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
10 July 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment