BAe & Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar bankrolling terror

[insidejob]

Is the British arms industry, of which BAE Systems is the biggest single business, the enemy within?

Why would BAE give Prince Bandar £1bn for doing nothing?

And why would Blair stop the investigation into arms corruption and Saudi Arabia on the basis that it threatens the security work the Saudis do against terrorists, when we’re always being told that Saudi Arabia finances Islamic extremism?

Well, perhaps, we now know of one method of financing for Al Qaeda.

That’s right, a hefty chunk of that £1bn helped was, no doubt, used to finance them.




http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/hersh-qaeda/
HERSH: U.S. FUNDS BEING SECRETLY FUNNELED TO VIOLENT AL QAEDA-LINKED GROUPS
New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the “single most explosive” element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.

Hersh says the U.S. has been “pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight” for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to “stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.” Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of “three Sunni jihadist groups” who are “connected to al Qaeda” but “want to take on Hezbollah.”

Hersh summed up his scoop in stark terms: “We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11.” Watch it:


Hersh added, “All of this should be investigated by Congress, by the way, and I trust it will be. In my talking to membership — members there, they are very upset that they know nothing about this. And they have great many suspicions.”

Digg It!

Transcript:

BLITZER: Near the end of your article, you have this explosive point in there about John Negroponte, who is now going to be the deputy secretary of state, as opposed to the head of U.S. intelligence.

You write this: “I was subsequently told by the two government consultants and the former senior intelligence officials that the echoes of Iran-Contra were a factor in Negroponte’s decision to resign from the National Intelligence directorship and accept the position of deputy secretary of state.”

Explain what you were hearing, because that is obviously a very explosive charge.

HERSH: Yes. It is probably the single most explosive, if you will, or depressing — or distressing sort of thing I discovered in the last few months, which is simply this. This administration has made a policy change, a decision that they are going to put all of the pressure they can on the Shiites, that is the Shiite regime in Iran, the Shiite — and they are also doing everything they can to stop Hezbollah — which is Shiite, the Hezbollah organization from getting any control or any more of a political foothold in Lebanon.

So they essentially, I quote the — I saw Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, and he described it this way, as “fitna (ph),” the Arab word for “civil war.” As far as he is concerned, we are interested in recreating what is happening in Iraq in Lebanon, that is Sunni versus Shia. And in looking into that story, and I saw him in December, I found this. THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUMPING MONEY, A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY, WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY, WITHOUT ANY CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT, PRINCE BANDAR OF SAUDI ARABIA IS PUTTING UP SOME OF THIS MONEY, FOR COVERT OPERATIONS IN MANY AREAS OF THE MIDDLE EAST WHERE WE THINK THAT THE — WE WANT TO STOP THE SHIITE SPREAD OR THE SHIITE INFLUENCE.

They call it the “Shiite Crescent.” And a lot of this money, and I can’t tell you with absolute certainty how — exactly when and how, but this money has gotten into the hands — among other places, in Lebanon, into the hands of three — at least three jihadist groups. There are three Sunni jihadist groups whose main claim to fame inside Lebanon right now is that they are very tough. These are people connected to al Qaeda who want to take on Hezbollah. So this government, at the minimum, we may not directly be funneling money to them, but we certainly know that these groups exist.

My government, which arrests al Qaeda every place it can find them and send — some of them are in Guantanamo and other places, is sitting back while the Lebanese government we support, the government of Prime Minister Siniora, is providing arms and sustenance to three jihadist groups whose sole function, seems to me and to the people that talk to me in our government, to be there in case there is a real shoot-’em-up with Hezbollah and we really get into some sort of serious major conflict between the Sunni government and Hezbollah, which is largely Shia, who are basically — or as you know, there is a coalition headed by Hezbollah that is challenging the government right now, demonstrations, sit-ins.

There has been some violence. So America, my country, without telling Congress, using funds not appropriated, I don’t know where, by my sources believe much of the money obviously came from Iraq where there is all kinds of piles of loose money, pools of cash that could be used for covert operations.

All of this should be investigated by Congress, by the way, and I trust it will be. In my talking to membership — members there, they are very upset that they know nothing about this. And they have great many suspicions.

We are simply in a situation where this president is really taking his notion of executive privilege to the absolute limit here, running covert operations, using money that was not authorized by Congress, supporting groups indirectly that are involved with the same people that did 9/11, and we should be arresting these people rather than looking the other way…

BLITZER: And your bottom line, Sy…

HERSH: … and could lead to a real mess…

[Long Tooth]

[karlos]

Bandar is the same character highlighted in michael moores farenheit 911 as "BANDAR BUSH" because of his close relationship with the Bush family.
Bush himself refers to him as Bandar the Bandit.

