Skip to main content

The British government is trying to prevent the publication of memos which detail how information procured by torture in Uzbekistan is being used by the US and the UK. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and author of the memos Craig Murray explains:

With Tony Blair and Jack Straw cornered on extraordinary rendition, the UK government is particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of our complicity in obtaining intelligence extracted by foreign torturers.

The British Foreign Office is now seeking to block publication of Craig Murray's forthcoming book, which documents his time as Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The Foreign Office has demanded that Craig Murray remove all references to two especially damning British government documents, indicating that our government was knowingly receiving information extracted by the Uzbeks through torture, and return every copy that he has in his possession.

In a big "fuck you" to the British government, UK bloggers have done a coordinated leak of the documents being supressed today. In case those sites are shut down by the British government, I have republished the documents as well. At this point, Blair might as well admit defeat on these memos and move on.

And it's brutal stuff. Such as:

  1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

  2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

  3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

The US marriage of convenience with Uzebekistan, perhaps the most repressive regime in the world, gives lies to all the bullshit post-WMD justifications for invading Iraq ("evil regime" and all that jazz). Among other atrocities, Uzbekistan boils its dissidents alive. And no, that's not from Amnesty International or other "do-gooder" organization, but from the State Department's 2004 human rights report.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:41 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And What Did Dealing With the Uzbeks... (3.91)
    ...get us in the long run?  

    Bad information

    Association with a brutal regime that killed hundreds of its own citizens last Spring

    And they still evicted us from the country and realigned themselves with Putin's Russia.

    Apparently they're more comfortable aligned with states that don't work so hard at concealing their brutality.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:41:48 AM PST

    •  What dealing with the Uzbeks got us (none)
      bunch of boiled people.

      "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no foolin' around!"

      by demkat620 on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:47:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It also got us (none)
      ....a lot of phony terror alerts.  Where do you bet all that bad information came from?  Someone being tortured will say whatever it is they think you want them to say in order to stop the torture.

      How many billions has this cost us in stepped up terror alerts?

      Pennacchio for Pennsylvania

      by PAprogressive on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:34:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Russian realignment (none)
      For a guy like me who knows nothing about Central Asia, this year end report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty summarizing the year in Central Asia, was very useful.

      As long-ruling leaders fell against a backdrop of large-scale demonstrations in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan in 2003-05, [Uzbek President] Karimov soured on close cooperation with the West, adopting the status-quo view among authoritarian post-Soviet elites that the "color" revolutions were merely foreign-sponsored regime changes. This simmering sentiment came to a head in the wake of Andijon, where Uzbek security forces used massive force on 13 May to disperse a demonstration that followed an armed uprising in the city. The West called for an independent international investigation of eyewitness accounts that security forces perpetrated a massacre; Karimov refused, blaming the violence on religious extremists as government-run media depicted the Andijon uprising as an externally supported stab at regime change.

      The fallout was stark. In late July, Uzbekistan gave the United States six months to vacate its air base in Karshi-Khanabad. Meanwhile, Uzbekistan drew closer to Russia and China, two countries that voiced unequivocal support for the official Uzbek version of events in Andijon. Karimov visited China in the immediate aftermath of Andijon, and Uzbekistan and China inked a $600 million oil joint venture. In September, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov visited Uzbekistan to observe the first-ever Russian-Uzbek joint military exercises. And in November, Karimov and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty providing for direct Russian military assistance in the event of "aggression" against Uzbekistan. Further bolstering Russian-Uzbek relations, Russia's Gazprom and LUKoil are planning to invest as much as $2 billion in Uzbekistan's energy sector, albeit over an extended period of time.

      It's like Ambassador Murray said, "we are selling our souls for dross."

      I'm here to represent the needle in the vein of the establishment.

      by mhojo on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:59:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  RFE/RL Does Good Stuff (none)
        Two other good sources on Central Asia are the reports from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and those by the International Crisis Group.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:11:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't trust the source because... (none)
        ...RFE/RL had been a US gov't sponsored propaganda tool which was established in the early days of the Cold War. Until 1971, RFE was funded by the CIA. Now, it's considered to be a "private" corporation chartered in Delaware (which they keep making a point of) and it's Broadcasting Board of Governors is chaired by none-other-than Kenneth Y. Tomlinson (yes the same Tomlinson formerly from the CPB).

        Any media organization funded by and staffed with Bush administration cronies really has no credibility to me. Yes, they do have a "journalistic code of ethics," but so does Fox, WaPo and the NYT.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        http://www.rferl.org/...

      •  Prediction: (none)
        Very soon the Bush regime will discover that Uzbekistan is run by BAD GUYS and we must all DO SOMETHING about it.
    •  The Gas Connection? (none)
      Afghanistan and Caspian Sea oil pipeline routes
      Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline (BBC 1997)
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
  •  Huge Kos. (4.00)
    Wow. And people wonder why I get most of my news from the blogosphere these days...

    Good work.

    •  Biggest moment in the history of blogdom (4.00)
      Seriously. This is a huge development.

      Huge.

      Kudos to the British bloggers for bringing this out.

      PubliusTV: A Collaborative Media Network

      by BriVT on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:55:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The shame will rise in us all ... (4.00)
        The Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk wrote recently in the New Yorker that it is hard for him and other moderates in the Muslim world to defend democracy, when the so called democratic nations are resorting to despicable methods on the flimsiest of grounds.

        Point taken.

        "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

        by SteinL on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:01:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I concur...this is HUGE Can't wait for Scotty (4.00)
      to say, "I haven't seen those memos yet..."(lying sack of shit that he is)...then "We don't discuss matters of foreign intelligence with the press."(also known as "Mind your own business"...well, this IS OUR BUSINESS as you people are supposed to represent us.)

      Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right

      by darthstar on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:15:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just wonderin' (4.00)
        where boiling people alive rates on the White House sliding scale. Would somebody ask Scottie if this is considered cruel, inhuman and degrading or torture.
        •  It rates (none)
          Right above 'building a human pyramid'.

          Hell, I'm sure our presnit has boiled one or two pledges back at Harvard.  Probably sissy pledges who were too scared to be branded.

          Russ Feingold: steel balls and a heart of gold. On the down side, it makes air travel diffcult.

          by Heartcutter on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:49:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Geez (4.00)
    think Tony Blair is wishing they'd never colonized this country in the first place? What a headache we're causing him.

    I'm just in it for the pizza money.

    by AnnArborBlue on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:43:55 AM PST

  •  The 2006 Election starts now... (4.00)
    If you want it to.

    Find someone in your area that you believe will make GB43 answer for this stuff.

