The fact that the Israeli and American governments believe themselves above the rule of law is well known to all, but in a recent twist we now have Jewish-American supremacists - internet nerds going by the name of the 'Jewish Internet Defense Force' - believing they can do what the fuck they like in cyberspace as well, and appearing to get away with it.
The Israeli press seemingly approves of the hacking (an illegal action in most countries) by these Jewish-American supremacists, but what's new there? They have always approved all the Israeli governments' terrorist activities. The Jerusalem Post managed to avoid using the word 'hacks' preferring "seizes control", while Arutz Sheva (IsraelNationalNews.com) states "A Jewish activist has rallied thousands of virtual troops to go after the Jew-haters and terrorist-sympathizers of Facebook – with great success...His first move was establishing a group called "FACEBOOK: Why Do You Aid And Abet Terrorist Organizations?"
The JIDF revere the terrorist Meir Kahane and Israeli terrorist organisations such as Sayeret Matkal, and worship at the altar of the cowardly King David Hotel terrorist bombing, as their You Tube page shows.
They believe in ethnic cleansing, indeed a "representative of the group (who) agreed to be interviewed on the condition of anonymity" stated "Palestinians should be transferred out of Israeli territories" in an online interview published yesterday.
This representative is probably the group's founder, David Appletree, who back in March "declared war" against what he calls "anti-Israel propaganda".
Curiously enough, the JIDF state that they "hope to expose and fight antisemitism and pro-Jihadist trends on the web" by pressuring MySpace to "draw the line when people are blatantly promoting hatred, violence, murder, and genocide..." yet to the question that the group is engaging in the exact some rhetoric and conduct that it criticizes, they answer "We do not promote hatred, violence, murder or genocide. We do not promote known terrorist entities. We do not misinform. We do not lie nor make up lies. We do not call people “apes and pigs” - like many of the Muslims do. We do not advocate the destruction of countries or of people."
No, just cockroaches...here are some of the comments to be found on their You Tube page by their own supporters:
"Well after watching that I hope that A bad earthquake hits iran,hopfully around there nuclear facilities,so there people might get poisioned.These lunatics want this power for there own agenda,g-d willing it will only backfire on them.Or I hope Israel nukes iran and then hit russia."
"the only language they understand is that of violence"
"islam is growing fast because they give two options: convert or die. plus they are breeding like cockroaches."
30 July 2008
27 July 2008
Israeli chutzpah knows no bounds
The sheer 'chutzpah' of the Israelis is breathtaking.
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post on Friday, Dan Gillerman, Israel's outgoing ambassador to the UN, stated that UNIFIL was not fulfilling its Lebanon mandate: "The UNIFIL soldiers were not sent there to give out chocolates to children or write traffic tickets. They were sent there to carry out a mandate which was very clearly defined, and they are not [doing so]."
Of course, as the Lebanon Daily Star reported, Gillerman was responding to the fact that "The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Friday lodged a formal complaint with Israel for a series of violations of Lebanese airspace over a two-day period. In a press release Friday, UNIFIL spokeswoman Yasmina Bouzianne demanded Israel bring a halt to their over flights as they constituted "a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 and of Lebanese sovereignty.""
We should perhaps remind Mr Gillerman that SCR 1701 "authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations...is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind".
This includes hostile over flights by Israeli warplanes.
UNSCR 1701 also decided that UNIFIL should continue to carry out its mandate under UNSC Resolution 425.
UNSC Res. 425 called for "strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon" and also called for "Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity".
This also means no overflights.
In this sense he is absolutley correct that UNIFIL are not fulfiling their mandate. They should have shot down the intruding Israeli aircraft.
In an interview with the Jerusalem Post on Friday, Dan Gillerman, Israel's outgoing ambassador to the UN, stated that UNIFIL was not fulfilling its Lebanon mandate: "The UNIFIL soldiers were not sent there to give out chocolates to children or write traffic tickets. They were sent there to carry out a mandate which was very clearly defined, and they are not [doing so]."
Of course, as the Lebanon Daily Star reported, Gillerman was responding to the fact that "The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) Friday lodged a formal complaint with Israel for a series of violations of Lebanese airspace over a two-day period. In a press release Friday, UNIFIL spokeswoman Yasmina Bouzianne demanded Israel bring a halt to their over flights as they constituted "a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 and of Lebanese sovereignty.""
We should perhaps remind Mr Gillerman that SCR 1701 "authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations...is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind".
This includes hostile over flights by Israeli warplanes.
UNSCR 1701 also decided that UNIFIL should continue to carry out its mandate under UNSC Resolution 425.
UNSC Res. 425 called for "strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon" and also called for "Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity".
This also means no overflights.
In this sense he is absolutley correct that UNIFIL are not fulfiling their mandate. They should have shot down the intruding Israeli aircraft.
22 July 2008
Fax to the Prime Minister about that "wiped off the map" phrase
Prime Minister,
I was astounded to read in the British press this morning comments, which will be made by yourself today while in Israel.
According to the Guardian “The prime minister will tell Israeli MPs… “it is totally abhorrent for the president of Iran to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world” (1)
According to the BBC “In the first speech to the Knesset by a UK PM, he will call Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel "to be wiped off the map" abhorrent.” (2)
I demand to know why, as my Prime Minister who works for me, you will be making a major speech and basing a major foreign policy on a falsity, a lie: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never called for Israel "to be wiped off the map". This canard has been well and truly discredited over the last several years, and has been reported in the British press so it is impossible that the Prime Minister and his staff are not aware of this. (3) Consequently, he must himself know that this is a lie. He is consciously lying not only to the Israeli Knesset, but also to British and world public opinion. Apart from anything else, if Ahmadinejad wants to wipe out the Jews, why are there still Jews in Iran? Why are there Jews in Iran that are represented in the Iranian parliament? (4)
How the PM can stand before the ‘parliament’ of a country which has undeclared nuclear weapons, has never signed the NPT, has carried out uncountable military aggressions against its neighbours, has threatened Iran with attack (illegal under the UN Charter you claim to defend) and which the majority of European citizens feel is the greatest threat to peace in the world (5) and accuse Iran of this, is Kafkaesque in the extreme. Furthermore, you are supporting a government whose leader is accused of corruption.
Your predecessor, Mr. Blair, started a war of aggression on Iraq, the ‘supreme crime’ according to the Nuremberg Principles enshrined in international law and the UN Charter and which has turned into genocide. You will now be providing diplomatic cover based on falsities and lies for yet another aggression on a sovereign country, this time Iran, which will in all probability also become genocide if not stopped. Sir, have you no shame?
Name, Address & Passport number supplied.
Notes:
(1) “Brown warns Iran to end 'totally abhorrent' threat to destroy Israel” Nicholas Watt in Jerusalem, The Guardian, Monday July 21, 2008
(2) “PM to warn Iran in Knesset speech”, BBC News website, Page last updated at 03:12 GMT, Monday, 21 July 2008 04:12 UK
(3) “If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally”, Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, June 2, 2006
“Lost in Translation”, Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, June 14, 2006
(4) “Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel” Robert Tait, The Guardian, July 12, 2007
“Israel’s Jewish problem in Tehran” Jonathan Cook, ICH, 08/03/07
(5) “Israel outraged as EU poll names it a threat to peace”, Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor The Observer Sunday November 2, 2003
I was astounded to read in the British press this morning comments, which will be made by yourself today while in Israel.
According to the Guardian “The prime minister will tell Israeli MPs… “it is totally abhorrent for the president of Iran to call for Israel to be wiped from the map of the world” (1)
According to the BBC “In the first speech to the Knesset by a UK PM, he will call Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel "to be wiped off the map" abhorrent.” (2)
I demand to know why, as my Prime Minister who works for me, you will be making a major speech and basing a major foreign policy on a falsity, a lie: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never called for Israel "to be wiped off the map". This canard has been well and truly discredited over the last several years, and has been reported in the British press so it is impossible that the Prime Minister and his staff are not aware of this. (3) Consequently, he must himself know that this is a lie. He is consciously lying not only to the Israeli Knesset, but also to British and world public opinion. Apart from anything else, if Ahmadinejad wants to wipe out the Jews, why are there still Jews in Iran? Why are there Jews in Iran that are represented in the Iranian parliament? (4)
How the PM can stand before the ‘parliament’ of a country which has undeclared nuclear weapons, has never signed the NPT, has carried out uncountable military aggressions against its neighbours, has threatened Iran with attack (illegal under the UN Charter you claim to defend) and which the majority of European citizens feel is the greatest threat to peace in the world (5) and accuse Iran of this, is Kafkaesque in the extreme. Furthermore, you are supporting a government whose leader is accused of corruption.
Your predecessor, Mr. Blair, started a war of aggression on Iraq, the ‘supreme crime’ according to the Nuremberg Principles enshrined in international law and the UN Charter and which has turned into genocide. You will now be providing diplomatic cover based on falsities and lies for yet another aggression on a sovereign country, this time Iran, which will in all probability also become genocide if not stopped. Sir, have you no shame?
Name, Address & Passport number supplied.
Notes:
(1) “Brown warns Iran to end 'totally abhorrent' threat to destroy Israel” Nicholas Watt in Jerusalem, The Guardian, Monday July 21, 2008
(2) “PM to warn Iran in Knesset speech”, BBC News website, Page last updated at 03:12 GMT, Monday, 21 July 2008 04:12 UK
(3) “If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally”, Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, June 2, 2006
“Lost in Translation”, Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, June 14, 2006
(4) “Iran's Jews reject cash offer to move to Israel” Robert Tait, The Guardian, July 12, 2007
“Israel’s Jewish problem in Tehran” Jonathan Cook, ICH, 08/03/07
(5) “Israel outraged as EU poll names it a threat to peace”, Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor The Observer Sunday November 2, 2003
The Guardian's one-sided Iran 'Explainer': "A troubled history"
Once again the Guardian and its journalists try to convince us that the West can do no wrong and its the fault of those 'orrible "wogs".
Here is my letter to Ian Black and the Guardian Reader's editor:
Dear Ian Black,
I read your recent 'Explainer': "A troubled history" (1) this morning'.
You state in the first paragraph "The two countries have been at daggers drawn since the 1979 Islamic revolution, when the shah, long backed by Washington, was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini."
Your cut-off date of 1979 is grossly misleading as to the 'troubled history' between the 2 countries, as you fail to mention the British and American-instigated coup of 1953 which brought the Shah's bloody dictatorship to power, overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Mossadeq, which was the real cause of said 'troubled history'. This episode has been described in detail by the NYT Pullitzer prizewinner Tim Weiner in his book "Legacy of Ashes".
The US National Security Archive calls it "a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region" and states further that when "the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians."(2) Yet you obviously feel it has nothing to do with the 'troubled hstory' between the two countries!
The US is trying the exact same tactic now according to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, and yet you feel this is also not relevant enough to include in your "Explainer".... (3)
C.P. Scott would be rolling in his grave considering his slogan that 'facts are sacred'. A bit more respect for your readers Mr. Black!
Please amend the article to include these fundamentally relevant facts.
Yours Sincerely
Links:
(1) A troubled history
(2) Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran
(3) "The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,"
Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
Here is my letter to Ian Black and the Guardian Reader's editor:
Dear Ian Black,
I read your recent 'Explainer': "A troubled history" (1) this morning'.
You state in the first paragraph "The two countries have been at daggers drawn since the 1979 Islamic revolution, when the shah, long backed by Washington, was overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini."
Your cut-off date of 1979 is grossly misleading as to the 'troubled history' between the 2 countries, as you fail to mention the British and American-instigated coup of 1953 which brought the Shah's bloody dictatorship to power, overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Mossadeq, which was the real cause of said 'troubled history'. This episode has been described in detail by the NYT Pullitzer prizewinner Tim Weiner in his book "Legacy of Ashes".
The US National Security Archive calls it "a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region" and states further that when "the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians."(2) Yet you obviously feel it has nothing to do with the 'troubled hstory' between the two countries!
The US is trying the exact same tactic now according to Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, and yet you feel this is also not relevant enough to include in your "Explainer".... (3)
C.P. Scott would be rolling in his grave considering his slogan that 'facts are sacred'. A bit more respect for your readers Mr. Black!
Please amend the article to include these fundamentally relevant facts.
Yours Sincerely
Links:
(1) A troubled history
(2) Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran
(3) "The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,"
Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
18 July 2008
More US propaganda in the UK Independent
It seems the UK is the favoured place for the US to plant their propaganda. The Independent yet again shows just who is their true master. In an article in today's edition (18 July 2008) entitled "Condi's coup: how the neo-cons lost the argument over Iran", former foreign editor of The Independent Leonard Doyle would have us believe that "Condoleezza Rice... is now emerging as the best hope for avoiding a military conflict between the United States and Iran."
The Independent piece appears to be some form of damage control from the American State Dept. to persuade us that the US really does want to resolve the Iran 'problem' using diplomacy - honest guv!
However, there is, obvious to me and presumably to the Iranians as well, another reason for wanting diplomats in Iran. Wasn't it just recently the US foriegn policy establishment were complaining that they didn't have reliable intelligence on Iran? (1)
Wasn't one of the reasons cited for that lack of intelligence the fact that they had no diplomatic 'boots' on the ground? (" “U.S. intelligence on Iran is admittedly weak given there hasn't been a U.S. embassy in Tehran since 1979.")
According to LA Time blog Babylon and Beyond back in June: "A piece Monday in the Washington Post described a debate inside the administration about the wisdom of expanding the U.S. diplomatic footprint in Tehran. One official told the Post: It's not a softening. It does allow us to reach out to youth groups, to talk to dissidents. It's something the regime wouldn't like. Initial Iranian reaction to the idea was frosty. "We do not trust the Americans," Musa Qorbani, a politician close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told The Times. "After a few days, we may figure out their motivations and what their intention is, then we will give our comment."
William O. Beeman, Professor and Chair of Anthropology and specialist in Middle East Studies at the University of Minnesota in his comment on the same blog piece also states: "former vice-President of Iran Mohammad Hashemi-Rafsanjani (brother of former President Ali Hashemi-Rafsanjani)...expressed the opinion that this expanded interests office would not be for the benefit of the Iranian people."
Further, Beeman states: "There is no question that a significant portion of Iran's leadership will look on an expanded office as a launch-pad for spying and support of dissident groups...Right now the justification has been "we don't know enough about Iran." That is true, but it makes the operation look like an intelligence operation rather than the diplomatic mission that is so desperately needed. " (2)
This ties in with Justin Raimondo's take in "Coercive 'Diplomacy' – Prelude to War": "What we are seeing is a variation on the same prelude, almost note for note, that we heard in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. A surrogate "dissident" group funnels phony intelligence about "weapons of mass destruction" to its masters in Washington, a full-court propaganda campaign is launched, sanctions are imposed, allies are pressured to get on board, and the whole performance takes place complete with a soundtrack of constant threats. Nothing ever changes with this administration, in spite of the best efforts of the moderate "realists," because the War Party is still in the saddle – and because both political parties uphold the principle of American hegemonism. Their differences are merely over strategy and tactics, and over matters of style and tone, but when it comes to the goal – American domination of every region and continent – "politics stops at the water's edge," as the old foreign policy adage goes." (3)
Notes:
(1) Intelligence on Iran Still Lacking (Lionel Beehner, Council on Foreign Relations, December 4, 2007) http://www.cfr.org/publication/12721/
(2) IRAN: U.S. ponders diplomatic upgrade in Tehran (Babylon & Beyond Blog, LA Times, Jun 24 2008) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-us-ponders.html
(3) Coercive 'Diplomacy' – Prelude to War Justin Raimondo July 18, 2008 http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13156
The Independent piece appears to be some form of damage control from the American State Dept. to persuade us that the US really does want to resolve the Iran 'problem' using diplomacy - honest guv!
However, there is, obvious to me and presumably to the Iranians as well, another reason for wanting diplomats in Iran. Wasn't it just recently the US foriegn policy establishment were complaining that they didn't have reliable intelligence on Iran? (1)
Wasn't one of the reasons cited for that lack of intelligence the fact that they had no diplomatic 'boots' on the ground? (" “U.S. intelligence on Iran is admittedly weak given there hasn't been a U.S. embassy in Tehran since 1979.")