Bush and Bandar do play world political games like a game of monopoly but the fact is this moey from BAe was a pretty standard kickback and i dont see why everyone is getting their Alan Whickers in a twist for.
Every single saudi is on the take from the very beginning, when we put that family in charge to run saudi arabia we deliberately made sure they were the most crooked and the most immoral candidates we could have chosen.

Do you honestly not think that every UK contract does not also involve kickbacks? Ofcourse they do. When the NHS contracts have been awarded to United Healthcare, when the London Underground was given to metronet, every single deal has a bribe paid. Since Blair came to power there has been an epidemic.

Forget the saudi deal, that was good for britain, it gave our economy £45billion in revenue, i would pay a billion in bribes for that. Good bit of business on the part of the then trade minister. Now it would be the other way round because now the ministers are only looking to line there own pockets. Today it is blair, prescot, brown, mandelsohn, byers, harman, jowell, blunkett, etc taking the bungs and selling british interests to foreign companies.

[karlos]

Link

Link

[conspiracy analyst]

[ian neal]

The war industry primarily exists because we have been conditioned to see our interests in terms of national interest and not what's in the interest of people, society and the world regardless of national borders.

In case it has escaped people's attention, the war industry (aka the defense industry in doublespeak) is all about killing people, usually innocent civilians and it costs us all: both financially and spiritually.

If 911 and iraq teach us anything it is war is one gigantic confidence trick run by a global mafia. The fact that bae/HMG 'won' this business on the back of bribes is just further proof, but ultimately war is by its very nature a corrupt and criminal enterprise regardless of whether bribes help to secure the deal

[Craig W]

[TonyGosling]

How Saudi slush kept UK aero biz afloat
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/08/bae_uk_saudi/
By Lewis Page
Published Friday 8th June 2007 12:33 GMT

Analysis The long-smouldering debate around allegations of corrupt British arms deals with Saudi Arabia reignited yesterday, as both the Guardian and the Beeb published the results of new investigations.

To recap: back in 1986, the Saudis agreed with the British government to buy a large amount of military hardware from UK firms under a long-term deal called al-Yamamah ("the dove").

The majority of the kit consisted of Tornado combat jets from the company then known as British Aerospace plc: both low-level strike versions intended to deliver the JP233 runway-denial landmine system, and the F3 fighter variant.

The JP233 and low-level runway attack doctrine are now widely viewed as suicidal, after RAF Tornados were decimated while using such tactics against Saddam Hussein's airbases in 1991. The RAF has since binned JP233 and re-equipped its Tornado bombers for higher-altitude work.

The Tornado F3 fighter was a laughing-stock from the moment it entered RAF service. Nonetheless, the RAF was forced to buy far more F3s than it wanted. As of 2004 the RAF had fewer than 90 F3s flying: 170 were bought during the 1980s and 1990s. The defective jets only reached a reasonable level of serviceability in the early to mid-90s according to some analyses (pdf) (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/Foxhunter.pdf), when their ever-troublesome Foxhunter targeting radars finally acquired Non-cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR) capability - lack of which, among other things, had kept British F3s out of the air fighting in 1991. The Tornado F3 started retiring from RAF service in 2005, scarcely 10 years after it had been brought to a somewhat combat-worthy state.

(The original F2 airframes first delivered to the RAF were even worse, in that they had no radar at all; just cement ballast in their empty nose cones. This was wryly dubbed "Blue Circle radar," in an allusion to the Sea Harrier's Blue Fox and Blue Vixen sets - and the well-known cement company.)

Despite the poor performance and reputation of the Tornados, the Saudis have continued to pay huge sums under al-Yamamah right up until the present day - more than £40bn to British Aerospace. The firm is nowadays known as BAE Systems, as it is no longer very British (only a third of its employees are today in the UK) nor does it only deal in sky weaponry, having moved into warships, submarines, armour, artillery etc etc.

