Friday, October 28, 2005

Iraqi ministry accused of assassinating defence lawyer in Hussein trial

The interior ministry of the pro-US government in Iraq is being directly accused of carrying out the murder of Sadoun Antar Nudsaif al-Janabi, a key defence lawyer in the trial of Saddam Hussein and seven others that began on October 19.

Janabi was seized from his office late in the evening on October 20 by as many as 10 men. Witnesses claim they were wearing police uniforms. Several hours later, Janabi’s body was found on the street near Baghdad’s Fardous Mosque. He had been killed execution-style with two gunshots to the head.

Hemeid Faraj al-Janabi, the sheik of the Al Janibiyeen tribe to which Janabi belonged, told the Arabic daily Al Hayat on Monday: “We have evidence from the interior ministry that the executors of the operation are from the ministry. They kidnapped Sadoun al-Janabi and took him to one of the ministry’s buildings in the Al Jaderiyah region—which is the house of the one of the daughters of the overthrown president—where they assassinated him.”

Interior Minister Bayan Jabr is a senior leader of the Shiite fundamentalist Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Along with the Da’awa movement of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, SCIRI has worked closely with the US-led occupation forces since the 2003 invasion. Following the election last January, which gave the Shiite parties control of the government, many of SCIRI’s Badr Organisation militiamen have been incorporated into the interior ministry or the new Iraqi army.

There are widespread accusations that the interior ministry and SCIRI, with the complicity of US advisors, are behind a wave of terror being unleashed against people believed to be supportive of the armed anti-occupation resistance or critical of the Baghdad government.

On August 2, a witness identified one of the men who abducted and murdered American journalist Steven Vincent as an interior ministry employee. Vincent had written several exposures of extra-judicial killings by Shiite militias linked to SCIRI.

In July, the British Observer published allegations that the interior ministry was carrying out extra-judicial killings and widespread torture in the prisons under its control.

In June, Knight Ridder correspondent Yasser Salihee was shot dead by a sniper at a US checkpoint just days before a major story he had researched with Tom Lasseter was published. The story documented accounts of killings and torture by the interior ministry police commando unit known as the Wolf Brigade, which was recruited from former members of Hussein’s Iraqi Republican Guard.

In the months since, the bodies of hundreds of Sunni Arabs have been discovered dumped on the side of the road or in rubbish dumps in Baghdad and other cities.

The motive behind Janabi’s killing last week is obvious. It is an attempt to intimidate the legal defence team assembled to represent Hussein and his co-defendants. Janabi was the chief defence lawyer for Awad Hamed al-Bander, the former head judge of the Baathist Revolutionary Court, who is on trial with Hussein.

Richard Dicker, the director of the Human Rights Watch international justice program, declared: “We are gravely concerned that this killing will have a chilling effect on the willingness of competent lawyers to vigorously defend the accused in these cases. Such an outcome will seriously undermine the ability of the court to provide a fair trial.”

Human Rights Watch issued a lengthy criticism of the trial on October 16. It condemned the court’s standards of proof, inadequate protection against self-incrimination, inadequate defence and the requirement that a death penalty sentence be carried out within just 30 days of a final

How come you haven't posted on Volcker's report detailing the UN kickbacks? It is interesting how the two countries benefiting from the oil for food program were also the two countries most opposed to the US invasion of Iraq. What good is the UN if it's international law, the law you regard so highly, is merely determined by the self interests of its members. In the end the US's actions were really no different than those of France of Russia. They (France and Russia) acted in self interest and we (the US) acted in self interest. You should not claim the UN is so great when it in fact is no different than the big bad evil US.

By Anonymous NYCtexan, at October 28, 2005 7:20 pm  

The reason I have not reported is

(a) over 2000 companies are invovled spanning every country including your own

(b) the report states clearly that the companies themselves probably didnt know and it was a few rogue elements within the companies that did this

(c) the largest oil smuggling took place with US government approval (the article you first commented about on my site)

(d) Kofi Anan accepts that the UN needs reform as does the world , only six weeks ago this subject was the top agenda at the new york summit , the problem is that the world can not agree on what the reform should be ,

Europe and asia etc want a few safety checks put in place to prevent fruad , only the US wants whole sale reform that is not required

(e) i personally find the whole oil for food scandle to be a diversion , my view is (along with (france/russia/china) other perminant members of the UN security council , is that the real crime is that the US and UK refused to lift the sanctions that brought about the need for "oil for food"

many people (including me) believe that the sanctions on Iraq (due to WMD he did not have) killed (murderded ?) upto 1 million Iraqi's

Of course a few companies taking back handers is a bad thing , and yes they should be punished

but comparing a bit of fraud to the knowing destruction of upto a million people through the forced veto of a UN rule that the world wished to overturn is nothing more then a simple distraction tactic

so i agree the UN needs reform , but a body that thinks for the whole word instead of just a single nation is a good thing

it is not perfect , but it is not the UN that prevented medicine and food from children based on a lie

why does the death of (upto) a million create so little response from you

but a few dollars in someones pocket does ?

how strange

By Blogger _H_, at October 28, 2005 7:49 pm  

i dont care about the money. i just care that the money was a cause for countries to block the united states and great britian from removing sadam. if a man goes to jail for a crime and is not able to feed his wife and child at home should he be let out of jail. no. if the government provides income to the family and the mother spends the money on drugs should the government let the man out of jail bacause the child is starving. no. i think in most cases the government would be justified in going in and taking responsibility for the child. so, you could just as easily say that France, Russia, and who ever else oppoesed taking action against Iraq were responsible for starving the people of iraq. efforts were made to provide food for the iraqis while the sanctions were in place. also at some point, it becomes the responsibility of the people of a county to hold their own leader or leaders accountable for their actions.

By Anonymous NYCtexan, at October 28, 2005 8:14 pm  

France germany russia did feel resposnible but they could not stop it

eleven times they asked us to remove sanctions and we refused
and therefore veto'd the request

but yes they are also responsible for accepting the original ressolution in 1991 that said "if any single member of the council says saddam is still guilty then the sanctions stay in place" <-- paraphrase

so yes we are all guilty

I see the point your making

but saddam was not under sanctions for any of his (non arguable) evil crimes

he was under sanctions for harbouring WMD

he did not have any WMD

so the sanctions were an error that we refused to accept

If the reasons for the sanctions were correct then i would agree with every word

they were not ,

and you seem to imply that beacuse saddam did not have WMD it was the responsibilty of his people to hold him acountable for the weapons he did not have ?

is that right ?

you mean just like we told the shia to do after gulf war 1 , when we abandoned them to slaughter ?

saddam is guilty of many crimes , that does not mean his people should suffer for a crime he did not comit

it does not mean that as saddam is a bad guy anyway it does not matter that the sanctions were wrong and that people die

if we had listened to the world then the people of iraq would not have to rise up agaisnt him as the food and medicince would have been there

there is much to blame saddamn for , but the deaths created by sanctions are our doing and our doing alone

as i say , i agree that the Oil for food scandle is serious

but it really doesnt compare to the crimes we commited agaisnt the people of Iraq

By Blogger _H_, at October 28, 2005 8:40 pm  

oh and PS , if you want to know why the US government is so angry with the UN all the time i think you will find your answer not in the crimes of the UN

but in the anger of the US administration to the 'honesty' of the UN with comments like this

the US will not stand to be told off , so it wants to bite back

By Blogger _H_, at October 28, 2005 8:46 pm  

H, you've become a political parrot. You will readily accept that the US does everything for money and greed, but then quickly find reasons to excuse EU member, Russia, and China.

I also note you explicit lack of blam on your own nation, but your overwhelming acceptance of the US as the premier criminal in the world.

I have also noticed your extreme lack of reporting anything on Iran and their nuclear ambitions as of late.... could this be due to the increasingly hostile rhetoric comming out of Tehran now?

H, you and I have gone back and forth quite a bit, but as events in the geopolitical world unfold, I feel that I am beginning to be vindicated on many issues. Iran and Iraq happen to two of them.

If France and Russia wouldn't have vetoed the resolution for war, then Iraq would have been UN sanctioned. That would remove what your primary reasoning for disagreeing with it is.

If France and Russia wouldnt have been so deeply corrupted with Saddam's Iraq, they wouldnt have vetoed.

With China on record originally as "abstaining" from it, that means the primary roadblock to UN approved invasion of Iraq was done by the two countries that had the most to loose financially.

Also note, that Iran, whom China and Ruissa are now supporting, has stepped up to a level of violent intent rehtoric that would virtually constitute war would they speak like that to any other nation.

I think you have been stretching out too thin on some of these issues to try and prove politcal points.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 28, 2005 10:59 pm  

G you said "H, you've become a political parrot. You will readily accept that the US does everything for money and greed, but then quickly find reasons to excuse EU member, Russia, and China"

I do not excuse anyone G , I do bring the other side of the story

the items i try to bring to my site are the other side of the argument

there is no shortage of american news chanels putting out the version of world events that we see every day

all we get is speeches from bush or blair saying the usual sound bites about why we are in Iraq and how we have killed this terrorist or that .

democracy and freedom depend on freedom to find the whole story , I do not claim that what i write on my site is correct and what you write on yours is not

I merely claim that this is the other side of the argument to the one we all see everyday

I am not just some (jump on the bandw wagon) antiwar type G.

There are plenty of people like yourself to attack the wrongs of the UN or russia or germany , syria , iran

how many places do you see where the other side of the story is told

for i can find thousands of sites that tell the same story , the UN is bad , anyone that questions america is supporting the terrorists etc , where as the other side of the story is harder to find

How many sites can you find that defend everything Israel does ?

and how many that defend the palastinians ?

The reason is not because one side is right and the other wrong , it is due to our natural position in the west to support israel , and defend everything our leaders tell us as being true

you said "If France and Russia wouldn't have vetoed the resolution for war, then Iraq would have been UN sanctioned. That would remove what your primary reasoning for disagreeing with it is."

not so G , my primary reason for disagreeing with the war is that i think it was wrong , i thought it was wrong even before it went to the UN , from the very moment the subject was mentioned (after 9/11) i thought it was wrong

i still do

you said "I have also noticed your extreme lack of reporting anything on Iran and their nuclear ambitions as of late.... could this be due to the increasingly hostile rhetoric comming out of Tehran now? "

to be honest i am disgusted by what Iran has just said , it is impossible to defend , i really feel that it was very niave , he was playing to the home crowd and did not click that the whole world would pick up this stuff

today he has said it again

I genuinly believe (looking at the middle east since 1900) that you can not get what you want by force , and that all the sabre rattling (as prooved by Iraq) just make things worse

so another way must be found , i look at those options , though i do not claim the answers are easy

you said "I also note you explicit lack of blam on your own nation,"

I am disgusted with my own nation , the difference is that at least 80 to 90 % of us think that Invading Iraq was wrong , that it was done for the wrong reasons .

Before the war even started , over 1 million marched in london agaisnt the war , this might not seem alot until you realise that there is only 58 million of us , when you rule out those that could not go , were to old or to young etc then we are genuinly looking at the majority (by far) of the country that were agaisnt the war.

In the main the american people supported the war , and many are yet to be convinced of its error ,and are still desperately seeking evidence of links to al-qaeda , weapons sneaked to syria , the smoking gun they all thought was there

The british know that our government took us for a ride and important lessons have been learnt , we loved TB when he came to power , we just mock him now

In a two party state there is little you can do , like you both parties backed the US plan for war so there was nothing we could do

and the UK is always a loyal friend to the US and will not pull out until (and get the UN in) until you guys accept the mistake

so there is much to do in convincing those of your fellow countrymen that can be convinced to support the movement away from the US led war on terror

to a more universal world wide effort to pacify the terrorist threat (yes sometimes by using force)

I feel that the US has lost all credibility at the moment , and everything they touch makes things worse and the world less safe

so they need to get someone in the white house with a more global perspective and a listining as well as a leading mentality

thats why i go on the offensive so often agaisnt your country , you are the key to world security and peace , you are the superpower and i genuinly think your making a mess of it

i worry for my family with the way the world is going , we need the US back in the good book of world countries and not acting like a cowboy

the actions of the US will decide the future for us and our children , and right now those actions make me frightened and angry

I do not think that america is the major criminal of the wolrd , the actions of 9/11 hit you like a bolt , it is natural for a nation to lash out when that happens . I do focus on the crimes you comit as you guys should know better

if the russians or the saudis or syrians torture people and use depleted uranium , deny entire cities food and water etc then we expect it , we expect you to behave better

the problem is that it is the US that is doing it, when the world super power starts to behave so badly it makes us all worried and it sets the acceptable standard , the US torture people so why can you be angry that the eygptians do the same

I am stunned and shocked that the worlds leading power can behave this way , i am not suprised that other countries do

I want all torture to end , and that means setting an example ,

you said "If France and Russia wouldnt have been so deeply corrupted with Saddam's Iraq, they wouldnt have vetoed."

yes the would G , the invasion of Iraq was not argued agaisnt due to everyone being in bed with saddam , it was wrong , pure and simple , Iraq was in his box , the world said "sanctions were working" i go one stage further and say "sanctions were not needed"

why did we need to attack Iraq then , that day ,in march 2003 , what was the urgency ?

The UN inspectors said that they needed a few more weeks to confirm what it has taken over 2000 american lives to find out , but you would not wait

all the world asked was that you wait for the facts , you refused and now you blame france and russia and china ,

the war was wrong G , regardless of oil for food , regardless of deals here there or anywhere , saddam did not have WMD , he was not buidling nukes

we had no authority to invade

the other security council members vetoed as they genuinly thought it was wrong G . George bush ignored them as he genuinly beleive he was right

I do agree that Irans actions are sickining , but hasnt Israel already said they will attack |Iran within twelve months , is that not also a decleration of war ?

By Blogger _H_, at October 29, 2005 2:26 am  

h - of course france and russia wanted the sanctions removed. both countries would benifit from this. look at russia's relationship with iran. russia doens't care about the consquences of it sale of nuclear tecchnology to iran. if the sanctions were lifted from iraq, russia would have another client.

the main reason for the sanctions was to prevent sadam from being able to build or maintain an army. am i wrong in this assumption? you dont seem to acknowledge this?

g - I like your posts. I think I see you on dailydissent also. those blogs are too fun.

By Anonymous NYCtexan, at October 29, 2005 3:02 am  


you said "the main reason for the sanctions was to prevent sadam from being able to build or maintain an army. am i wrong in this assumption? "

yes you are wrong , the sanctions were in place as we believed saddam had Weapons of mass destruction

there is no UN resolution that required saddam not to build an army etc

the sanctions were purely in place as we thought he had illigel weapons

he did not

I really dont disagree with either of you that france and russia had motive (all countries do)

my point is that the sanctions were for something that did not exist

so whatever the motives of france and russia they were correct to try to lift the sanctions


If i put you in jail for murder and people start to claim you are not guilty (in this case correctly) should i re-open the trial or leave you to rot in jail

the UK and US made the choice to ingore the questions other countries asked

as i said in my first reply , i do not just dismiss the oil for food scandle , it is a crime , those connected should be punished etc

my view is that it is not the greater crime , and the greater crime does not even get a look in

By Blogger _H_, at October 29, 2005 4:32 pm  

i dont think that the us or the uk were wrong in their support for the use of sanctions to prevent sadam from building weapons of mass distruction. even if they did not have weapons or were not close to having weapons, sanctions to prevent them from ever building these weapons could be justified by iraq's history as an agressor in the region. two times iraq had attacked neighbors. there was reason to beleieve that had iraq gotten weapons of mass distruction, sadam would have used the weapons in an offensive rather than defensive manner.

after iraq's invasion of kuwait, should nothing have been done to punish iraq?

By Anonymous NYCtexan, at October 30, 2005 7:27 pm  

(continuation of post above) should nothing have been done to punish iraq and to prevent sadam the means for another war against one of his neighbors?