According to LA Time blog Babylon and Beyond back in June: "A piece Monday in the Washington Post described a debate inside the administration about the wisdom of expanding the U.S. diplomatic footprint in Tehran. One official told the Post: It's not a softening. It does allow us to reach out to youth groups, to talk to dissidents. It's something the regime wouldn't like. Initial Iranian reaction to the idea was frosty. "We do not trust the Americans," Musa Qorbani, a politician close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told The Times. "After a few days, we may figure out their motivations and what their intention is, then we will give our comment."
William O. Beeman, Professor and Chair of Anthropology and specialist in Middle East Studies at the University of Minnesota in his comment on the same blog piece also states: "former vice-President of Iran Mohammad Hashemi-Rafsanjani (brother of former President Ali Hashemi-Rafsanjani)...expressed the opinion that this expanded interests office would not be for the benefit of the Iranian people."
Further, Beeman states: "There is no question that a significant portion of Iran's leadership will look on an expanded office as a launch-pad for spying and support of dissident groups...Right now the justification has been "we don't know enough about Iran." That is true, but it makes the operation look like an intelligence operation rather than the diplomatic mission that is so desperately needed. " (2)
This ties in with Justin Raimondo's take in "Coercive 'Diplomacy' – Prelude to War": "What we are seeing is a variation on the same prelude, almost note for note, that we heard in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. A surrogate "dissident" group funnels phony intelligence about "weapons of mass destruction" to its masters in Washington, a full-court propaganda campaign is launched, sanctions are imposed, allies are pressured to get on board, and the whole performance takes place complete with a soundtrack of constant threats. Nothing ever changes with this administration, in spite of the best efforts of the moderate "realists," because the War Party is still in the saddle – and because both political parties uphold the principle of American hegemonism. Their differences are merely over strategy and tactics, and over matters of style and tone, but when it comes to the goal – American domination of every region and continent – "politics stops at the water's edge," as the old foreign policy adage goes." (3)
Notes:
(1) Intelligence on Iran Still Lacking (Lionel Beehner, Council on Foreign Relations, December 4, 2007) http://www.cfr.org/publication/12721/
(2) IRAN: U.S. ponders diplomatic upgrade in Tehran (Babylon & Beyond Blog, LA Times, Jun 24 2008) http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/06/iran-us-ponders.html
(3) Coercive 'Diplomacy' – Prelude to War Justin Raimondo July 18, 2008 http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13156
10 July 2008
Letter: US Terrorism and British Law
This is the text of an e-mail sent to the Home Office on 02 July 2008, with copies to journalists and editors of several British media organsisations, including the News and Foreign Editors od the Independent, Guardian, BBC and ITN (to date I have not received one reply) :
To: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
02 July 2008 21:19
Britain bans Hezbollah's military wing
Sir,
According to an online article by the BBC "The military arm of Lebanese political party Hezbollah has been added to the government's list of organisations banned under the Terrorism Act 2000" (1).
According to the BBC, "Home Office minister Tony McNulty said what the government sees as the party's military wing was providing active support to militants in Iraq, including training in the use of deadly roadside bombs."
Firstly, as the Minister and all of you at the Ministry act on my behalf, I would like to know exactly what proof you have of a sustained active support? There has only been one report of a Hizbollah operative being captured in Iraq, with the only 'proof' being his 'confession', which was very likely obtained under torture (2)
Secondly, I would also like to ask the Minister that, bearing in mind the answer you provide me for the preceding question, when can we expect to see the Armed Forces of the United States, in particular the Special Forces, added to the same list?
According to the Independent on 30 June 2008: "The Bush administration has been expanding covert activities in Iran under a secret directive in the hope of toppling the country's Islamic rulers". The Independent also states that "a "presidential finding", a highly classified document which must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way...focused on undermining Iran's nuclear programme "and trying to undermine the government through regime change," by working with opposition groups inside Iran and by "passing money"". The covert activities include the "authorisation of lethal force by US special forces as they pursue "high value targets", (3)
There is a word for "covert activities" including the "authorisation of lethal force" with the aim of "trying to undermine the government" of a sovereign state - its 'terrorism'.