Allegations of corruption surrounding the al-Yamamah deal surfaced almost immediately, and in 1989 the UK National Audit Office investigated. Uniquely, the report of the investigation remains secret to this day; a fact which may not be unconnected to the second stage of al-Yamamah having been signed the year before. By this point the British civil aircraft industry (which still existed at that date, and was owned by BAE) was only being kept in existence by al-Yamamah.*

Despite the suppression of the NAO report, the stink around the British arms industry and the Saudis never really went away. The Minister for Defence Procurement and later chief secretary to the Treasury, Jonathan Aitken, unwisely resigned from government in 1995 to bring a libel action against the Guardian and Granada TV for exposing his involvement in the UK-Saudi arms trade. He was cuffed and jailed in 1999 for repeatedly lying on oath during the failed libel case.

In 2001, the Guardian began taking the fight to BAE and the UK government, wheeling out whistleblowers and detailed investigations. Roman-Empire levels of excess were revealed, with BAE having picked up the tab for cargo planes full of Bond Street shopping, companionship from lingerie models and actresses (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1599694.ece), and lord knows what else. In 2002, the UK passed laws against corrupt payments to overseas officials.

Finally, in 2004, the UK Serious Fraud Office launched a new investigation. The Ministry of Defence (MoD), however, had full access to the investigation via the participation of the MoD police force.

By the summer of 2006, it was thought that the SFO/MoD-plod/Guardian probe might be getting somewhere, with Swiss authorities reportedly on the verge of yielding access to key bank information.

Meanwhile, the UK government had got itself into another nightmare fighter-jet deal, mirroring the situation with the Tornado F3. The long-awaited Eurofighter is finally being delivered, and the UK is committed to buying no less than 232 of these colossally expensive machines. The RAF wants no more than 140.

Then the Saudis stepped in again, ordering 72 Eurofighters. It has been strongly hinted by BAE that the UK government might be able to resell some of its excess jets to fulfil this order, thus avoiding another embarrassing acquisition of eight-figure white elephants. And, of course, the £6bn of Saudi money might do the British balance of payments a bit of good (not all that much, though; UK exports for 2006 alone are estimated at £235bn. £6bn spread over years barely signifies).

Strangely enough, at this point the SFO investigation was binned. It was strongly hinted that this was at the behest of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, aka MI6), who were said to be heavily reliant on intel furnished by the Saudis.

It's true that's a large element of what the spooks do - act as a channel for under-the-counter info from other governments. It's also true that BAE has a close relationship with the secret service (exiled SIS officer Richard Tomlinson says the company has an in-house MI6 liaison who sees secret intel reports). Even so, it's said (http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1991281,00.html) that SIS doesn't fancy taking the rap for another suspect government decision so soon after the dodgy dossier/Iraq WMD business.

It seems hugely more plausible that the SFO investigation was deep-sixed to protect the weapons deal du jour, just like the NAO report of 1992 - for all that everyone involved denies this.

The denials haven't convinced many. The OECD international watchdog, for instance, has rebuked Britain over the move and launched its own probe. The US has also expressed its displeasure, which might cause trouble for BAE's ongoing push (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/14/bae_media_push_going_well/) to buy US weaponsmaker Armor.

Meanwhile, those relatively unbothered about possible corruption overseas but concerned about the defence of the UK have also criticised the Saudi Eurofighter buy. Some might say that selling rubbish such as the Tornado F3 to the Saudis for a lot of money is one thing; but selling them the Eurofighter is quite another. Reports thus far suggest that the Eurofighter, for all its horrifying expense and delays, is actually a fairly cutting-edge piece of kit. Furthermore, the export deal is to be "Saudi-ised," potentially meaning that the desert princes will actually gain access to the technology rather than merely the use of the hardware.

It's possible to suggest that it isn't actually in the interests of western democracy to release such tech out into the wider world. The Saudis probably can't use it, but they wouldn't have any real reason to keep it to themselves.

All of which brings us up to yesterday, with the Guardian revealing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2097149,00.html?gusrc=rss &feed=networkfront) that Prince Bandar of the house al-Saud was paid more than £1bn over 10 years by BAE, which drew the cash from "a special Ministry of Defence account". The paper reported:
"According to legal sources familiar with the records, BAE Systems made cash transfers to Prince Bandar every three months for 10 years or more.

"The payments are alleged to have continued for at least 10 years and beyond 2002, when Britain outlawed corrupt payments to overseas officials.

"SFO investigators led by assistant director Helen Garlick first stumbled on the alleged payments, according to legal sources, when they unearthed highly classified documents at the MoD during their three-year investigation."

There isn't much doubt that the legal sources in question have had access to the SFO's now-closed files. When contacted by the Reg, an SFO spokesman said he couldn't comment on how the documents had reached the public domain.