    A failed President= August 6 PDB, Bin Laden? DSM, WMD's? Abu Ghraib, Rove/Plame, Katrina

    by Gator on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:44:14 AM PST

  •  Key for me: (none)
    It is bad information anyway

    Everybody now: Buck Fush

    •  irrelevant to me (4.00)
      even if we got 100% valid and actionable intelligence out of this, it would still be a national disgrace.

      getting good info would only mean that we're being effective in addition to evil. and if we're acting like the bad guys there is nothing worth fighting for, in my eyes.  

      sigh. guess i'll never make it as a "moral relativist."

      we'd better decide now if we are going to be fearless men or scared boys.
      — e.d. nixon, montgomery improvement association

      by zeke L on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:50:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I couldn't agree more (none)
        You make a rotten moral relativist. Also pragmatist and proponent of realpolitik. I congratulate you.

        If one thought that effectiveness validated such actions, then one would also have to buy into Bush's 'world is better off without Saddam Hussain'. Ends justify means, and don't examine the trail by which you got there, so long as you got to a good place.

  •  Craig Murray (none)
    He's been an absolute gem. He's been banging on about the Uzbeks and our complicity in their torture ever since he left the ambassadorship.

    I can't believe that my country is reduced to this.

    Mephisto

    A conservative understands the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

    by Mephistopheles on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:46:27 AM PST

  •  everything you need to know about (4.00)
    Bu$hCo can be found at the top of document #2.

    As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony.

    yep, that's about it.

    "after the Rapture, we get all their shit"

    check out Drum Major Institute Blog. it's bitchin'.

    by lipris on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:46:27 AM PST

    •  American Hegemony (none)
      under Bush???  He can't even see the writing in the wall.

      A failed President= August 6 PDB, Bin Laden? DSM, WMD's? Abu Ghraib, Rove/Plame, Katrina

      by Gator on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:49:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hegemony (4.00)
      That is the key.  Check out this article about the post-9/11 military base strategy. It's a bit dated, now, (4/21/04) but still contains useful information and has some good insights:
      One year after U.S. tanks rolled through Iraq and more than two years after the United States bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan, the administration has instituted what some experts describe as the most militarized foreign policy machine in modern history.

      The policy has involved not just resorting to military action, or the threat of action, but constructing an arc of new facilities in such places as Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Qatar and Djibouti that the Pentagon calls "lily pads." They are seen not merely as a means of defending the host countries -- the traditional Cold War role of such installations -- but as jumping-off points for future "preventive wars" and military missions.

      In a major policy statement issued in September 2002 and titled the National Security Strategy, the president declared, "It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength," and he detailed two significant new uses of that might: pre-emptively attacking would-be enemies, as in Iraq, and preventing rivals from even considering matching U.S. strength. It was a new assertion of U.S. primacy, not through diplomacy or economics but through unquestioned military domination.
      ...
      "There's clearly been a militarization of foreign policy, initially justified on the basis of the events of 9/11," said Charlene Barshefsky, the United States trade representative under President Bill Clinton. "Unfortunately, the military portion of the policy has now defined our entire policy."

      Under the Bush administration's plans, some older deployments in areas such as South Korea, Japan and Germany may be reduced, but more troops are being shifted to the most volatile and dangerous regions of the globe. It is, experts say, the most extensive realignment of U.S. power in the past half century.

      Writing last year in the normally dry journal Foreign Affairs, Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the sheer scale of the shift so profound that they reached for a cosmic analogy, calling it "a sort of military 'big bang.' "

      Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, articulated some of the thinking behind the new posture in an interview with the New York Times in 2002, saying the function of the string of new bases in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa "may be more political than actually military.''

      The new installations, he added, would "send a message to everybody, including strategically important countries like Uzbekistan, that we have a capacity to come back in and will come back in -- we're not just going to forget about them."
      ...
      Rather than unilaterally confronting the other two nations named in the "axis of evil," the United States is working jointly with China, South Korea, Japan and Russia to try to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs. And the White House, at least for now, is allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to negotiate an end to Iran's nuclear program.

      In each of these instances, though, the administration has hinted that it is prepared to take military action if negotiation does not produce results, and it has put bases in place to undertake those missions.

      But, some experts warn, the military emphasis may have made the United States less safe by placing troops in harm's way and by inflaming anti- American sentiment abroad. In their Foreign Affairs essay, Campbell and Ward warned that the expansion of America's military reach "could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United States."
      ...
      Chalmers Johnson, a professor emeritus at UC San Diego and an Asia expert, says he believes that few Americans are even aware of the extent of the military's reach and the profound influence it is having on policymaking in this country and public opinion abroad.

      Johnson says the Pentagon's calculation that it owns or rents 702 bases in about 130 countries -- over and above the 6,000 bases in the United States -- is a gross underestimate because it fails to include installations in such places as Kosovo and Bosnia, as well as Iraq and Afghanistan, and secret installations in Israel, Australia and England, among others.

      "As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize -- or do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power," Johnson wrote in a recent book, "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic."

      Niall Ferguson, a historian at New York University and a senior research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution and at Oxford University, generally supports the use of U.S. force in a dangerous world. But in a recent book, "Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power," he describes the United States as "an empire in denial" because it hasn't acknowledged the immensity of its globe-girdling base system.

      According to the Pentagon and GlobalSecurity.org, a think tank that tracks military data, the United States has constructed a big new base, Camp Stronghold Freedom, in Uzbekistan to serve as a logistical hub that could supply military missions anywhere in oil-rich Central Asia or the Middle East.

      In Kyrgyzstan, the military has airlifted in such equipment as fire trucks, cargo loaders and tractors. "We're establishing a mini Air Force base from which we can fly a variety of military missions, mainly airlift, aerial refueling and tactical air," Brig. Gen. Christopher Kelly told the New York Times in an interview.

      Much of the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan was conducted from bases in Pakistan.

      Roughly 153,000 troops are in Iraq and another 11,000 in Afghanistan, many of them positioned in what experts say are large permanent bases.

      New facilities have been constructed at Camp Le Monier, in Djibouti, at the mouth of the Red Sea. The installation, with about 1,600 troops, is regarded as critical to controlling the entryway to the sea, which runs up the western flank of Saudi Arabia, and for gathering intelligence on terrorist groups in the Horn of Africa.

      An important new base with about 1,600 troops has been put in place in Qatar. With the U.S. military having withdrawn from its bases in Saudi Arabia, the new installation in Qatar and the new bases in Iraq are regarded as key to protecting U.S. interests in the Middle East.