At least according to definitions in British law:
1. The Terrorism Act 2000, Section 1 interprets 'terrorism' thus:
"In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_2#pt1-l1g1
The action described in the Independent article clearly breaks this law.
2. The Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 section 2(2) provides:
"In this section "acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto" http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/pdf/ukpga_19930018_en.pdf
The action described in the Independent article is clearly an "act of terrorism" under this legislation.
3. The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism [2005] states: "acts of terrorism have the purpose by their nature or context to seriously intimidate a population or unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation;" http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/196.htm
The action described in the Independent article clearly breaches the Convention, and is therefore an "act of terrorism".
The "opposition groups inside Iran" that Anne Penketh refers to include: "The Baluchis...Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda", "Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement...a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists...suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture" and "the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K" which "has been on the State Department's terrorist list for more than a decade," Several of these organisations that the US Armed Forces are providing money to are on the Home Office list of proscribed organisations (4), and as such financing these organisations is also clearly in breach of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Consequently, to avoid any double morality by the Home Office, please could you explain when the US Special Forces will be added to the "Proscribed terrorist groups" list? And if you will not, I, as a citizen of the UK, demand to know: why not?
Yours Sincerely,
(1) UK ban on Hezbollah military arm Page last updated at 16:03 GMT, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:03 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7485213.stm
(2) Press briefing with Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, spokesman, Multi-National Force - Iraq, July 2, 2007. http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12641&Itemid=1
U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.'s By JOHN F. BURNS and MICHAEL R. GORDON Published: July 3, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?ex=1341115200&en=f0e870262e724216&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(3) Bush steps up covert action against Iran By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor Monday, 30 June 2008 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/bush-steps-up-covert-action-against-iran-856902.html
(4) Al Qaida, Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), Harakat-Ul-Mujahideen/Alami (HuM/A) and Jundallah Proscribed terrorist groups http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE
CASMII (Campaign Against Santions and Military Intervention in Iran) has published an edited version of this letter on their website here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE II - 14 July 2008
A shortened version of this letter was published by the Independent on 01 July:
US 'activity' in Iran
Sir: Anne Penketh (30 June) reports on US attempts to topple the regime in Iran. Forgive me for asking, but isn't there a word for "covert activities" including the "authorisation of lethal force" with the aim of "trying to undermine the government" of a sovereign state? Isn't that word "terrorism"?
Just because these activities are carried out by the US does not mean The Independent should not call a spade a spade.
David Sketchley Seville, Spain
Here is a reply to my letter the Independent published on 05 July:
War without terror
David Sketchley is mistaken to imply that covert activities, including the authorisation of lethal force, by the US against the present Iranian government is "terrorism" (letter, 1 July). Terrorism is the specific tactic of killing "innocent" civilians to instil terror and disrupt everyday life. Covert operations for regime change are a form of war.
Jiti Khanna Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
My reply (just sent not published):
Sir,
Jiti Khanna states in his reply to my letter of 01 July (Letters 05 July) that I am "mistaken to imply that covert activities, including the authorisation of lethal force, by the US against the present Iranian government is "terrorism" (letter, 1 July). Terrorism is the specific tactic of killing "innocent" civilians to instil terror and disrupt everyday life. Covert operations for regime change are a form of war. "
Pehaps Jiti Khanna, instead of making up his own definition, ought to look at UK anti-terrorist legislation a little more closely. If he did he would find that the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 1 interprets 'terrorism' not as "the specific tactic of killing "innocent" civilians to instil terror and disrupt everyday life" but as "the use or threat of action where...the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public...and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause" and "involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public..."
Further, the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 section 2(2) provides: "In this section "acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto"
The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism [2005] states: "acts of terrorism have the purpose by their nature or context to seriously intimidate a population or unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation;"
Yours Sincerely
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE III
The CASMII letter was picked up by the Iran Daily and published here and here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UDATE IV - 01 August 2008
Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street,
London SWI P 4DF
Swltchboard 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7035 4745
Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
23 July 2008
Dear Mr Sketchley,
Thank you for your email of 2 July about the proscription of Hizballah’s military wing.