"If I have a conversation with you, that's private to you and me," he said. "I wouldn't then give another journalist the details."

The SFO also pointed out that the Guardian in particular had been intimately involved in the investigation from the beginning. Indeed, the paper had supplied the information which led the SFO to move in the first place.

It's understood that the head of the SFO, in an interview to be broadcast on Panorama next Monday, has expressed the view that the details of the payments are not sufficient to win convictions even though some transactions date since the anti-corruption legislation of 2002.

This is thought to be because the payments were fully authorised by the British government and laid down in the al-Yamamah agreements; also because of the difficulty of distinguishing between corrupt payments to overseas individuals and legitimate ones into foreign government accounts.

The BBC quotes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6728773.stm) David Caruso, an investigator who worked for the American bank where the accounts were held:

"There wasn't a distinction between the accounts of the embassy, or official government accounts as we would call them, and the accounts of the royal family." Unsurprisingly, as the al-Saud family really are the government: it's Saudi Arabia, after all. The situation is as if Britain were called "Windsor Europe," and the Queen's family - rather than being junior army officers, theatrical types, polo players etc - held all important government jobs.

Prince Bandar's lawyers told the Guardian that the payments via the Washington embassy accounts in no way "represented improper secret commissions or 'backhanders'".

The Prince's position is that the cash went to Saudi government accounts of which he was a signatory. "Any monies paid out of those accounts were exclusively for purposes approved by [the Saudi defence ministry]."

Prince Bandar's reps insisted that all the payments were "pursuant to the al-Yamamah contracts."

When contacted by the Reg defence desk, BAE Systems' rep rather worryingly said: "We know who you are." But this turned out to be because of this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-Blundering-Military/d p/0099484420) rather than any corporate spies (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2461489.ece) at the Reg.

The company then offered the following comment: "All the information regarding the Al Yamamah contract in our possession has been made available to the Serious Fraud Office over the last two and a half years and, after an exhaustive investigation, it was concluded, over and above the interests of national security, that there was and is no case to answer.

"A spokesman for the Attorney General has confirmed that nothing in this week’s media reports alters this position.

"The Al Yamamah programme is a government-to-government agreement and all such payments made under those agreements were made with the express approval of both the Saudi and the UK governments.

"We deny all allegations of wrongdoing in relation to this important and strategic programme."

In other words, sure, Saudi princes were paid off; the UK government promised they would be in the original al-Yamamah treaty. Don't blame us: nothing to see here.

BAE reps also expressed the view that the ongoing media revelations would have no effect on US legislators' decision as to whether the company would be allowed to acquire Armor Group. That at least remains to be seen.

So does the effect on the reputation of the UK government, not least with respect to the ongoing OECD probe. The more so as it now appears that UK officials have been economical with the truth (http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2098232,00.html?gusrc=rss &feed=networkfront) in discussions with OECD investigators.

Bootnote

*From 1988-90 your correspondent was an undergraduate management trainee at BAE's Hatfield civil-aircraft factory, now the site of the Ocado web-groceries warehouse; and from 1988-91 an RAF university-reservist cadet pilot.

[TonyGosling]

Okay Rusbridger (he's the Guardian's editor), then stop being sumissive yersself and let's have the 9/11 exposee! - ed.

Latest allegations ignored by a submissive media

Ian Black, Middle East editor
Friday June 8, 2007

The latest instalment of the BAE arms saga was followed up by British television, radio, newspapers and on the international wires yesterday, but the Saudi press was certain to ignore the episode completely. In the wider Arab media, only the Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV channel - extensively watched inside the kingdom - gave it air time. Its only serious rival, al-Arabiyya, which is majority-owned by a Saudi shareholder, ignored it. The only Arabic newspaper planning to cover the story in today's editions was the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi.

"We didn't even bother to try to get any reaction," its editor, Abdel-Bari Atwan, told the Guardian. "It is an absolute taboo. No-one can open their mouth about it because the Saudis control so much of the Arab media." Al-Hayat, another leading pan-Arab paper published abroad, is owned by Prince Khaled, Prince Bandar's brother. "If it is mentioned at all in a Saudi paper it will talk about a conspiracy, probably attributed to Zionists, to weaken the kingdom," said Dr Madawi al-Rasheed, a political scientist at London University's King's College.

Several Arabic-language websites reproduced the story as reported by the BBC Arabic Service. But any political discussion - "plundering our billions for their private greed" is the sort of language used - was likely to be limited to members-only internet talkboards out of the reach of Saudi censorship.