By Anonymous NYCtexan, at October 30, 2005 7:29 pm  

Od course he should have been punished (but not the people of iraq who actually suffered), you still miss my point

saddam did have a weapons program in 1991 , nobodt denies that

the whole world (france russia china etc) all agreed , thats why the sanctions were put in place

the sanctions should have stayed in place until saddam complied

he did , he said he did , but we didnt beleive him

upto one million died , way to go in punishing saddam

we didnt punish saddam

we punished woman and children and the ederly

it wasn;t to prevent him getting a nuke , it was beacuse we thought he already had one

in 1991 the CIA said that saddam was ten years away from a bomb

after the invasion on 2003 the cia said saddam was ten years away from the bomb

so how much work do you think had been going on ?

not a personal comment to you NYC but in general i am finding the feeble attempts by people to justify the war bordering on pathetic

it was a mistake , it was illigal , the quicker we all accept that the quicker we can start to put it right

but we best be quick before someone on the right discovers that saddam once used a spoon that had been made by the same company that Osama gets his spoons from

then we will all be doomed

By Blogger _H_, at October 30, 2005 7:38 pm  

Well then in your view, the United Nations should have just gone to Iraq and arrested or fined sadam to punish him and not his people. That is a great idea.

You don’t need to explain to me that the reasons given for the war don’t make sense. I think that they could be debated either way. Honestly though, myself and many other conservatives never really cared if Sadam had harbored terrorist or had nukes. Instead, we were more interested in our ability to quickly act to preempt a future attack or quickly act in response to a future attack (the 9/11 report reports this as one of the big problems the US faced in regards to Afghanistan). We now have a much greater ability to do either of these when the time comes. In addition to this, future leaders of nations that threaten the US or our allies must deal with the idea that their actions could land them in a similar situation as sadam. Finally, I know that I am naive in my hopes that iraq could actually become some sort of democracy in the middle of the middle east, but no one has yet offered a better solution to attacking the root of the problem in the middle east.

i also acknowledge that our presence in the middle east is a rallying point for anti-american hatred throughout the region as well as a rallying point for recruitment of future terrorists. i feel that we are at least making an effort to spark change in the middle east, and also i feel that our response to 9/11 has been rather restrained. i expect that it is only a matter of time before we are hit again (whether we are in iraq or not), and i fear that our response will not be as restrained.

By Anonymous NYCtexan, at October 31, 2005 6:05 pm  


you said "Well then in your view, the United Nations should have just gone to Iraq and arrested or fined sadam to punish him and not his people"

yes i do , however only once the UN had finished its inspections and prooven the existence of weapons etc

you said "we were more interested in our ability to quickly act to preempt a future attack "

one of the most honest statements i have heard for some time

and i feel that this is 'one' of the main reasons iraq was attacked

to show the american people and the world that you had not been hurt and that you still had awsome miltary might

I disagree with doing such a thing but i respect why the US needed to do that

i agree with everything else you wrote NYC ,(see we get there in the end )

especially the fact that carrying along this road will ensure that you will be attacked again

and next time you will kick out even harder then this

world stabilty is on the line here and where i imagine we disagree is on how the US can reduce that risk and how by setting the moral hih ground , sticking to international law and working with the world that the danger to us all will go down

I dont think the US would hesitate to use a Nuke again if it felt the need , i dont doubt the terrorists would do the same (if they got one)

scary times

I am not anti republican btw , i feel that regean and bush snr would have handled this crisis much much better

my fear and concern and anger is directed at this particular group of neocons who i believe have taken the US too far to the right

I would have no problems with a center right america

this is something most people miss with my posts , they assume i am just anti republican

it is not the republican party that is the danger to the world

just this bunch that have the reigns now

By Blogger _H_, at October 31, 2005 6:28 pm  

Judge orders U.S. government to provide medical records on Guantanamo prisoners

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the U.S. government to provide medical records on Guantanamo prisoners who are being force-fed while on a hunger strike and to notify their lawyers about forced feedings.

U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler acted after lawyers representing about a dozen men held at the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, expressed urgent concern over their deteriorating health amid a hunger strike launched in early August.

Kessler stated in her opinion that the detainees' lawyers had presented "deeply troubling" allegations of forced feedings in which U.S. personnel violently shoved tubes as thick as a finger through the men's noses and into their stomachs without anesthesia or sedatives.

"If the allegations are true -- and they are all explicitly, specifically and vigorously denied by the government -- they describe conduct of which the United States can hardly be proud," the judge wrote.

Julia Tarver, a lawyer for the detainees, had told the court she learned during a visit to the base several weeks ago of force-feedings that caused prisoners to vomit blood. Tarver wrote, "When they vomited up blood, the soldiers mocked and cursed at them, and taunted them with statements like 'look what your religion has brought you."'

Tarver told the court that prison guards took a feeding tube from one detainee, "and with no sanitization whatsoever, reinserted it into the nose of a different detainee."

The judge noted that the prison's commander stated the facility was operated "in a humane manner," and the head of the hospital there said that only doctors and nurses inserted feeding tubes.


Their lawyers say the detainees are staging the hunger strike to protest their conditions and lack of legal rights. The lawyers accused the government of keeping them in the dark about their clients' medical condition.

The Pentagon said 26 of the roughly 505 prisoners currently were on hunger strike, with 23 of them hospitalized.

The New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights has estimated that about 210 were participating in the hunger strike. Detainee lawyers accused the government of deliberately under-stating the strike's scope.

The judge ordered the government to provide notice to the prisoners' lawyers within 24 hours of the beginning of force-feeding. Kessler also ordered the government to provide lawyers medical records for their clients spanning the week before a forced feeding, and provide these records at least weekly until force-feeding ends.

The judge denied the lawyers' request for immediate telephone access to their clients.

"The order is being reviewed," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman on detainee issues. He declined to comment on whether the government would appeal it.

Kessler's order affected a group of prisoners from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Afghanistan. Lawyers for detainees expressed hope the government would provide the same notification and data to lawyers for other hunger strikers.

The hunger strike is the latest flash point between the government and human rights groups over the camp, which activists call a blight on the U.S. human rights record.

Many Guantanamo prisoners have been there for more than 3-1/2 years, and just four have been charged with crimes. Rights activists have denounced these indefinite detentions and treatment they say amounts to torture. Most detainees were picked up in Afghanistan after a U.S. invasion in 2001 to oust the Taliban government and dislodge al Qaeda bases.

© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved

Fabricated Links ( is that a nice way of saying LIES ? )

Oct. 26, 2005 - A secret draft CIA report raises new questions about a principal argument used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq: the claim that Saddam Hussein was "harboring" notorious terror leader Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi prior to the American invasion.

The allegation that Zarqawi had visited Baghdad in May 2002 with Saddam's sanction—purportedly for medical treatment—was once a centerpiece of the administration's arguments about Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell cited Zarqawi's alleged visit in his speech to the United Nations Security Council. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld referred obliquely to Zarqawi's purported trip as an example of "bulletproof" evidence that the administration had assembled linking Saddam's regime with Al Qaeda.

But like the uranium yellowcake claims—since determined to be fraudulent—that are at the heart of the CIA leak case, the administration's original allegations about Zarqawi's trip also seem to be melting away. An updated CIA re-examination of the issue recently concluded that Saddam's regime may not have given Zarqawi "safe haven" after all.

The CIA declined to comment on the draft report. But officials tell NEWSWEEK that Zarqawi probably did travel to the Iraqi capital in the spring of 2002 for medical treatment. And, of course, there is no question that he is in Iraq now—orchestrating many of the deadly suicide bombings and attacks on American soldiers.

But before the American-led invasion, Saddam's government would never have known he was there. The reason: he used an alias and was there under what one U.S. intelligence official calls a "false cover." No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence, according to two counterterrorism analysts familiar with the classified CIA study who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

An intelligence official told NEWSWEEK that the current draft says that "most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war". It also recognizes that there are still unanswered questions and gaps in knowledge about the relationship."