      There are still 5,000 troops in Kosovo and 3,000 in Bosnia from earlier peacekeeping operations. The U.S.-led international peacekeeping force sent to Haiti earlier this month includes 1,600 Marines.

      Teams of American special forces have been sent to Georgia, in the former Soviet Union, to train the local military and, the nation's president has said, to help protect oil pipelines, according to Johnson.

      There are also clusters of special forces in Colombia, where they train local troops to fight leftist guerrillas and police narcotics trafficking -- and also to provide a way to gather intelligence in South America. In the Philippines, more than 1,000 troops are working with the Philippine military to combat terrorist groups.

      Meanwhile, about 75,000 soldiers are still in Germany; 47,000 in Japan, where the United States maintains 73 bases; 37,000 in South Korea; 13,000 in Italy; and 12,000 in England -- all left from the Cold War. The military also maintains major air and submarine bases in Guam and Diego Garcia.

      According to the Pentagon's Manpower Report, before Sept. 11, 2001, there were 255,000 U.S. military personnel in 153 countries. According to GlobalSecurity.org, that number was closer to 350,000 as of early February. Johnson calculates that if civilians and dependents are added in, the number is 531,000.

      As for the oil, just take a look where most of the bases are located - right along oil and natural gas lines and facilities.

      Here's a scary thought: why go to all the trouble to shift so many people, establish so many new relationships, build so many bases, and position your troops...if you intend to leave when your second term is up?

      [Right.  I'll go get my tin foil hat now...  ;) ]

      •  I'd really like to know (none)
        how soon those bases were built and people were moved after 9/11.  If it was fairly soon afterwards, I'll be putting my tinfoil hat on too - because there has got to be some lead time to do plan where to build, what to build, who to move, etc.

        Just wonderin', ya know?

        GWB: best argument I know of to refute "Intelligent Design"

        by Pandora on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:14:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  How can there be hegemony? (none)
      hegemony

      n : the domination of one state over its allies

      The obvious prerequisite being that we HAVE allies, which flies directly in the face of the current unilateral, 'us against the world' foriegn policy.

      The revolution will not be televised - on FOX

      by Uranus Hz on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:28:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Allies (none)
        Yes, the USA does have allies who are quite willing to do its bidding, like Australia and England. And the hegemony is strong with dubious "free trade agreements" that force US laws and companies into these societies. The people of these countries may not agree with their governments, but the governments are all about serving America's hegemony.
        •  And these government torture, too (none)
          Why do they think this is good policy?

          What kind of nuts think that torture will, in any long term way, pay off?

          The West is disgracing itself, destroying itself from within by men who research torture, teach torture and then export torture.

          And look, the Uzbekis still turned to Russia and China.

          Dumb shits....

    •  here's another lovely quote (4.00)
      I watched George Bush talk today of Iraq and "dismantling the apparatus of terror... removing the torture chambers and the rape rooms". Yet when it comes to the Karimov regime, systematic torture and rape appear to be treated as peccadilloes, not to affect the relationship and to be downplayed in international fora. Double standards? Yes.

      Kinda takes the wind out of "the world is better off without Saddam" quotation.

      While we are trying one former dictator for torture and killings in 1982, we were handing over big sums of cash (.5 bil correct?) to a current dictator so that he can purchase more hot oil in which to boil his subjects...

  •  Too damn bad (none)
    the UK bloggers, or anyone else for that matter, couldn't get their hands on and publish the Al Jazeera bombing threat memo.  Good work on this one though.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:47:33 AM PST

  •  "The US . . . gives lies..." (4.00)
    and it's going to continue until we run the bastards out of town...

    The "Testy Kid" and the gang of Nixonian holdovers

    more of what we already know but in molly ivins' inimitable style...

    For those of you who have forgotten just what a stonewall paranoid Nixon was, the poor man used to stalk around the White House demanding that his political enemies be killed. Many still believe there was a certain Richard III grandeur to Nixon's collapse because he was also a man of notable talents. There is neither grandeur nor tragedy in watching this president, the Testy Kid, violate his oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of our country.

        The Testy Kid wants to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it because he is the president, and he considers that sufficient justification for whatever he wants. He even finds lawyers like John Yoo, who tell him that whatever he wants to do is legal.

        The creepy part is the overlap. Damned if they aren't still here, after all these years, the old Nixon hands -- Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the whole gang whose yearning for authoritarian government rose like a stink over the Nixon years. Imperial executive. Bring back those special White House guard uniforms. Cheney, like some malignancy that cannot be killed off, back at the same old stand, pushing the same old crap.


    "Cheney, like some malignancy that cannot be killed off..." i just love how that rolls off the tongue, so easy-like...
    •  Georgie is like Varuca Salt (none)
      from Willy Wonka and Woo,Gonzales,Miers et. al are her stupid parents trying to keep her happy.  The NSA are the peanut shellers whos job is now to furiously unwrap the candybars looking for a golden ticket.

      Does the devil wear a suit and tie, Or does he work at the Dairy Queen- Martin Sexton

      by strengthof10kmen on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:09:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I love Molly Ivans, she tells it just like it is. (none)
      And the republicans hate her for it.  

      I am not your beast of burden: I will not be forced to carry your baggage.....Humanistic Property Manifesto (-5.13, -4.77)

      by panicbean on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 12:02:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Too bad Molly doesn't realize (none)
      that nothing Oedipus Tex has done is a crime or at all bad. Only those who have oral sex and lie about it are guilty of anything.
      •  Ultimate oral sex: he's going down on history (none)
        That's a Bushism just waiting to happen, and I couldn't resist. Sorry. But he does believe that history will vindicate him.

        I think that explains the new screw-you-all face of the President. This is why he now speaks in this do-your-worst and bring-em-on way, with that strange and creepy look of utter certainty. He's gazing at a far future, not at today's NYT. So no more parsing. No ducking questions. No apologies. No double-speak. Screw you all. Future generations will thank him.

  •  Blair should get in front on this one... (none)
    ...if he can.  The UK's complicity in torture, while pervasive and scandalous, pales compared to the Bush Administration's wholesale adoption of torture.  Blair could finally use outrage against torture as an opportunity to dump a lame-duck, increasingly discredited Bush.  

    Perhaps he fears the sort of leaks and disclosures that Bush and Rove engineer when "friends" abandon them.  

    Sooner or later, Blair needs to trust the people of the UK enough to explain his Iraq policy directly (which I think is not totally without merit) while simultaneously joining the rest of Europe in discrediting the Bush regime.