The sense that Prince Bandar is unassailable is reinforced by his role in some of the kingdom's most delicate diplomatic business, negotiating with Iran and reportedly meeting secretly in Jordan with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

Saudi internal opposition has been muted since a flurry of activity by constitutional and political reformers in 2004. Twenty-two people whom the king pardoned in August 2005 after they had received lengthy prison sentences for their writings, are subject to travel bans.

The only other opposition in Osama bin Laden's native land is from al-Qaida and other jihadists, who have long written off the royal family as corrupt and apostate lackeys of the west. Last November, King Abdullah issued a circular prohibiting government employees from "opposing the policies of the state ... by participating in any discussion through media channels or through domestic or foreign communications". Beleaguered reformers are disappointed that the US has ended efforts to promote democracy in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, now that stability rather than change is the watchword of Washington's Middle East policy.

Several Saudis speculated that the emergence of new information about al-Yamamah may be part of a western effort to undermine Crown Prince Sultan, Prince Bandar's father, so that the next king is instead the modernising Prince Salman, now the governor of the capital, Riyadh.

King Abdullah, 82, had a reputation for fighting corruption when he came to power in 2005, but he is said to have made little progress. Neither he nor his brother speak or read English, and take their holidays in Morocco and Tunisia or elsewhere in the Arab world.

"Ordinary Saudis are far too preoccupied with making ends meet to be aware of this sort of thing," said a veteran foreign resident of Riyadh. "Yes they are aware of corruption at the local level ... but that is far beyond their experience. Technocrats who speak English or have lived in the west are better informed, but they say that these sort of things have been going on all over the Middle East for the past 30 years."

[TonyGosling]

Okay Rushbridger (he's the Guardian's editor), then stop being sumissive yersself and let's have the 9/11 exposee! - ed.

Latest allegations ignored by a submissive media
http://www.guardian.co.uk/baefiles/story/0,,2098265,00.html
Ian Black, Middle East editor
Friday June 8, 2007

The latest instalment of the BAE arms saga was followed up by British television, radio, newspapers and on the international wires yesterday, but the Saudi press was certain to ignore the episode completely. In the wider Arab media, only the Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV channel - extensively watched inside the kingdom - gave it air time. Its only serious rival, al-Arabiyya, which is majority-owned by a Saudi shareholder, ignored it. The only Arabic newspaper planning to cover the story in today's editions was the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi.

"We didn't even bother to try to get any reaction," its editor, Abdel-Bari Atwan, told the Guardian. "It is an absolute taboo. No-one can open their mouth about it because the Saudis control so much of the Arab media." Al-Hayat, another leading pan-Arab paper published abroad, is owned by Prince Khaled, Prince Bandar's brother. "If it is mentioned at all in a Saudi paper it will talk about a conspiracy, probably attributed to Zionists, to weaken the kingdom," said Dr Madawi al-Rasheed, a political scientist at London University's King's College.

Several Arabic-language websites reproduced the story as reported by the BBC Arabic Service. But any political discussion - "plundering our billions for their private greed" is the sort of language used - was likely to be limited to members-only internet talkboards out of the reach of Saudi censorship.

The sense that Prince Bandar is unassailable is reinforced by his role in some of the kingdom's most delicate diplomatic business, negotiating with Iran and reportedly meeting secretly in Jordan with the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

Saudi internal opposition has been muted since a flurry of activity by constitutional and political reformers in 2004. Twenty-two people whom the king pardoned in August 2005 after they had received lengthy prison sentences for their writings, are subject to travel bans.

The only other opposition in Osama bin Laden's native land is from al-Qaida and other jihadists, who have long written off the royal family as corrupt and apostate lackeys of the west. Last November, King Abdullah issued a circular prohibiting government employees from "opposing the policies of the state ... by participating in any discussion through media channels or through domestic or foreign communications". Beleaguered reformers are disappointed that the US has ended efforts to promote democracy in the aftermath of the war in Iraq, now that stability rather than change is the watchword of Washington's Middle East policy.

Several Saudis speculated that the emergence of new information about al-Yamamah may be part of a western effort to undermine Crown Prince Sultan, Prince Bandar's father, so that the next king is instead the modernising Prince Salman, now the governor of the capital, Riyadh.

King Abdullah, 82, had a reputation for fighting corruption when he came to power in 2005, but he is said to have made little progress. Neither he nor his brother speak or read English, and take their holidays in Morocco and Tunisia or elsewhere in the Arab world.