The most recent CIA analysis is an update—based on fresh reporting from Iraq and interviews with former Saddam officials—of a classified report that analysts in the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence first produced more than a year ago. According to the Knight Ridder newspapers, the agency was originally asked to conduct that review of Saddam's dealings with Zarqawi by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The new report is only the latest chink in the armor of the alleged Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Last year, the September 11 Commission found there was no "collaborative" relationship between the Iraqi regime and Osama bin Laden; one high-level Al Qaeda commander—who had been cited by Powell as testifying to talks about chemical- and biological-warfare training—later recanted his claims. But the Pentagon and Cheney's office have been reluctant to abandon the case: in the months after U.S. and allied forces deposed Saddam, NEWSWEEK has learned, Iraqi informants approached U.S. intelligence personnel with what purported to be caches of documents proving that Saddam's dealings with Al Qaeda were extensive. (One cache of documents even claimed that six of 19 of the September 11 hijackers had been trained to fly in Iraq.)

Current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said that when officials at the Bush White House learned about the existence of documents linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, they became very excited and pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly to validate and decipher them. However, the CIA ultimately established that most key documents about the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection turned over were faked—just like the documents purporting to show Iraqi purchases of uranium.

please check out my post at

I'm not saying there is absolute, incontravertable evidence of the association...I am merely saying the distinct possibility exists that Zarqawi was there well prior to the war, and many facts point to that conclusion. The most compelling is his association with the people in Ansar Al-Islam IMO.


By Anonymous TBone, at October 28, 2005 3:10 pm  

I dont think anyone doubts Zaqarwi was there
i certainly do not

I question the concept that Saddam actually knew he was there and they were working together in any way

can i say that Mohammed Atta is linked to the US government as he was clearly there before the world trade center attack

clearly not

my point is that 2 + 2 does not equal 6

By Blogger _H_, at October 28, 2005 7:53 pm  

Last Throws in Iraq : October 27th

Oct 27 (Reuters) - Following are security incidents reported in Iraq on Thursday, Oct. 27, as of 1245 GMT.

NAHRAWAN - At least 21 Shi'ite militia fighters and two policemen were killed when they clashed with Sunni insurgents in Nahrawan, southeast of Baghdad, an Interior Ministry source said.

Another five police and 12 members of the Shi'ite Mehdi Army were wounded in the gunbattle which erupted after they sought to rescue a Mehdi Army member who was being held hostage, the official said.

BAQUBA - One policeman was killed and five others wounded when clashes broke out between insurgents and Iraqi police in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

BAQUBA - One policeman was found shot dead in his car south of Baquba, police said.

KIRKUK - One policeman from an elite unit was killed and two wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol in the northern city of Kirkuk, police said.

HAWIJA - Two policemen were wounded when a car bomb exploded near a police patrol in Hawija, 70 km (43.50 miles) southwest of Kirkuk, police said.

HAWIJA - The head of the Hawija city council escaped death when gunmen attacked him near Hawija, police said. He is seriously wounded in a hospital.

BALAD - One U.S. soldier was killed and four wounded when their patrol was hit by a roadside bomb and came under small arms fire on Wednesday near Balad, north of Baghdad, the military said.

BAGHDAD - A police major was killed by gunmen in the southern district of the capital, police said.

KIRKUK - A police colonel was killed by gunmen in the northern city of Kirkuk, police said. He had previously been reported as wounded.

BAGHDAD - Two U.S. soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb hit their convoy in eastern Baghdad on Wednesday, the U.S. military said.

BAGHDAD - A car bomb hit a U.S. patrol of Humvee armoured vehicles in Baghdad early on Thursday, killing one civilian and wounding four, police and witnesses said.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Saddam lawyers suspend trial work

Lawyers representing Saddam Hussein have said they are suspending any contact with the tribunal trying the former Iraqi leader over safety fears. The group says contacts will be frozen until security arrangements improve.

The move follows last week's abduction and murder of Sadoun Nasouaf al-Janabi, a lawyer representing one of the ousted Iraq president's co-defendants.

It raises fresh questions as to whether the former leader, whose trial opened last week, will receive a fair hearing.

We, the defence team that groups over 2,000 Iraqi lawyers... have decided to completely halt dealing with the tribunal," a statement signed by Saddam Hussein's lead lawyer Khalil Dulaimi read.

The statement cited "the deteriorating security situation and its repercussions on the work of the Iraqi lawyers, and the continuous threats against their lives and their families that were demonstrated by the killing of the martyr Sadoun Janabi".

The trial was adjourned until 28 November but the defence lawyers are now asking for a complete freeze on the proceedings until their demands are met.

Along with an independent investigation into Mr Janabi's death, the protesting lawyers are also demanding that Saddam Hussein's defence lawyers and their families be given protection, including 15 bodyguards each.

They also asked for permission to carry weapons and to be given passes to get them through Iraqi and US security checkpoints.

There had been tight security at the court as the trial of Saddam Hussein and his seven co-defendants opened on Wednesday 19th October.

Four of the five judges and most of the prosecution lawyers have remained anonymous for safety reasons.

The names of the chief judge and the top prosecutor were the only ones revealed.

But the defence team's identities were not kept secret, and Saddam Hussein's top lawyer, Mr Dulaimi, says many had been threatened.

source BBC

He's still get more justice than he ever dished out...

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 27, 2005 5:37 pm  

This isn't about him G , this is about his lawyers !

surely you agree that his lawyers should be allowed to defend him without being kidnapped and murdered !


By Blogger _H_, at October 27, 2005 7:05 pm  

oh yeah.. I was just being trite H... dont worry :p

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 31, 2005 5:38 pm  


U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) this week will introduce legislation to prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops; for transitional security provided by other countries – including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations; and for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq – as well as funding for reconstruction efforts.

Attached below is a statement Rep. McGovern gave on the House floor today.

“Mr. Speaker, CNN reported today that two thousand American troops have now lost their lives in Iraq. It is time to end this war. Let’s bring our troops home and restore U.S. credibility in the world community.

“This war was based on fiction. That is a fact that is no longer disputed. There were no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to Al Qaeda. There was no imminent threat. This Administration – with the acquiescence of Congress – rushed into a war that according to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, has made our country more vulnerable, not less, to future crisis.

“The Bush Administration has stubbornly refused to reassess the situation. They have refused to listen to the words of military and diplomatic leaders who have warned that a continuing U.S. presence in Iraq will not calm the violence or lead to a more stable Iraq. The U.S. presence in Iraq is now a major part of the problem. Al Qaeda is in Iraq today because we are there. The abuse and torture by U.S. forces of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and the near three year occupation by U.S. troops have made us an unpopular force in Iraq even among those who originally supported the U.S. invasion.

“We have spent over $300 billion on the war – with no end in sight. It is estimated that another two years of war will boost that amount to one trillion dollars. Our military is stretched to the limit, with much of the burden falling on our Guard and Reserves.

“There are some politicians in Washington who say that – no matter what – we must ‘stay the course.’ I strongly disagree. It is worth pointing out that it is not Congressmen, Senators or members of the Bush Administration whose lives are on the line in battle. It takes no courage for anybody in Washington to wave the American flag and send more troops. We owe our brave, fighting men and women so much more. Washington made a mistake in going to war. It is time for politicians to admit that mistake and fix it before any more lives are lost.

“‘In Vietnam we didn’t have the lesson of Vietnam to guide us,’ says David Halberstam, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of that war. He goes on to say, ‘In Iraq we did have those lessons. The tragedy is that we didn’t pay any attention to them.’

“Mr. Speaker, we have now sacrificed the lives of 2,000 members of our Armed Forces in Iraq. Thousands of others are wounded. Tens of thousands of civilians from Iraq and elsewhere have died since the U.S. entered Baghdad and ostensibly took control of the nation.

“This week, I am introducing a resolution to prohibit the use of tax payer funds to deploy United States Armed Forces to Iraq. The bill, however, will allow funds to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops. It will allow us to support transitional security provided by other countries – including international organizations like NATO and the United Nations. The bill will also allow for continued support for Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq – as well as funding for reconstruction efforts. This is not a cut and run strategy. Rather, it is a way to support efforts that I believe can be more helpful in creating a more stable Iraq. But, the bill makes clear – no more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq.