    He would do so much for the US and for the future of the "special relationship" if he were only to finally stand up.  I don't buy the theory that Blair is as morally corrupt, immature or deceitful as Bush.  His support for the war was more complex and more nuanced than Bush's, even if he relied on simplistic rationalizations to promote it.

    •  Makes you wonder if (none)
      There really was anything to Gannon/Guckert's claim that he "entertained" Blair on one of his visits.

      Don't forget, ePluribus Media isn't them, it's US. That means you too.

      by Bionic on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:01:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  US or Europe (none)
      Wasn't Blair's decision to go with the US special relationship and turn away from Europe?  Also, didn't he want to be the junior partner on pillaging Iraq since the US was going to do it anyway?  To keep the UK in the race for Iraq's oil.

      "Be just and good." John Adams

      by aztec on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:03:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think Blair's motives were more complicated (none)

        Don't want to debate Iraq at length since this diary is about rendition and torture in Uzbekistan.  I only wanted to say that given Blair's history confronting Milosevic in the Balkans and his vastly greater knowledge of Iraq, his motives were far more complex and less venal than Bush's.  He understood that genocide had occurred in Iraq, and also knew that the sanctions regime controlling Saddam was unraveling - which is never mentioned or admitted here.  Blair acted in part because of oil, true, but while Bush's pronouncements on human rights are pure sophistry, Blairs are not.  Blair's motives are more mixed and I am less willing to unequivocally condemn him in quite the same way as Bush.
    •  Disagree (none)
      I don't believe Blair is LESS complicitous.
      He's so much more intelligent.
      He worked with Clinton beautifully.
      He wanted to be the darling boy of Europe, who could work with any American President.
      His ego has taken him down these roads and he should go.
      Frankly, I'd love to see British bloggers and others finally manage to get enough out that he should have to leave the government.
      Bush & Blair have done this together.
      If Blair goes, it will further weaken Bush and that can only be GOOD.
    •  I thought this at first, too (none)
      but now I think Blair is as evil and corrupt as Bush.

      Britian has been responsible for some horrific acts in this war, too, in regard to torture, adnrather than come clean with it, Blair has tried to cover it up.

      Also, he seems in favor of eroding civil liberties, as well as rejecting the Kyoto treaty.

      I hope he is held accountable for Britian's counduct in this war...

      •  hard to believe (none)
        hard to believe a guy who introduced the minumum wage, reduced unemployment and inflation, brought in tax credits for working parents, greater access to daycare for working parents, greater rights for gay couples and spearheaded a fight for a better deal for Africa is evil. but sure, whatever you say..

        plus, at the moment, Britain is one of the few European countries set to meet their climate obligations.

        Blair's an utter bastard, and i'd love to see him out of Downing Street, but let's just hate him for the right reasons, please?!

        •  Blair (none)
          Blair's record is mixed. He has got a good story to tell on the economy and to some degree on public services and social reform. He also has a positive record on some aspects of foreign policy, particularly British intervention in Sierra Leone.

          However, on the downside his government have consistently attacked civil liberties, but then this has often been true of Labour governments. It should never be forgotten that the Labour Party is not a liberal party. He has also pursued right-wing solutions to policy issues which have been of dubious success. And he has also had failures in foreign policy such as Iraq and UK relations with the EU. Even on environmental issues he seems to be stepping back from the strong positions he previously took.

          He is increasingly weak. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has critisised Blair's recent proposals for education reform. He will go at some stage in the next two years. If he doesn't go voluntarily it will come down to when his opponents think the damage caused by him remaining in office exceeds the damage caused by trying to remove him at a time which is not of his choosing.

          Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. William Ewart Gladstone

          by uklibdems on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:42:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  plus (none)
    what's up with the DoD paying Uzbekistan the US$23 mil tab from the airbase that they kicked us out of?

    Sketchy situation, there.

    The way that can be known is not the way.

    by zenbowl on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:49:34 AM PST

  •  Bravo Markos. (none)
    Their being spread via DU, as well:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/...

    Peace.

  •  What I Keep Wondering Is (none)
    What should we do with a country like Uzbekistan, whose human rights violations are so widely known and documented?  Obviously, we should call this "marriage of convenience" as Kos puts it to an end, but what else? Shun them? Seek sanctions? Try to get their leaders in the Hague any way we can? While I'm highly opinionated on many matters, I'm certainly no diplomat or foreign policy expert, so the question is, what should we do with them? Discuss.

    "Semper fi, motherfucker!" -The Rock in the worst movie ever made

    by Sean C on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:52:26 AM PST

    •  Already Somewhat Settled (none)
      The Uzbeks expelled us from the military base we were using and have cast their lot in with the Russians.

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by Dana Houle on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:55:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fair enough, and a good question... (4.00)
      Here's some possibilities:

      (1)  Get more international help and spend more money and effort to stabilize Afghanistan (which borders Uzbekistan to the South) - better we have one reasonably well functioning government in the region than none at all.

      (2)  Support NGOs and civil society movements in Uzbekistan through intermediaries if necessary.  People will die, and there will be repression, but most of the FSR political movements so far, including Ukraine, Kyrgizstan and Kazakhstan owe a debt to local NGOs.

      (3)  Get better intelligence within the country.  We need to track Islamist movements w/in Uzbekistan if only to know more about their links to the outside.  Better to infiltrate them and independently establish some networks of intelligence than depend on goons who literally boil people for bad information.  We need real intelligence services, not dirty tricks.

      (4)  Stay as neutral as we can in the Islamic revivals that are still reacting to Soviet era repression.  There are too many unpaid blood debts from a century of conquest, exploitation and violence.  We don't need a dog in that fight if we can help it.  Sometimes with an Islamic revival, the best thing to do is stand back a little if it is inevitable - as in parts of Central Asia (and in Southern Iraq), and make clear what the limits are.  Try to moderate it, contain it, and keep communications open.  Then wait.  

  •  Craig Murray: flawed and courageous (4.00)
    I spent some time with Craig earlier this year.  He seemed to be at loose ends, not quite sure what he's supposed to be doing now that he's thrown away the only marriage and career he's known in favour of a very young girlfriend and a principled stand against torture.

    Unfortunately, Craig has no home in UK politics.  His independent campaign against Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary who fired him, did not fare well enough to tempt another party to align with him.  Labour hates him for showing up their hypocrisy.  The Conservatives can't touch him, and the Liberals don't need him.  Even the Muslim community doesn't trust him, preferring the sure influence they have in the Labour party (regardless of what Labour may do in Uzbekistan).

    I wish him well, but he is a casualty of the Blairite policies along with so many others.