"Ordinary Saudis are far too preoccupied with making ends meet to be aware of this sort of thing," said a veteran foreign resident of Riyadh. "Yes they are aware of corruption at the local level ... but that is far beyond their experience. Technocrats who speak English or have lived in the west are better informed, but they say that these sort of things have been going on all over the Middle East for the past 30 years."

[Long Tooth]

[karlos]

[conspiracy analyst]

[blackcat]

[outsider]

Forget the saudi deal, that was good for britain, it gave our economy £45billion in revenue, i would pay a billion in bribes for that. Good bit of business on the part of the then trade minister. Now it would be the other way round because now the ministers are only looking to line there own pockets. Today it is blair, prescot, brown, mandelsohn, byers, harman, jowell, blunkett, etc taking the bungs and selling british interests to foreign companies.[/quote]
9/11 Truth Campaigners should inhabit the Moral High Ground. When I was campaigning for East Timor, and against export of Hawk aircraft and other arms sales, one of my placard points was: 'Are British jobs worth more than Timorese lives?' 'Blood Money' is good for no one, except Satan's followers.

[insidejob]

No doubt, Bandar actually pocketed some of that £1bn for his own use. I doubt whether he pocketed it all and much of the payments were not intended as a bribe to secure business but for use in other criminal purposes. For those who knew about the £1bn, it could be understood as a personal bribe.

Other anomilies in the Blair position are:

a) We had to stop the investigation because Saudis would otherwise not play ball with us over the War on Terrorism?
Yet, Blair tells us that Al Qaeda is a threat to the Saudi Arabian government, so why would they cut their nose off to spite their face?

b) It saves jobs.
Yet, they're not interested in spending money to save other jobs that are at risk.

c) Why would Saudi Arabia spend £43bn on a useless defence systems?
As pointed out elsewhere, when the US lied to them about Iraq wanting to invade them before the first Gulf War, they didn't use their own expensive defence, they ran to the Pentagon for protection. (And Pentagon troops in Saudia Arabia, we are supposed to believe, made Bin Laden so mad he wanted to destroy Western civilization.)

Real reasons? Saudis wanted the Anglo-American Establishment to contribute to their own Al Qaeda false flag. Blair is worried that investigators in OECD not from UK or US may stumble on some very embarassing details of what Bandar did with his bribe money.

What did The Guardian, 9 June 2007, p4, say about how Bandar spent money?

“Prince Bandar has spoken himself of his unorthodox methods with cash. He is quoted in a recent biography saying that he personally flew $100m in a suitcase to Rome and gave it to a priest at the Vatican Bank, in order to covertly fund the Christian Democrats against the Communists in the 1983 Italian elections.

He is quoted saying he did this at the request of the Pope, Lady Thatcher and then head of the CIA, Bill Casey. They wanted him to shift the cash so no western fingerprints would be on it.

American investigations into Prince Bandar’s bank accounts began in 2002 because of an apparent receipt of charitable funds by one of the 911 hijackers. The FBI were called in. The link to a donation made by Prince Bandar’s wife proved to be entirely innocent and he and his family were completely exonerated.” Oh, yes. And what's 'an apparant receipt'?


There ought to be an international investigation into those countries that are Western allies but have the most advanced Al Qaeda networks, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. It should be dressed up as looking into the best way that those countries, with international support, can combat violent or other Islamic extremism. Such an investigation could shine a light on those countries support for terrorism. Such an investigation would be supported by US senators and congressmen not in on the false flag loop. Of course, the US government should not be the lead in such an investigation.

[karlos]

[karlos]

[blackcat]

[karlos]

[karlos]

[Mark Gobell]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7086997.stm

[Mark Gobell]

The actual facts, history and legal position driving the judicial review.

All of which proves yet again that all of the laws and conventions in the world mean not a jot unless the decisions taken by our "democratic" governments, which contravene those conventions, can be challenged in spite of earlier High Court obstinance.

http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/item.shtml?x=558380

[TonyGosling]

FBI serves subpoenas on BAE chief and US colleagues
Attempts by BAE to escape allegations of corruption in Saudi arms deals seemed to have failed last night as the arms company admitted that FBI agents had picked up its chief executive, Mike Turner, and served subpoenas on him and US colleagues.
The details of the justice department raids were passed to the Serious Fraud Office in London as a "courtesy", sources said yesterday, but British authorities had not been notified in advance. The SFO is being prevented from continuing its own corruption inquiry by UK ministers, who have also repeatedly refused to cooperate with US official requests for assistance.
So far, British ministers have sought to preserve relations with the arms company and Saudi Arabia, even at the expense of irritating their most powerful ally........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/19/bae.baesystemsbusiness

[Disco_Destroyer]

Saudi prince still missing
Mon Sep 27, 2010 7:12PM
Share | Email | Print

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/144257.html

Saudi Arabia's former Ambassador to the US Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz
The whereabouts of Saudi Arabia's former US envoy Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz remains unknown nearly two years after his mysterious disappearance.


He was last spotted following a meeting with King Abdullah in Jeddah on December 10, 2008.

The prince was appointed secretary general of the National Security Council by Saudi Arabia's sixth monarch King Abdullah in October 2005.

In September 2009, he was reappointed to the post, but he failed to arrive for the official pledge of allegiance to the king. Surprisingly Prince Bandar's absence did not garner much media attention.

Known as "Bandar Bush" because of his close relations with former US president George W. Bush, the 61-year-old was born in the western city of Ta'if, in Mecca Province.

He is the son of Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz.

Dr. Sabri Anousheh, an expert on Middle East and Saudi affairs, links the disappearance of Prince Bandar with Saudi arms deals.

The prince's father played a crucial role in Saudi arms acquisition and was previously in charge of overseeing the country's military expenditure and arms deals, Anousheh notes.

He was elected as the Saudi ambassador to Washington in 1983, and held the position for over two decades. Prince Bandar became so intimated with US government officials that he was deemed an insider.

Bob Woodward, the renowned US journalist who played a key role in revealing the Watergate scandal, demonstrates Bandar's influence in his book Plan of Attack.

Woodward says Bush informed his Secretary of State Colin Powell of his plans for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq only after discussing the scenario with Prince Bandar.

Iraq's Buratha News Agency has recently said it has evidence proving that that the Saudi national security chief was responsible for arming terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The agency claims Prince Bandar has assumed leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq, financing and equipping the terrorist group.

In August 2009, Saad al-Faqih, the head of the opposition group Islamic Reform Movement, told Arab-language Al-Alam channel that Prince Bandar was placed under house arrest after his plot to stage a coup against King Abdullah was discovered and foiled.

In September 2009, British daily the Independent reported that the prince, who was staying in Britain at the time, had not appeared in public for several weeks.

The report triggered rumors that Prince Bandar is seeking to ascend to the Saudi throne.

Semi-official reports say the prince is running secret underground operations in France, while other repots say he has been spotted several times across the European country.

Speculation about his whereabouts may differ, but all analysts agree that regardless of his current location, Prince Bandar is enjoying the US government's full support and is running, equipping and financing terror organizations in Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan.

ZHD/HGH/MMN

[TonyGosling]

The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade by Andrew Feinstein: review
'The Shadow World' is an incisive exposé of the weapons trade

By Justin Marozzi

8:00AM GMT 01 Nov 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/8848716/The-Shadow-World-Inside-the Global-Arms-Trade-by-Andrew-Feinstein-review.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-World-Inside-Global-Trade/dp/0241144418  /
kindle: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-World-Inside-Global-ebook/dp/B005MJF9Q4  /

If there is one book unlikely to appear on the Christmas reading lists of the former defence secretary Liam Fox and his self-professed adviser Adam Werritty, one suspects that this is it. The sorry case of Dr Fox and the mystery chum-cum-lobbyist amplifies what critics of the defence procurement industry – Feinstein prefers the racier “global arms trade” – have long argued. To put it mildly, and in a nutshell, it is not known for its transparency. Nor, for that matter, its ethics and integrity.

“I hope that you might ask whether we, the bankrollers, should not know more, far more, of this shadow world that affects the lives of us all,” Feinstein challenges the reader at the outset. “Whether we shouldn’t demand greater transparency and accountability from politicians, the military, intelligence agencies, investigators and prosecutors, manufacturers and dealers, who people this parallel universe.”

It is a measure of his incisive reporting, admirable research across several continents and sustained sense of outrage that by the end of this gripping volume many readers will agree with his central argument that a stiff dose of sunlight is the best disinfectant for this shadowy world.

There is an impressive historical sweep to the narrative. Feinstein, founder of Corruption Watch and one-time ANC Member of Parliament, gives an absorbing portrait of Basil Zaharoff, the world’s first flamboyantly high-living arms dealer, “godfather of the modern BAE”, a man who once boasted of starting wars in Africa so he could sell weapons to both sides.