The Hizballah External Security Organisation, a unit of the organisation’s military wing, was proscribed in 2001 because of its involvement in terrorism outside of Lebanon. We now have evidence that further parts of the military wing are directly concerned in terrorism, and this is why we have now proscribed the entire military wing (including the External Security Organisation).
As Tony McNulty said during the debate on the proscription Order in the House of Commons on July 15th, we have taken this action because Hizballah’s military wing is providing support and training to Shia insurgent groups in Iraq, and to Palestinian rejectionist groups in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Unfortunately we are limited in what we can say about the evidence in supportof this belief, as much of it is intelligence material and of a sensitive nature.
The capture of AH Musa Daqduq in Iraq in March 2007 forms one part of that evidence, and was specifically referred to because this information is in thepublic domain. Daqduq is a Lebanese national who served for 24 years in Hizballah. In 2005, he was directed by senior Lebanese Hizballah military commanders to train Shia groups in Iraq.
In response to your second question, whether the US armed forces will also be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, it is our policy not to comment on the prospect of any organisation being added to the proscribed list.
Yours sincerely,
J. Fanshaw
To: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
02 July 2008 21:19
Britain bans Hezbollah's military wing
Sir,
According to an online article by the BBC "The military arm of Lebanese political party Hezbollah has been added to the government's list of organisations banned under the Terrorism Act 2000" (1).
According to the BBC, "Home Office minister Tony McNulty said what the government sees as the party's military wing was providing active support to militants in Iraq, including training in the use of deadly roadside bombs."
Firstly, as the Minister and all of you at the Ministry act on my behalf, I would like to know exactly what proof you have of a sustained active support? There has only been one report of a Hizbollah operative being captured in Iraq, with the only 'proof' being his 'confession', which was very likely obtained under torture (2)
Secondly, I would also like to ask the Minister that, bearing in mind the answer you provide me for the preceding question, when can we expect to see the Armed Forces of the United States, in particular the Special Forces, added to the same list?
According to the Independent on 30 June 2008: "The Bush administration has been expanding covert activities in Iran under a secret directive in the hope of toppling the country's Islamic rulers". The Independent also states that "a "presidential finding", a highly classified document which must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way...focused on undermining Iran's nuclear programme "and trying to undermine the government through regime change," by working with opposition groups inside Iran and by "passing money"". The covert activities include the "authorisation of lethal force by US special forces as they pursue "high value targets", (3)
There is a word for "covert activities" including the "authorisation of lethal force" with the aim of "trying to undermine the government" of a sovereign state - its 'terrorism'.
At least according to definitions in British law:
1. The Terrorism Act 2000, Section 1 interprets 'terrorism' thus:
"In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system." http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_2#pt1-l1g1
The action described in the Independent article clearly breaks this law.
2. The Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 section 2(2) provides:
"In this section "acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto" http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1993/pdf/ukpga_19930018_en.pdf
The action described in the Independent article is clearly an "act of terrorism" under this legislation.
3. The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism [2005] states: "acts of terrorism have the purpose by their nature or context to seriously intimidate a population or unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation;" http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/196.htm
The action described in the Independent article clearly breaches the Convention, and is therefore an "act of terrorism".
The "opposition groups inside Iran" that Anne Penketh refers to include: "The Baluchis...Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda", "Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement...a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists...suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture" and "the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K" which "has been on the State Department's terrorist list for more than a decade," Several of these organisations that the US Armed Forces are providing money to are on the Home Office list of proscribed organisations (4), and as such financing these organisations is also clearly in breach of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Consequently, to avoid any double morality by the Home Office, please could you explain when the US Special Forces will be added to the "Proscribed terrorist groups" list? And if you will not, I, as a citizen of the UK, demand to know: why not?