    "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

    by LondonYank on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:54:02 AM PST

  •  Memories (none)
    Didn't the defense bill with McCain's anti-torture amendment also provide that evidence produced by torture could be used against enemy combatants?

    Then there was that recent US conviction of a student for planning on killing Bush.  His 'confession' was obtained through torture by the Saudis and the 'statement' of his co-conspirator was also obtained through torture by the Saudis.  The co-conspirator died while in Saudi custody.  From the news reports, it sounded like the defendant had to prove that his confession and the statement were obtained through torture to be inadmissible.  The defendant introduced expert medical evidence that he had been tortured but the Saudis denied they tortured him.

    Why do the Uzbeks care what the the US or UK think of them anymore?  I read that they ordered the Americans to close their base in Uzbekistan.  It may have been part of Putin's plan to bring the former USSR republics back into Russia's orbit.  As part of his program, he has drastically increased the price of natural gas for the Ukraine while still subsidizing the price for loyal Byro-Russia (sic?).

    "Be just and good." John Adams

    by aztec on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:55:29 AM PST

  •  Application of the seesaw (none)
     Pressure on either side of the Atlantic leads to a leak of something damaging. That information is used on the other side to push the government farther over the edge.

     DSM leads to pressure on Bush.
     Abu Ghraib leads to pressure on Blair.
     And now we have British memos on how boiling people doesn't give good intel.

     Step up the pressure on Bush in response - ask him why he likes having people boiled for bad info.

    I tell you there is a fire. They have this day set a blazing torch to the temple of constitutional liberty and, please God, we shall have no more peace forever.

    by Anderson Republican on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:56:54 AM PST

    •  That's easy (none)
      because he's "protecting America from those who would do it harm."

      The bad info thing will never come into play, and even if it does, he'll just say "even if it gives bad info sometimes, if just ONE TIME it stopped a terrorist from detonating a nuclear weapon in your town, wouldn't it be worth it?"

      Given the WSJ poll from a month ago that said 55% of Americans thought the Bush Administration had pursued the appropriate course in interrogating potential terrorists, v. something like 30% that thought it had gone too far, I'm not optomistic that as many people will care as should care.

      I'm just in it for the pizza money.

      by AnnArborBlue on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:00:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, Great. (4.00)
        We're boiling them over there so they won't boil us over here?
        Where's Hunter?

        "That story isn't worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

        by martyc35 on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:25:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's a poll I'd like to see. (none)
        If the Bush administration mistakenly believed that you, or your spouse, or your children, had information related to a terrorist organization, please rate how strongly you would support each of the following measures (1 indicating no support, 10 indicating very strongly support):
        1. The bush administration torturing you and/or your immediate family.
        2. The Bush administration hiding you and/or your immediate family in Guantanamo bay without any access to lawyers, hearing what you are being charged with, a court case, the right to confront your accuser, or any of those other legal niceties we now feel anyone the Bush administration decides to lock up in this manner isn't entitled to) for an indefinite period, probably lasting months or years.
        3. The bush administration sending you and/or your immediate family to the Republic of Ballclampia where, well, they're probably going to do what they're going to do.
        4. The bush administration spying on the private telephone conversations and emails of you and/or your immediate family without bothering to apply for a warrant (which could be even gotten retroactively within 72 hours and it would still be perfectly legal) or notifying you of the fact, before or afterward, and doing God knows what with the information they collect.

        The best part is, given the current, "where there's smoke there's fire" mentality most of the public seems to have thanks to out Republican demagogues, it is very likely that, just by asking these questions in frequent polls the public would start believing the Bush administration did this sort of thing.
  •  Right on (none)
    Here's to you. If you get shut down, well, I'm sure a bunch of us have them savd by now, eh?

    You didn't do it.

    by Earl on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:58:31 AM PST

  •  Speaking of which (3.50)
    When are those torture vids/pics going to be released?
  •  Wowie Wow Wow (none)
    This is stunning. We all know Bush lies to us repeatedly and unashamedly, but this is further proof that he does so in a breathtakingly bald-faced fashion. "We do not condone torture" my ass.

    We must retake the Congress in '06 so that we can begin impeachment proceedings immediately. It is our obligation as citizens to re-take our government from this fascist dictator.

    Come get me, NSA. Fuck you.

    -7.75,-7.54; The road to hell is paved with Republicans!

    by erik in grayslake on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:07:17 AM PST

  •  What's so damning about this statement? (none)
    As seen from Tashkent, US policy is not much focussed on democracy or freedom. It is about oil, gas and hegemony. In Uzbekistan the US pursues those ends through supporting a ruthless dictatorship. We must not close our eyes to uncomfortable truth.

    ...oh...just about everything...ouch.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right

    by darthstar on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:12:54 AM PST

  •  "we are selling our souls for dross" (none)
    That says it all...

    If I had a rocket launcher
    Some sonofabitch would die.
    - Bruce Cockburn

    by The Baculum King on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:13:21 AM PST

  •  The Uzbeks "beyond the pale"??? (4.00)
    Blood-drinker Karimov a mite out of control??? Heavens tell me it is not SO!

    I have been disgusted with our strange bedfellows before, but our alliance with this man is a dark fucking masterpiece...

  •  "We don't torture." (4.00)
    Nor do we send people to countries that do torture.

    I watched Condo's press conference on SkyTV and my wife had to leave the room because I was yelling "LIAR!" too much. The media should grill her on this information.

    I'll be waiting patiently over here.

    "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

    by Mike S on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:15:34 AM PST

  •  Dynamite! (none)
    Already spreading the word...

    If you dance with the devil, then you haven't got a clue; 'Cause you think you'll change the devil, but the devil changes you. - illyia

    by illyia on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:16:01 AM PST

  •  ENOUGH is ENOUGH (none)
    under the supposed leadership of the moral president America has totally lost its moral compass....

    enough is enough, its time to impeach Bush for real high crimes against our republic AND humanity.

    "if all the world's a stage, who is sitting in the audience?"

    by KnotIookin on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:16:15 AM PST

    •  "lost its moral compass...." (none)
      I'm even more worried than you are.

      I envision this from the media soon:
      "The latest polls are showing that when we take the pulse of the nation, we find none."

      "That story isn't worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

      by martyc35 on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:51:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Torture: The Dirty Business, a must see (none)
    There was a documentary on extraordinary rendition on the Sundance Channel last week.  They focused on the rendering of 'enemy combatants' to Jordan, Egypt and Uzbekistan.  It was all harrowing to watch but the incidence of torture in Uzbekistan was beyond the pale just as Craig Murray says.