“Ultimately, the future of Iraq will depend on whether the various factions in the country genuinely and truly want to live with each other. No constitution or election can fully determine that outcome.

“This war has cost us dearly in terms of human life and treasure. At a time when we are shortchanging our veterans here at home, our schools, health care, and even our homeland security -- it makes no sense to throw good money after bad in this quagmire in Iraq. Sometimes great nations misstep, as I believe we have done in this case. It is now time to ask the tough questions and face the hard truths. It is time to end this war.”

My source Here

Italy denies role in Iraq uranium claim

ROME -- Italy denied allegations Wednesday that it gave the United States and Britain false documents suggesting that Saddam Hussein had been seeking uranium in Africa, helping justify the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The documents in question detailed a purported Iraqi deal to buy 500 tons of uranium yellowcake from Niger, a claim the United States and Britain used to try to prove Saddam Hussein was seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The government's denial came one day after officials said Nicolo Pollari, the director of the SISMI intelligence agency, would be questioned about the case Nov. 3 by members of a parliamentary commission overseeing secret services.

Premier Silvio Berlusconi's office "categorically" refuted claims reported in a series of articles this week by daily newspaper La Repubblica that SISMI passed on to the U.S. government and Britain a dossier it knew was forged.

"The facts that are narrated ... do not correspond to the truth," the government said in a statement in which it reiterated denials it had any "direct or indirect involvement in the packaging and delivery of the 'false dossier on Niger's uranium.'"

The intelligence supporting the claim that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa was later deemed unreliable.

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday,

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.

Vice President for Torture

10/26/05 "Washington Post" -- -- VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch: He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. "Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States.

The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad. In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.

His position is not just some abstract defense of presidential power. The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have "disappeared," like the victims of some dictatorships. The Justice Department and the White House are known to have approved harsh interrogation techniques for some of these people, including "waterboarding," or simulated drowning; mock execution; and the deliberate withholding of pain medication. CIA personnel have been implicated in the deaths during interrogation of at least four Afghan and Iraqi detainees. Official investigations have indicated that some aberrant practices by Army personnel in Iraq originated with the CIA. Yet no CIA personnel have been held accountable for this record, and there has never been a public report on the agency's performance.

It's not surprising that Mr. Cheney would be at the forefront of an attempt to ratify and legalize this shameful record. The vice president has been a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military. These decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, was reportedly one of the principal authors of a legal memo justifying the torture of suspects. This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.

The senators ignored Mr. Cheney's threats, and the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9. So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy. The Senate's earlier vote suggests that it will not allow such a betrayal of American values. As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture.

What exactly was he trying to get through? I am looking for the legislation or amendment, or memo, or anything that this story is on...

Not that I am doubting it, I just would like to see what he put forth that the Washinton Post is referring to in this article.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 27, 2005 5:41 pm  

the recent ruling passed by John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9.

that outlawed the use of torture on people in US prison such as gitmo

it means you can no longer use force to obtain confessions

cheney doesnt like it (neither does bush) so they wish to overturn the ruling

By Blogger _H_, at October 27, 2005 7:07 pm  

they just want to overturn what? The legislation, or certain wording in it?

I mean, this article is pretty vague. It makes a lot of accusations without any facts... just "he doesnt like" or "they want to"... but it doesnt quote anything or show any actual wording changes...

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 28, 2005 5:59 pm  

Saddam's defense team wants to put Bush on trial

Saddam Hussein's defense committee wants to put U.S. President George W. Bush in the dock to mirror the Baghdad trial of the toppled Iraqi leader over a Shiite massacre, a Jordanian lawyer said Tuesday.

"We shall contact international and Arab lawyer associations and will put forward the proof allowing for a trial of the criminal Bush at the same time as the fake trial takes place in Iraq," Saleh Armouti told a meeting of the Amman-based Saddam defense committee.

If lawyers abroad fail to take the case to court, "we shall organize it in Jordan and will invite international supporters," Armouti said,

Saddam is currently being tried on charges of murder and torture related to the killing of 148 Shiites from the village of Dujail following a failed attempt on the Iraqi leader's life in July 1982.

Saddam's Iraqi lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi, who arrived in Amman on Tuesday to take part in talks on coordinating strategy for his next court hearing on November 28, did not attend the defense committee meeting.

In a related development, a group of former foreign leaders backing Saddam's defense called for a UN probe into the murder of an attorney working for one of his fellow accused.

An investigation into the murder of Saadoun Janabi was an "urgent necessity," the former foreign leaders and ministers wrote in a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Investigations by Iraqi and U.S. officials into the murder "will have no credibility," said the letter signed by former Algerian President Ahmad Bin Bella, former Malaysian Premier Mahathir Mohamad, French former Foreign Minister Roland Dumas and former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark

Iraq : Cartoon of the week

From the Guardian Here

Iraq : Must watch flash presentation

Demand the truth


H, I have a academic question for you:

Repeated pictures of dead people, especially with their obviously upset loved ones will tug at anyone's heart. That it what is intended.

Why is it, according to that Flash show, 71 troops since May, and 45 Civilians in the bloodies week of the entire war, (of which, some may include insurgents), have died, so we point to Bush and say for a lie.

Yet hundreds are dying every day in places like Darfur. Countless "unauthorized" babies are killed, as they emerge from the womb of Chinese women, earthquakes in Pakistan have killed more people than the entire Iraqi death toll for the past two years.... and no Flash presentations. No fingers pointed. No "Liers" called out.

Demand the Truth? I think it should read: "Demand Politics".

I am increasingly getting frustrated with the "pick and choose" sensibilities of anti-American "world community", and the liberal American left.

This has nothing to do with remorse for the soldiers, or the Iraqis... unless of course suddenly the "world" cares more about Iraqi people than about any other nation on earth.

More American soldiers die every day from training accidents and car wrecks than do in Iraq... yet that is the "human catastrophey" that we should suddenly condemn Bush for?


By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 27, 2005 5:56 pm  

Somalia (1991 et seq.):
350,000 by end of 1992; 1M total to 1999

Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-95):

Iraq (1990-):
as of 6 Aug. 1999-UN: 1M excess deaths

Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s):
300,000 (1983-87)
200,000 (1986-1991)

Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis

Angola (1975-2002): 550,000

East Timor, Conquest by Indonesia (1975-99): 200,000

Vietnam, post-war Communist regime (1975 et seq.): 430,000

Reported Civilian Deaths, maximum number: 30,098, and at most, only a quarter of those are from the US military.

Perspective H... perspective reveals it all as partisan hack attempts for political agendas.


By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 27, 2005 6:08 pm  

the number is between30,000 and 120,000 by the lancelot study that everyone accepts as the fairest count to date

but isnt 1 to many for a lie ?

By Blogger _H_, at October 27, 2005 7:09 pm  

btw your own press are as guilty on dafur

the lie is the reason for being in iraq

now just think how popular the US would be if they had sent the troops there instead

I just watched a very touching clip G that so much prooves my point

I am watching US helicopters droping US food aid to the people in Kashmir

you will not find many places on earth that you are hated then paksitan/kashmir and india

these guys all hate you , and your feeding them

trust me , that single act of kindness will do more to stop the next generation of terrorists then any of this bullshit in Iraq ever could

By Blogger _H_, at October 27, 2005 7:13 pm  

no it wont H. We have being doing "single acts of kindess" for the last 50 years. It has gotten us nothing but resentment for what we have, and greed for more of it to be given out.

Remember the post I did about Pakistan being "outragged" by how much aid we were sending? Those shits feel entitled to what we own.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 28, 2005 6:01 pm  

and even at worst case... the numbers (and what the hell is the 90,000 cushion there?) of dead are less than the Bosnia war... which had UN approval.

This is fucking politics... it always is. The whole "sick fuck", and "terrorist" bullshit is a smoke screen and excuse to exersise a political agenda.

