stay in power?

Ah, but you can't compare us to the Germans who didn't stop Hitler!

Didn't they, can't we?

What about all the German socialists and democrats who literally fought in the streets against Hitler's Brownshirts before being finally rounded up, murdered or committed to a slow death in concentration camps? And the German anti-war groups, however small, who continued to ridicule and condemn Hitler long after their fate was sealed?

Neither the USA or Britain ever experienced the horrors of a poverty-stricken, plague ridden Weimar Germany, bled to death by the vengeful allies of WWI, prior to the ascendancy of a strongman dictator.

No. Singularly preoccupied at the trough with its ongoing consumer binge, both the populations of the USA and Britain simply turned their backs on an unpleasant reality and allowed their war criminals the freedom to do whatever the hell they liked. Selfishness and greed came first and our collective responsibility for genocide was conveniently swept under the carpet.

Yet, the ultimate crime has been committed! And just as we judged post-war Germany guilty, we in the USUK are, in the eyes of truth and by our own erstwhile standards, collective war criminals now!

I have always admired Günter Grass for being prepared to examine both his and Germany's collective soul for the truth. So it is a small return that I perform here to emulate his example. It is time, now, for the Günter Grass' of the USA and Britain to begin to speak the truth about our own collective criminality.

An Archive created to catalogue the War Crimes committed by various parties in the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

Read it Here

Blair: ‘We need America Engaged’

‘Go on America, buy his crock of shit. "We need America engaged". I hope you won't be continuing to fool yourselves by celebrating the 4th July though. American republicans must have the brains of the average coachroach. They're their own worst enemies. Just know that "we the people", who are still stuck with Her Majesty's imperial government, despise you above all others. The British Government has never fought for "freedom and democracy". They fight for the monarch, and so do you, these days, and you wonder why the whole world hates you? Patrick Henry must hate you most of all.’

from NEMESIS NEWS