    Here's a link to find out more about the documentary.  It should be mandated viewing for all Americans.  If any of us think for one minute faulty intelligence isn't the result of torture, we should all ask ourselves what we would do or say to get them to stop.  

    Torture: The Dirty Business

    Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. Susan B. Anthony

    by caliberal on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:16:25 AM PST

  •  Don't anybody forget: (none)
    Karimov kicked us out.

    (Sorry for those who have mentioned this little wrinkle above - meme-seeding in progress.)

    Jorge's a renegade; there's blood on his hands, oil in his arteries and cyanide inside his glands...

    by nailbender on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:16:41 AM PST

  •  Heh (4.00)
    there is something patriotic, just downright free press touchy-feely, about being part of movement to defy powerful goons and thugs. My hat's off to our blogging bretheren across the pond. Now, there was a time when the MSM was supoosed to be doin this shit right?

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:26:14 AM PST

    •  Well said (4.00)
      Well said friend...

      I consider myself priveledged to be among such esteemed company. Despite the setbacks and challenges, the resilency of this community and the commitment to do the right thing in order to make the world a better place gives me hope. I hope that people out there in the world realize how this community educates people and encourages positive involvement in the civic discourse.

      Well done my friends across the pond. Tony has been reeling for some time now, it would be incredible if you were the ones to end his reign. Good luck and Godspeed.

  •  More pressure on Blair (none)

    Carrie French, age 19, died in Iraq on June 5, 2005. Why?

    by Susan S on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:30:06 AM PST

  •  If you take (none)
    the National Human Rights Report and replace Uzbekistan with U.S and NSS with NSA/DHS, you get some interesting parallel's
  •  The truth will out (none)
    Or so we hope and pray. It has in this case, but we all know this is the tip of the iceberg.

    It is amazing to me that people like Blair and Cheney can honestly think of themselves as the good guys and behave like this.

    But there is no question they do. And there is no question that a significant majority of both Americans and Brits are always going to see themselves, their leaders, their spies and their soldiers as the good guys, nomatter who they get into bed with. The same would be true anywhere.

    When neutral observers point out obvious facts, they are effictively silenced as partisans.

    The key to getting the truth out about how morally corruped the war on terror is to have people on the inside, who were actually involved, spill the beans. It takes courageous individuals, and an equally courageous press or, more likely these days, courageous bloggers.

    And yes, I do think Cheney sees himself as a good guy, but I also think for him the Terrorists are largely an excuse to do what he'd like to do anyway: flex some goddamn American Presidential muscle. Scare the piss out of everyone. Blair I think really did take enormous succor from the fact that Saddam was an evil tyrant. So how does he reconcile being in bed with the Uzbeks?

    Does Tony Blair really want to be on the side of falsehoods over truth? So far, yes, but one can always hope that sheer revulsion will cause him to come to his senses and stop doing needless, pointless harm just to show the US how tough and ruthless he can be. Does anyone seriously think actionable intel is coming out of this?

    The terrorists have managed to get these great Western Nations to harm themselves far more than any group of bombers have.

    •  I think you need to focus (none)
      on the torture that our government conducts, under the various agencies -- and this would include Mi6.

      While I do not think they have boiled anyone alive <yet, though there is always some asshole scientist willing to try something>, they have commited some heinous crimes, through torture...

      I truely hope someone is brave enough to stand up and speak, as you said, and brings this ostensibly legally protected scum to justice, finally.

    •  Blair's (im)moral maze (none)
      You are totally right we always want to see ourselves as the good guys whatever we do, but eventually our actions catch up with us. If any of us do something we feel or know to be wrong, however vague that feeling is, most people put it down to experience and say to themselves "I don't do that shit, for I'm a good person. It was a mistake and i won't repeat it".

      If the same thing happens the next month, and the one after, it is part of a pattern of behaviour. If it starts to happen daily, you have a problem: now it is not something that happens, it is something you do, something you are.

      Blair's problem is that if he admits one mistake, falsehood or aberation he has to admit a pattern. And remember, he's been in this mire depravity, torture and lies since the Clinton era of renditions, prior to 9/11.
      That does not and cannot sit well with a man who is highly religious: Blair wants to become a Catholic - presently high Anglican, Church of England - once out of Number 10, despite John Paul II's vociferous objection to the War in Iraq. What will he have to confess to his priest? I'd love to be a fly on that confession box, although it'd take some time to go through all his sins.

      Looking in the mirror is too painful for him. He needs to be confronted by his actions before he will admit ANYTHING. His vanity, arrogance and hubris allow no self-reflection or doubt. The denial of reality and consequences his actions is his aim, cracking down on civil liberties, free press and human rights his tool.

  •  Really? (none)
    How can the authenticity memos be verified? It sounds like an extreme left wing ranting about US policy, not like some government memo. I'd love to belief it but I'm sure if I am skeptical then center/right people are going to be REALLY skeptical.
  •  Disturbed (none)
    I think that this is beyond the pale. In a war of ideas, this bankrupts our side.

    I am very saddened that it has come to this.

  •  This makes me sick (none)
    As a British Citizen as well as a Canadian citizen I find my country of birth has gone beyond the pale in support torture.  Think about this:

    They have recieved 1/2 Billion dollars from the USA a good potion going to the military to fight terrorism.  That same money is being used to keep the flow of information flowing to the USA via torture and fake info.

    The USA is rewarding this country for torture and supporting it's use.

  •  And then there's Michael Kelly, (none)
    who until his untimely death in Iraq was a particularly shrill and grating voice for those who worship the Holy Son of Poppy. I remember when Jimmy Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; Kelly guffawed, "No, it's just too funny!" He felt that Carter had cozied up to some of the world's worst dictators. When the Colossus of Crawford stole power--oops, was legitimately elected--Kelly was in hog heaven, Uzbekistan or no Uzbekistan (his silence was deafening.)

    Well, I'll give the little asshole this: he had the courage of his convictions, going off to cover the glorious war in Iraq and dying there. He once wrote a column that heaped contempt on those who warned of a Vietnameesque quagmire: "Quagmire! Quagmire! Quagmire!" I wonder if, from whatever fiery pit he now calls home, Kelly would admit that the glorious war is indeed a quagmire and might not have been fought had he not been howling for it. Roast in peace, fuckhole.

  •  sample chapter (none)
    Dang! I was going to report on Murray for my first-ever dKos diary. I coulda bin a contenda!

    Anyhow, here's a link to a sample chapter from his book:

    http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/...

    I'm not sure it works -- the server isn't responding, probly getting hammered by dkosians. Here's another link:

    http://uzbekistanerk.org/...

    and if you don't like that, just google for "Craig Murray" "Chapter 7". but you'll get a lot of hits involving some game developer.