If even 1 life is too many for a lie... how about the lie that genocide isnt happening in Darfur?

How about the lie that Somalia was our problem?

How about the lie about what was going on in Bosnia? (radical Muslims were on the attack, and Salami Milosavich was defending his people). Granted, he went about it the wrong way, but it was portrayed, falsely, as Milosavich just being a brutal dicator.

What about the lie of why Iraq invaded Kuwait?

See H, there are lies everywhere, and just because the UN sanctions a lie... it doesnt suddenly become "not-a-lie" or moral in anyway.

This is politics. If Germany, France, and Russia wouldnt have had so much money tied up in Saddam, and so much dirty laundry, they never would have vetoed the move for war... then it would have been UN sanctioned..

Would that have made it suddenly moral? Would that mean that Bush was not a "sick fuck"?

Nope, it would have just meant the the war was just as avantagous to the EU countries as it was to the US>

There is the big lie... not the "WMD" bullshit political line that is being thrown around.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 28, 2005 6:09 pm  

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Military death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000

BAGHDAD, Oct 25 (Reuters) - The death of an army sergeant pushed the U.S. military death toll in Iraq to the landmark figure of 2,000 on Tuesday, but President George W. Bush warned more sacrifices were needed before U.S. troops could come home.

The news cast a shadow over the final results of the Iraqi referendum, which showed that voters had ratified a new constitution, despite bitter opposition in Sunni Arab areas where insurgents are battling to topple the Baghdad government.

The Pentagon said Staff Sergeant George Alexander, 34, died on Saturday of injuries sustained eight days ago when a roadside bomb blew up near his vehicle in the town of Samarra.

The new death toll was a grim reminder that although some progress has been made on Iraq's political front, much work lies ahead in halting insurgent attacks. Increasingly sophisticated roadside bombs are responsible for many of the U.S. deaths in Iraq.

Despite falling public support among the American public for the war, which has been one factor pushing down Bush's popularity in public opinion polls, the president indicated on Tuesday there would be no change in strategy.

"This war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve," he told military wives shortly before the Pentagon announcement.

The best way to honour the fallen was to "complete the mission and lay the foundation of peace by spreading freedom", he said.

Bush launched the Iraq war in 2003 hoping for a quick victory with minimal casualties. The Iraqi army was quickly defeated, but within months insurgent attacks had bogged down U.S. forces and delayed plans for the rapid reconstruction of the shattered country.

Sacrifice is unacceptable. Maybe he should lead by example and send his daughters to iraq!

Opinionated Voice

By Anonymous jamal, at October 26, 2005 2:26 am  

Iraq : Last throws for October 25th

Oct 25 (Reuters) - Following are security incidents reported in Iraq on Tuesday, Oct. 25, as of 1000 GMT.

SULAIMANIYA - At least nine people were killed when a car bomb exploded in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya, 330 km (205 miles) northeast of Baghdad, police and hospital officials said.

SULAIMANIYA - A member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Mulla Bakhtiyar, escaped assassination when two car bombs targeted his motorcade near his home in western Sulaimaniya. A medical source said one of his guards was killed and two were injured in the attack.

RAMADI - Three corpses of Iraqi army soldiers wearing civilian clothes were found in Ramadi, 110 km (68 miles) west of Baghdad. Doctor Hamdi al-Rawi from Ramadi General hospital said the bodies had gunshot wounds to the head.

BAGHDAD - Two policemen were killed and another seven wounded when gunmen ambushed a vehicle transferring prisoners in the western Ghazaliya district of Baghdad, police said. It was not clear if there were casualties among the prisoners.

BAGHDAD - Police said a suicide car bomber targeted a U.S. military convoy in the Mansour district of western Baghdad, killing one civilian and injuring five.

BAGHDAD - One person was killed and one wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near one of Baghdad's children's hospitals, police said.

US detainees 'murdered' during interrogations

-- Washington -- At least 21 detainees who died while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were the victims of homicide and usually died during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defence Department data.

The analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union, released today, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterised 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or "blunt force injuries", as noted in the autopsy reports.

The 44 deaths represent a partial group of the total number of prisoners who have died in US custody overseas; more than 100 have died of natural and violent causes.

In one case, the report said, a detainee died after being smothered during interrogation by military intelligence officers in November 2003. In another case cited by the report, a prisoner died of asphyxiation and blunt force injuries after he was left standing, shackled to the top of a door frame, with a gag in his mouth.

One Afghan civilian, believed by the ACLU to be Abdul Wahid, died from "multiple blunt force injuries" in 2003 at a base in Helmand province, Afghanistan, according to an autopsy report provided by the Defence Department.

Wahid, 28, was taken from his home by Afghan militia and accused of being a terrorist. The autopsy report said he died in American custody, although his father has blamed the militiamen.

The detailed list of prisoners whose deaths the report considered homicides includes two detainees who were beaten and died from "blunt force injuries" at the Bagram Airfield detention centre in Afghanistan, according to the autopsies.

Earlier this month, Private First Class Damien Corsetti, a military intelligence interrogator with the 519th MI Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, became the 15th soldier to face charges since those 2002 deaths.

Details about the detainee abuse and deaths have been released by the Pentagon as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Many of the incidents have been made public before, and in a number of cases the soldiers and officers involved have been prosecuted and punished.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Galloway to US senate 'Bring it on'

George Galloway has rejected claims he lied under oath to the US Senate committee which accused him of receiving oil cash from Saddam Hussein.

The Respect MP ridiculed the senators' claims during a hearing in May.

Now they say fresh evidence links him and his estranged wife to Iraq's oil-for-food programme. Mr Galloway and his wife both deny the allegations.

Mr Galloway said: "I am ready to fly to the US today... to face such a charge (perjury) because it is simply false."

Have the senate lost their minds ! . I am no supporter of Mr galloway but he certainly ripped them to shreads last time and i have no doubt he will do so again

The man enjoys this kind of chance to attack the US again on the war in Iraq , and is almost dribling with excitement at the chance to get this case put into a US court as soon as possible

check out these two interviews from the BBC and see how much this claim has pleased him Here and Here

Ever Wonder What 2000 Looks Like?

I first spotted this about a week ago and for some reason never posted it , I came across it again today on the excellent Daily Dissent and so here it is....

The US Media is building up to the moment of the 2000th American death in Iraq , So Have you ever wondered what 2000 actually looks like

If so take a look Here

How to increase the number of divorces in Australia

Sydney: Proposed legislation in Australia would make it a crime for one parent to tell the other that their child had been detained under anti-terror laws.

If a youth aged between 16 and 18 was detained, one parent would be informed and allowed to visit daily during the detention, which could last for two weeks without charge.

But if the chosen parent was the father, for example, and he told the mother where the child was, he could be jailed for up to five years.

The opposition Labour Party's spokesman for homeland security scorned the proposal. "The idea that one parent could see their child and then somehow be imprisoned for telling the other parent is absurd." - Sapa-AFP

Words to describe this are beyond me , so forgive me for repeating the words of George Orwell ....

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever. … And remember that it is for ever. The face will always be there to be stamped upon. , the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again.”

Israel still in control of Gaza envoy says

The international Middle East envoy, James Wolfensohn, has accused Israel of behaving as if it has not withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, by blocking its borders and failing to fulfil commitments to allow the movement of Palestinians and goods.

Mr Wolfensohn, the special envoy of the "Quartet" of the US, UN, EU and Russia overseeing the "road map" peace plan, said Israel continued to block the free movement of Palestinians between the strip and Egypt, even though they do not enter Israel. "The government of Israel, with its important security concerns, is loath to relinquish control, almost acting as though there has been no withdrawal, delaying making difficult decisions and preferring to take difficult matters back into slow-moving subcommittees," he wrote in a letter earlier this month to Quartet members.

Israel has almost entirely sealed off the Gaza Strip since its withdrawal on September 12. Hundreds of Palestinian workers who used to enter Israel each day via the Erez crossing in the north are not now allowed to do so, and the Karni cargo crossing has been closed, except to allow Israelis to import palm leaves for Jewish religious ceremonies earlier this month.