Yours Sincerely,
(1) UK ban on Hezbollah military arm Page last updated at 16:03 GMT, Wednesday, 2 July 2008 17:03 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7485213.stm
(2) Press briefing with Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, spokesman, Multi-National Force - Iraq, July 2, 2007. http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12641&Itemid=1
U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.'s By JOHN F. BURNS and MICHAEL R. GORDON Published: July 3, 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html?ex=1341115200&en=f0e870262e724216&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
(3) Bush steps up covert action against Iran By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor Monday, 30 June 2008 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/bush-steps-up-covert-action-against-iran-856902.html
(4) Al Qaida, Baluchistan Liberation Army (BLA), Harakat-Ul-Mujahideen/Alami (HuM/A) and Jundallah Proscribed terrorist groups http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE
CASMII (Campaign Against Santions and Military Intervention in Iran) has published an edited version of this letter on their website here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE II - 14 July 2008
A shortened version of this letter was published by the Independent on 01 July:
US 'activity' in Iran
Sir: Anne Penketh (30 June) reports on US attempts to topple the regime in Iran. Forgive me for asking, but isn't there a word for "covert activities" including the "authorisation of lethal force" with the aim of "trying to undermine the government" of a sovereign state? Isn't that word "terrorism"?
Just because these activities are carried out by the US does not mean The Independent should not call a spade a spade.
David Sketchley Seville, Spain
Here is a reply to my letter the Independent published on 05 July:
War without terror
David Sketchley is mistaken to imply that covert activities, including the authorisation of lethal force, by the US against the present Iranian government is "terrorism" (letter, 1 July). Terrorism is the specific tactic of killing "innocent" civilians to instil terror and disrupt everyday life. Covert operations for regime change are a form of war.
Jiti Khanna Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
My reply (just sent not published):
Sir,
Jiti Khanna states in his reply to my letter of 01 July (Letters 05 July) that I am "mistaken to imply that covert activities, including the authorisation of lethal force, by the US against the present Iranian government is "terrorism" (letter, 1 July). Terrorism is the specific tactic of killing "innocent" civilians to instil terror and disrupt everyday life. Covert operations for regime change are a form of war. "
Pehaps Jiti Khanna, instead of making up his own definition, ought to look at UK anti-terrorist legislation a little more closely. If he did he would find that the Terrorism Act 2000, Section 1 interprets 'terrorism' not as "the specific tactic of killing "innocent" civilians to instil terror and disrupt everyday life" but as "the use or threat of action where...the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public...and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause" and "involves serious violence against a person, involves serious damage to property, endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action, creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public..."
Further, the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993 section 2(2) provides: "In this section "acts of terrorism" means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto"
The Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism [2005] states: "acts of terrorism have the purpose by their nature or context to seriously intimidate a population or unduly compel a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act or seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation;"
Yours Sincerely
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE III
The CASMII letter was picked up by the Iran Daily and published here and here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UDATE IV - 01 August 2008
Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street,
London SWI P 4DF
Swltchboard 020 7035 4848
Fax: 020 7035 4745
Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
23 July 2008
Dear Mr Sketchley,
Thank you for your email of 2 July about the proscription of Hizballah’s military wing.
The Hizballah External Security Organisation, a unit of the organisation’s military wing, was proscribed in 2001 because of its involvement in terrorism outside of Lebanon. We now have evidence that further parts of the military wing are directly concerned in terrorism, and this is why we have now proscribed the entire military wing (including the External Security Organisation).
As Tony McNulty said during the debate on the proscription Order in the House of Commons on July 15th, we have taken this action because Hizballah’s military wing is providing support and training to Shia insurgent groups in Iraq, and to Palestinian rejectionist groups in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
Unfortunately we are limited in what we can say about the evidence in supportof this belief, as much of it is intelligence material and of a sensitive nature.
The capture of AH Musa Daqduq in Iraq in March 2007 forms one part of that evidence, and was specifically referred to because this information is in thepublic domain. Daqduq is a Lebanese national who served for 24 years in Hizballah. In 2005, he was directed by senior Lebanese Hizballah military commanders to train Shia groups in Iraq.
In response to your second question, whether the US armed forces will also be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, it is our policy not to comment on the prospect of any organisation being added to the proscribed list.
Yours sincerely,
J. Fanshaw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