  •  One would think, really one would... (none)
    ...that a nation with as much practice in colonialism, empire building, espionage and counterespionage, diplomacy of the sincere and insincere varietals, and just plain old goddamn war both as defender and attacker, well, one would think that after all that, an old nation such as mine - The effing Kingdom of Great Britian - for christ's sake one. would. think. they'd have fucking learned by now!

    How and why the British Nation has let itself become the torturing, lying, fraudulent, whining, arrogant (ok that one never changed), easily swayed, petulant, big-bad-world-power-that-is-the-United-States-of-America's poodle-dog bitch, is a source of unending bewilderment, frustration, and shame to me.

    I mean, really, one would think they'd know better!

    Wouldn't one?

    I sincerely hope that this particular example of neo-con fashioned hypocrisy mortally bites every last British and American authority and never lets go.

    Jailed, the lot of them should be locked up forever.

    You want to downsize the government?
    Fuck you. My government defends the American people.

    by deafmetal on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:22:50 PM PST

  •  This isn't really news (none)
    He has been saying this for a long time. This speech is a must read. He pulls on all the threads.

    In November 2002 I was sitting looking through MI6 intelligence material I saw some of which the markings indicated it was a re-release of CIA material passed on from another security service - from the text it was plain that was Uzbek. There were two intelligence reports; one about a threat to Samarqand - a city in Uzbekistan- from Tajik militants in the hills- Islamic militants who were supposedly going to sweep down and attack the city. We happened to know that this just wasn't true- the defense attaché had been there, we knew the places, there weren't training camps where it said there were. The second one was talking of the links between some Uzbek opposition group with Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden - it was just the same formula that I had seen before. And I started thinking now has this been got through torture? How did it get here? Where did it come from? So I said to my deputy 'I want to go back to London and complain about this but I don't want to make a fool of myself so could you go and see the Americans because it's possible that they have a protocol in place to make sure that any information passed on by the Uzbek's doesn't come from torture. Perhaps Americans have to be present during Uzbek interrogation if the material is to be used by the Americans.'

    This of course is before Abu Ghraib when I rather naively felt that having Americans present at the interrogation would prevent people being tortured as opposed to helping to facilitate it. So She went and saw the CIA head of station in Tashkent and said to him' my boss has been worried that this intelligence might be obtained by torture' and he said to her 'well it probably is obtained by torture - we don't see that as a problem' She came back and reported to me so I went back to London saying' This material is nonsense and probably obtained by torture' London did not actually reply.

    I went back in February saying much the same thing and they called me back to a meeting in March 2003 where the foreign office legal advisor Sir Michael Wood said that it was not illegal to obtain or use intelligence material that had been got under torture. If you read the UN convention against torture it didn't say you couldn't do it- it said you couldn't torture people, it said you couldn't use material obtained by torture in court- it didn't say that you couldn't go to someone else who'd tortured someone, get the torture material off him and use it. I think it didn't say it because it didn't need to be said. Also he was ignoring article four of the convention which talks about complicity in torture. Basically if you are regularly obtaining material from a security service that is routinely practicing torture and you have a system of getting that material again and again then you become complicit. The foreign office argues to this day that it's ok to get the stuff. The official line is 'we do not torture and we do not instigate torture but it would be irresponsible to ignore material which is relevant to the war on terror.'

    If you really push them they'll say 'what if the Uzbek's suddenly gave us information that an airplane was about to crash into Canary Wharf? Would you really want us to ignore the information?' This of course discounts the fact the information's all not true anyway. It's all nonsense. It would be impossible through all that dross to pick out the true bits. I must admit I was completely flabbergasted, again possibly naively. I thought 'we're getting this material from people who have been tortured; obviously people in London don't realize that. When I point it out to them they will want to stop.'

    This of course was not the case. At this stage they got very annoyed, they seemed particularly annoyed that I was saying that the intelligence wasn't any good. I don't think I helped myself by pointing out that the dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction was rubbish too. They seemed very fond of intelligence that was rubbish. So they didn't find that very conciliatory. But it's a very important point; you have to ask yourself why do the intelligence services like material?

    I told you the story of my mate Tom and Stephan; the dossier on weapons of mass destruction which contained 152 articles all of which turned out to be untrue, every bloody single one of them. Almost all of those had come from paying wadges of cash to dodgy informants. Not only that they were getting the information they wanted to hear. They wanted to hear that Saddam Hussein was a terrible threat; they want to hear that the opposition in Uzbekistan are all linked to Al-Qaeda and all want to blow up Canary Wharf. Why? Well if you're going to be totally cynical you'd say that whether subconsciously or not the truth is the bigger the threat out there the more we need the security services, the more they need massive budgets and resources and pay increases and toys to play with. And you have to ask 'who benefits?' Well they benefit, they benefit. They also benefit government by providing these excuses for Tony Blair to stand up in the house of commons and say 'because I am responsible for the safety of all the people in the UK we can abolish freedoms that have existed in this country since Magna Carta. They benefit from this edifice of lies, and lies gained through torture. There are people still today in Belmarsh prison who have been in there for three years without charge, without trial. Without even being told what they are accused of, on the basis of intelligence material.

    It is good that this comes back out now though. Hopefully people will be more likely to listen. This man deserves our support.

  •  DIYers, host your own (none)
    I've posted Murray's letter and the documents on my own website. Anyone else with a domain, blog, or gmail account should do the same. Once the Google spiders hit, it's all over.

    Be the genie, Danny.

  •  Borat got it right (none)
    "To the world, I love you! Apart from Uzbekistan. Assholes." -Borat
  •  Bravo! (none)
    I support this modern day "Ellsberg" response to ultra secrecy that is designed to cover up and conceal from the American people the lengths the Bush Administration has gone to "win."
    We've managed, either in the years before I was born or in the 58 years I've been alive, to defeat or battle to a draw:
    Nazi Germany;
    Imperial Japan;
    The North Koreans;
    The Chinese;
    The North Vietnamese;
    the Panamanian Dictator, Manuel Noriega;
    that military giant -- Grenada;
    through "proxy," the Russians in Afghanistan (although this one has led to our present predicament);
    crippled, then contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union;
    the Iraqi Army in the Gulf War;
    the Iraqi Army in THIS War;
    ALL
    without systematic, sanctioned torture.
    On the other hand, we have had a resurgence of collossal abuse by our intelligence agencies, as everyone predicted we would see, when Bush and Cheney pulled out the stops, and let the Hellhounds lose.
    We hopefully will suffer serious legal setbacks for our torture and misuse of the NSA.
    Cases may be lost, but there is no point in surrendering our civil liberties to people like Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Cambone, Boykin and Wolfowitz, as well as Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and David Addington.
    Keep up the good work!
    I appreciate that Bloggers are working around the corners of mainstream media, to inform the public.
    If Bush wins on the NSA case, you can BELIEVE, he will order Bloggers to suffer pains and penalties for publishing this material.
    We have to stand together.
    •  US always has tortured (none)
      ALL without systematic, sanctioned torture?