However, Mr Wolfensohn's principal complaint concerns the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, the only way for most Palestinians to leave and enter the territory. Israel has refused to allow the crossing to reopen, except for periodic humanitarian considerations. "The Israelis have not agreed to accept the EU's generous offer to consider the role of a third party to supervise the crossing," he said. Israel is also blocking the implementation of a proposal by Mr Wolfensohn and the World Bank for a temporary system of convoys to move Palestinians and goods lorries between Gaza and the West Bank.

In an accompanying report to the Quartet, Mr Wolfensohn warned that the lack of agreement was undermining the prospects for rebuilding Gaza. "Without a dramatic improvement in Palestinian movement and access, within appropriate security arrangements for Israel, the economic revival essential to a resolution of the conflict will not be possible," the report said.

Read more Here

Russia shows its support for Iran's nuclear program

MOSCOW: Russia reiterated its support yesterday for Iran’s nuclear programme and said all questions about it should be handled by the international nuclear watchdog agency in Vienna.

“Our common position is that we have to continue to deal with all the questions raised through the IAEA,” the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said after holding talks here with his Iranian counterpart, Manouchehr Mottaki.

“This way we can find a decision acceptable by all sides that, on the one hand, allows Iran its lawful right to a peaceful nuclear energy program and, on the other hand, does not allow any doubts about the peaceful character of this activity,” Lavrov said.

Mottaki offered a similar view.

“Iran’s nuclear aims should not be politicised,” he said, adding: “All Iranian nuclear questions should be resolved through the IAEA.”

The United States and the European Union fear that Tehran could use a nuclear energy programme to camouflage development of nuclear weapons. Russia is the main foreign contractor in construction of Iran’s first nuclear power station and has defended Tehran’s right to develop nuclear energy.

Earlier this month, Lavrov and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice openly aired their differences over the issue. The Russian minister defended Tehran’s “right” to nuclear energy, while Rice retorted that Iran also had “obligations” under nuclear the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Diplomats in Vienna said on Thursday that Iran has provided new information about its controversial uranium enrichment programmme to visiting international nuclear inspectors.

My source Here

Must watch video : The fletcher memorial home

Great take on the Pink floyd classic watch it Here

If you really need help on the metaphors then click the source

Source Here

And for more on pink Floyd go Here

Fletcher memorial home
Great show.
Desperate feeling to see the dead Iraqi and the hellishnes of bush and blair and all politicians!
Hate them all.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at October 26, 2005 1:10 am  

the only good news is that bush and blair will not stand again

but that probably means the next bunch of neocons in the whitehouse

thanks for your comments and keep fighting . the battle for the hearts and minds of the US and UK population is working

the truth is starting to be told

By Blogger _H_, at October 26, 2005 1:27 am  

Monday, October 24, 2005

Iraqi charter in balance

Two Sunni-dominated provinces in Iraq have rejected the country's draft constitution, according to partial results given by election officials. Electoral rules mean the document will fail if three out of the 18 provinces vote "No" by two-thirds or more.

Salahuddin and Anbar both heavily voted against but Diyala, also Sunni, has backed the charter.

Now all eyes are on the largely Sunni province of Nineveh where the result is due to be announced within two days.

If the constitution were to fail, it would set the political process back by roughly a year.

New elections will be held in December and the resulting parliament would again undertake the task of producing another constitution, our correspondent says.

In Anbar, 97% of voters cast "No" ballots while it was 82% against in Salahuddin, electoral commission chief Abdel Hussein al-Hindawi told reporters, quoting preliminary figures

Blasts shake Baghdad hotel area

Three powerful explosions near Baghdad hotels used by foreign media and contractors have killed at least 17, police in the Iraqi capital say.

The blasts, two of them possibly car bombs, happened near the Palestine and Sheraton hotels and were caught on camera, one sending up a huge plume.
A BBC correspondent says the bombers may have chosen the hotels to ensure maximum publicity.

The blasts come amid speculation the poll on the constitution may fail.
At least two of the blasts appear to have been suicide bombings and a cement mixer lorry seems to have been used for one of them, police sources say

One source told AFP news agency the dead were mainly security guards, hotel employees and passers-by.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw condemned the attackers as "terrorists who really don't mind who they kill, provided they kill somebody in the name of a totally perverted ideology".

Source : BBC

Scotland : Police to Investigate US 'Torture flights'

SCOTTISH police are to launch an investigation into CIA “torture flights” which fly in and out of Glasgow and Prestwick airports, ferrying kidnapped war on terror suspects around the world.

The police action is a result of last week’s disturbing investigation by the Sunday Herald into the so-called “extraordinary rendition flights”, which see suspects kidnapped overseas by the CIA, drugged and then flown to “friendly” states, such as Egypt, Uzbekistan and Morocco, where they are tortured on behalf of British and American intelligence.

Following our reports , the Green Party wrote to the chief constable of Strathclyde Police, Sir William Rae, asking for a full inquiry into the torture flights. A police spokesperson confirmed that the force would now launch an investigation.

Last week, we revealed that the British government was to be sued by human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith for complicity in the torture of his client Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi.

Also exposed was the fact that international human rights experts and lawyers believe the UK is breaking the Geneva Conventions by collaborating with the USA on the transit of the flights through Britain.

Further, the UK allows British airports to be used for refuelling by the CIA’s jets ferrying suspects around the world. Glasgow and Prestwick airports are the two most favoured CIA stop-overs.

Chris Ballance, the Green Party MSP who represents the Prestwick area, said he lodged the complaint with Strathclyde Police after reading the Sunday Herald’s investigation because it appeared that “Scotland is complicit in these gross acts of torture”.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, said : “Once these planes land on British soil, they have no immunity. If they touch down at a civilian airport they are under civilian jurisdiction. This would allow the police to do their job fully and to board the plane and question those on board.”

Uh-Oh... lawyers are now going to get you guys too.....

Why dont the lawyers ever try to sue the country that does the "torturing?"

I mean, if you were captured for something, then expidited to another nation, and they torture you...

This is kind of like suing the insurance company of ther person who crashed into your car... because you know they dont have any money.

These guys know that the other countries will tell them to go pound sand, but in our sympathetic democracies, they will be given a huge cash award, and then the US an UK will look bad.

Notice the extreme lack of Muslim outrage at other Muslim nations tourturing... Muslims.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 24, 2005 6:08 pm  

btw H, My comments section is down, email me when you get a chance.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 24, 2005 6:09 pm  

there is a sentence i cut off the end of this article when posting that sums up the whole problem

the newspaper asked a senior CIA official about this and his response was to laugh

The bog standard 'civilian' scottish police force will get nothing but a brick wall to talk to on this

the UK government won't help them obviosly

the US government and CIA will shut up shop too

Its an interesting story this one G but thats all it will be ..

I doubt we will ever here the result of the enquiry , the police will be told to find something else to investigate

By Blogger _H_, at October 24, 2005 6:56 pm  

I agree.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 24, 2005 7:57 pm  

Iran : 'We have proof UK bombed us'

TEHRAN: Iran said yesterday it has proof that Britain was involved in a double bomb attack last week that killed six people and injured more than 100 in Ahvaz.

The British embassy in Tehran immediately rejected the allegations.

"Information obtained show that Britain is the main accused in the recent events," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state TV.

"The information shows that Britain is seeking to create insecurity in our country by interfering in our internal affairs," he added, warning that the consequences "could be worrying for the British".

The bomb attacks on Saturday killed six people and injured more than 100 in Ahvaz, in Khuzestan province.

Are they goint to release WHAT the eveidence is... or just keep saying they have it?

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 24, 2005 6:10 pm  

LOL "Are they goint to release WHAT the eveidence is... or just keep saying they have it? "

thought you were talking about Gitmo for a second G :-)

to be fair i doubt they have any evidence as such ,

but what does that matter , they are playing the same game we play with them

'we have evidence that Iran is helping the insurgents" stuff

my view is it is a smart move , i dont think there is a cent of truth in it but , it's a big "we can do that too" message to the west

By Blogger _H_, at October 24, 2005 7:00 pm  

I think they are tyring to play to their public, thats all.

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 24, 2005 7:57 pm  

oh and the wider audience too G

most countries have learnt the basics of propaganda and hype and psy ops these days

It seems the Middle east has learnt not to stay quite when the US and UK start on them

Iraq happens if you stay quite , so Iran and Syria are going to shout loud and often

I expect them to try and complain to the UN soon , saying it is the duty of the UN to protect them etc

By Blogger _H_, at October 24, 2005 8:06 pm  

Iraq : MOD poll ' 65 percent feel attacks on troops justified'

LONDON (Reuters) - Sixty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified, according to a secret poll said to have been commissioned by British defence leaders and cited by The Sunday Telegraph.

Less than 1 percent of those polled believed that the forces were responsible for any improvement in security, according to poll figures.

Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were "strongly opposed" to the presence of the troops.

The paper said the poll, conducted in August by an Iraqi university research team, was commissioned by the Ministry of Defence.

forgot the "Note" at the end:

*Poll was done of approximately 1,068 former Baath Pary officials


By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 24, 2005 6:11 pm  

LOL , if only

whats so scary about this poll G is that we should not even know it took place

it was a secret poll , carried out by the british ministry of defence (MOD) for there eyes only

it was to help the british government understand whats happening on the ground , i doubt they expected this

By Blogger _H_, at October 24, 2005 7:03 pm  

there is no secrets anymore... especially if it may be damaging to Bush. There are too many Beuro-boobs in the governement that are irritated in his cut-backs, re-orginizations, and croneyism.

They were placed there before by the previous administration, and now find anything the can to "leak" out if it hurts Bush.

I'm sure some of the same things are happening in the UK

By Blogger G_in_AL, at October 24, 2005 8:00 pm  

very much so

I am not sure about the MOD but MI5 and MI6 have been vocal in their lack of respect for blairs actions

when your own intelligence agency is gunning for you then your in the shit deep

Look at how many 'top secret' british documents have been leaked to the press

the downing street memo was just the start

By Blogger _H_, at October 24, 2005 8:08 pm  

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Last throws in Iraq october 22nd

Oct 22 (Reuters) - Following are security incidents reported in Iraq on Saturday, Oct. 22, as of 1400 GMT.

HAQLANIYA - A U.S. Marine was killed on Friday while conducting combat operations against insurgents near Haqlaniya, northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. It said Marines killed four insurgents in the subsequent clash.

BAGHDAD - Two Iraqi soldiers were wounded when insurgents hurled grenades at their patrol in central Baghdad and the army returned fire, arresting six of them, the Iraqi army said in a statement.

DIWANIYA - A former member in the Baath Party, which was dissolved in 2003, escaped an assassination attempt when gunmen attacked his house in Diwaniya, 180 km (110 miles) south of Baghdad. Police said one of his daughters was killed and two others wounded.

FALLUJA - A car driven by a suicide bomber exploded in central Falluja targeting a U.S patrol in an attack that Iraqi police officer Saif Sami said had destroyed a Humvee. There was no immediate comment from the U.S military.

DIWANIYA - One Iraqi was killed and another wounded when Polish forces opened fire on a street in the centre of Diwaniya, a medical source said.

BAGHDAD - A U.S. soldier died of a non-hostile gunshot wound on Oct. 20 in Baghdad.

Repeat the lie enough and people will think it is the truth

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - U.S. envoy Karen Hughes on Friday defended Washington's decision to go to war against Iraq in front of a skeptical audience, saying Saddam Hussein had gassed to death "hundreds of thousands" of his own people. A State Department official later said she misspoke about the number.

Hughes, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, made the comment before a group of Indonesian students who repeatedly attacked her about Washington's original rationale for the war, Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. No such arms were ever discovered.

"The consensus of the world intelligence community was that Saddam was a very dangerous threat," Hughes said days after the ousted dictator went on trial in Baghdad on charges of murder and torture in a 1982 massacre of 148 Shiites in the town of Dujail.

"After all, he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people," she told a small auditorium with around 100 students. "He had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people using poison gas."

Hughes twice repeated the statement after being challenged by journalists. A State Department official later called The Associated Press to say she misspoke. The official, who was traveling with Hughes, spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to talk publicly to the media.

Hughes, a longtime adviser to President Bush, was visiting the world's most populous Muslim nation as part of Washington's effort to enhance the U.S. image abroad.

Students from Indonesia's oldest Muslim university pounded her with questions on U.S. foreign policy, in particular the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and Washington's support of Israel.

One said the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks should be taken as a warning to America for interfering in the affairs of other countries.

"Your policies are creating hostilities among Muslims," a female student, Lailatul Qadar, told Hughes. "It's Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and maybe it's going to be in Indonesia, I don't know. Who's the terrorist? Bush or us Muslims?"

Hughes, who has also faced tough questions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey since taking up her post two months ago, said she was not surprised by the level of hostility.

"I understand that there are a lot of young people around the world, and a lot of people in our own country, who don't agree with what we did in Iraq," she told reporters. "We have to engage in the debate. That is what America is all about."

Anybody still wonder why 75 % of americans thought saddam was responsible for sept the 11th ? This is an adviser of the president and she believes Saddam gassed "hundreds of thousands" of his people !

for those of us that live in the real world the number is just under 5000

But what does the truth and evidence matter when you have a political agenda to hype up

British MP puts forward motion to refer US to security council

A British MP has tabled the following motion to put before the house in an upcoming Parliamentary session. The event is in many ways a non starter as any of the perminant five members can veto a proposal that is put before it .

However this is worthy of note for two reasons

(1) It will be embarrassing for the nation pushing the world to prevent the spread of WMD to itself be put before the security council for breaching world law on the transference of biological weapons

(2) The wording is of note , and there is no doubt that this is a major breach of world law and makes a laughing stock of the rule of law when a nation can veto itself out of trouble that would get others invaded

Exact wording as follows....

That this House notes that the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention binds signatories not to transfer to any nation any agents, toxins, weapons and equipment of biological and toxin warfare and provides that any nation finding another signatory in breach of this undertaking may lodge a complaint to the UN Security Council;

Notes that the Riegle Report to the US Senate has published evidence that the US sold bacillus anthracis, clostridium botulinum, histoplasma capsulatum, brucella, melitensis and clostridium perfringens to agencies of the Iraqi government pursuant to export licences issued by the US Department of Commerce, at a time when the US was fully aware of the Iraqi biological warfare programme and that these exports have been fully documented noting,

in particular, that the US sales included Vollum strain anthrax, found by the Iraq Survey Group to be the strain of anthrax used in the Iraqi biological weapons programme, and which, as reported in The Times of 9th August, originated from a dead cow in Oxfordshire; calls on the Government to report these sales to the Security Council in the light of its commitment in the April 2002 Green Paper,

Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, that those at every level responsible for any breach of international law relating to the use of such weapons will be held personally accountable; and urges the Prime Minister either to lodge the necessary complaint with the Security Council or change the UK's stated policy after an appropriate public announcement and discussion.

Israeli leaders call for regime change in Syria

Israeli leaders on Friday called for changes in the Syrian leadership, after a U.N. probe implicated top Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officials in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

The findings drew the first official link between Damascus and the Feb. 14 slaying of Hariri, a popular opposition leader. The U.N. Security Council is scheduled to discuss the report Tuesday and may consider sanctions against Syria.

"I think there needs to be change in Syria," said Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres, adding that the United States and France should take the lead in deciding on an international response to the findings.

Referring to Syrian President Bashar Assad and his relatives in positions of power, Peres said: "If it is true that the (Syrian) government is involved in the murder (of Hariri), this will shake up the rule of the Assads," Peres told Israel Radio.

Of course (if true), nobody would defend any kind of state sponsered assassination although it is almost laughable that if the two countries calling for action the strongest( the US and Israel ) were to take their recommendations for Syria on board for themselves, they would probably tie up the international court for the rest of the century.

People in glass houses......