      The extensively detailed CIA and School of the Americas torture manuals dating from 1963 onwards are found here
      Torture has been a tool of US foreign policy for many years, in almost all the military actions you mention.

  •  just another 'me too' post (none)
    I published them as well. Nothing grand. Just a cut and paste job.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~~ Mohandas Gandhi

    by TimeTogether on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:45:01 PM PST

  •  Craig Murray Disclosures (none)
    So I suppose that it surprises no one that indeed that 'Source' website is down: 404 error

    http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/...
    Not Found
    The requested URL /archives/2005/12/damning_documen.html was not found on this server.
    In fact,
    http://www.craigmurray.co.uk will get you the same error
    Not Found
    The requested URL / was not found on this server.

    Gone.
    Not Forgotten.
    Ship the rest on over Craig, if you can find a pipe.
    I hope he's ok.

    ...gleefully connecting dots since 1966 arbortender's rants

    by arbortender on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:49:27 PM PST

  •  Murray site down? (none)
    As at 2400h GMT 29th Dec the Craig Murray site was unresponsive. Maybe overwhelmed by hits? Will watch for word of it being closed down... Checking again...
    •  Please put your tinfoil helmets on 'standby' (none)
      Craig Murray's site is down... and, yes, something funny has been going on with the server.

      We plan to reset and rebuild (and provide more details) in the morning.

      Meantime, the data is hosted at a number of blogs (use Technorati until Google kicks in) and the intro text of Craig's most recent post is now hosted here:
      http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/...

      Cheers all.

    •  I think his web provider got overloaded (none)
      Forbidden
      You don't have permission to access / on this server.

      If the UK government shut it down they are going to be laughing stocks. There is nothing in those memos that was not already public knowledge.

    •  Quite responsive, actually (none)
      The server that hosts - er, hosted Murray's web site reports promptly that the files that comprised the site are no longer on the server's hard drive. "404 Not Found" is the title of the page it returns when you try Murray's (former) site. Not "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded", but a crisp "404 Not Found".

      Which isn't to say that the web hosting software on the particular server is perfect, but usually "404 Not Found" means "404 Not Found".

      I'm not saying who took it down, but it looks like it's been deliberately taken down.

      bobo

  •  Murray site down (none)
    The memos released by Craig Murray are authentic, and already possibly being removed by the authorities.

    Murray's site is having "problems" at the moment and has crashed.

    "UPDATE (11:37pm) - Craig Murray's site is currently down. This is almost certainly a server issue, and it will be dealt with in the morning.

    UPDATE (00:48) - Well, shut my mouth. Something fishy is going on. Details in the morning. Meantime, my advice to those who are hosting this data is as follows;

    Back-up your websites... just to avoid any possible hassles.

    Boy, it's a good thing we hosted this in multiple locations, isn't it?"


    Any further updates from Craig Murray will be posted at www.blairwatch.co.uk and www.bloggerheads.com
  •  Tony Blair (none)
    God Save The Queen\
    And His Fascist Regime!

    With some frequency, UK Labor parliamentarians tour te United States, with the apprehension that they will be welcomed by American liberals and on some issues libertarians and progressives.

    This circumstance should end.

    Recalling 'lips that touch liqour shall not touch mine',

    I suggest

    'Voices voting confidence in Blair shall not be heard here'.

  •  Independent news article on this (none)
    Ex-envoy to Uzbekistan goes public on torture

    Britain's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has defied the Foreign Office by publishing on the internet documents providing evidence that the British Government knowingly received information extracted by torture in the "war on terror".

    Mr Murray, who publicly raised the issue of the usefulness of information obtained under torture before he was forced to leave his job last year, submitted his forthcoming book, Murder in Samarkand, to the Foreign Office for clearance. But the Foreign Office demanded that he remove references to two sensitive government documents, which undermine official denials, to show that Britain had been aware it was receiving information obtained by the Uzbek authorities through torture. Rather than submit to the gagging order Mr Murray decided to publish the material on the internet.

    The first document published by Mr Murray contains the text of several telegrams that he sent to London from 2002 to 2004, warning that the information being passed on by the Uzbek security services was torture-tainted, and challenging MI6 claims that the information was nonetheless "useful". The second document is the text of a Foreign Office legal opinion which argues that the use by intelligence services of information extracted through torture is not a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture.

    http://news.independent.co.uk/...

  •  Index on Censorship (none)
    Reporters Without Borders

    Index on Censorship

    Writers in prison, writers threatened.  How is it that Blair doesn't see what Pinter sees?  

    Let's always remember to help keep journalists safe and well.   Subscribe to Index on Censorship.  It disseminates forbidden texts like this every day.

    Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? -Al Gore

    by soyinkafan on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:25:11 PM PST

  •  A comment left (none)
    ...on a wingnut site that sought to defend Karimov  and, by extension, Bush by attacking those of us on the Left and poo-pooing our alarmist assertions that Karimov is a tin-plated Stalin:

    "The US rebuked Uzbekistan on human rights abuses and withdrew $18 million in funding even before the slaughter in Andijan in July 2004.

    Great. $18,000,000 down, $482,000,000 to go, since we'd given them a half a billion in aid in 2003 alone, you stupid fucking wingnut.

    Why do you guys defend little Hitlers like Karimov, a guy who would sooner kill you as look at you, just because he's an ally of Bush, who's only supporting him because of the strategic air bases in Uzbekistan?

    Did you ever really read Murray's documents or just skim over what clashed with your blind GOP ideology?

    I imagine that you'll delete this in true Republican fashion so as to not entertain any serious rebuttals to your elaborate fantasy that the Bush junta is making great but humanitarian, always humanitarian, progress in the war on terror. But I just wanted you to know what a spineless, passively sadistic fuck you are just for supporting this tyrant by way of extension for your irrational support of this fascist administration."

    These people make me wanna vomit up everything I've ever eaten since 1965.

    I'm writing a lengthy blog entry about this because it's vitally important that we get the word of this out.

    JP
    http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:24:04 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site