Zaharoff was the model for George Bernard Shaw’s Andrew Undershaft, “a profiteer in mutilation and murder” in Major Barbara, and was famed both for the ubiquity and size of the bribes he paid to secure business.

Bribes are a depressingly constant feature of The Shadow World, whether it is the £40 billion Al Yamamah arms deal between BAE and Saudi Arabia, “arguably the most corrupt transaction in trading history”, or the illegal payments made by arms dealers like Ukrainian-Israeli Leonid Minin, who supplied Liberia with weapons worth millions of dollars in return for diamond and timber concessions. The cast of arms dealers like Minin is unsavoury but thoroughly riveting. They range from the superficially glamorous (Adnan Khashoggi) to the downright callous (Yoshio Kodama, “The Monster”, a Japanese war criminal) and the opportunistic (Viktor Bout, the “Merchant of Death”).

The United States and Britain occupy centre stage in this exposé, joined by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the author’s native South Africa, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. BAE Systems is the arch-villain of the piece, although the American giant Lockheed Martin, together with those US companies like KBR, Halliburton and Blackwater that work closely with the arms industry, run it close.

Feinstein is tough on Washington’s notorious “revolving door” of people and money between the public and private sector. He notes that, within a year of taking office, President George W Bush had given more than 30 arms industry executives and lobbyists senior positions in his administration.

Feinstein has little time for those who argue that the arms business plays a vital economic role. He claims the numbers of those who work in it are routinely exaggerated and that their jobs require significant state subsidies. The issue of corruption, which is never far from the surface and is able to flourish under the cover of national security, further dents the industry’s credentials. He cites one study that estimates that the arms trade accounts for over 40 per cent of corruption in all world trade.

If the US and Britain come in for swingeing attacks, the less developed world, where checks on the arms trade are weaker, does not emerge with great credit either. Feinstein notes that in the early days of South African democracy, the country spent $6 billion on weapons at a time when the president said it was too poor to purchase antiretroviral drugs required to keep almost six million living with HIV and Aids alive. Over 355,000 died, apparently needlessly, over the next five years. One could blame this on poor governance writ large rather than the arms industry per se. India, the developing world’s largest arms purchaser, is currently seeking to buy weapons worth $42 billion.

Occasionally, Feinstein lays it on a little thick, for instance when he refers to Margaret Thatcher’s “fundamentalist free market ideology”, undermining a powerful thesis with a criticism worthy of an angry teenager.

He holds out little hope for the forthcoming international Arms Trade Treaty. For the foreseeable future at least, his desire for a “coherently regulated, legitimately financed, effectively policed and transparent” arms industry seems a distant prospect indeed.

The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade

Andrew Feinstein

Hamish Hamilton, £25, 541pp

[TonyGosling]

Saudi Arabia May Be Tied to 9/11, 2 Ex-Senators Say
By ERIC LICHTBLAU - Published: February 29, 2012
WASHINGTON — For more than a decade, questions have lingered about the possible role of the Saudi government in the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, even as the royal kingdom has made itself a crucial counterterrorism partner in the eyes of American diplomats.

Now, in sworn statements that seem likely to reignite the debate, two former senators who were privy to top secret information on the Saudis’ activities say they believe that the Saudi government might have played a direct role in the terrorist attacks.

“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.

His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.

Their affidavits, which were filed on Friday and have not previously been disclosed, are part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that has wound its way through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in United States District Court in Manhattan.

Lawyers for the Saudis, who have already moved to have the affidavits thrown out of court, declined to comment on the assertions by Mr. Graham and Mr. Kerrey. “The case is in active litigation, and I can’t say anything,” said Michael K. Kellogg, a Washington lawyer for the Saudis.

Officials at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, who have emphatically denied any connection to the attacks in the past, did not respond Wednesday to requests for comment.

The Saudis are seeking to have the case dismissed in part because they say American inquiries — including those in which Mr. Graham and Mr. Kerrey took part — have essentially exonerated them. A recent court filing by the Saudis prominently cited the 9/11 Commission’s “exhaustive” final report, which “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi individuals funded” Al Qaeda.

But Mr. Kerrey and Mr. Graham said that the findings should not be seen as an exoneration and that many important questions about the Saudis’ role had never been fully examined, partly because their panels simply did not have the time or resources given their wider scope.

Terry Strada of New Vernon, N.J., whose husband died in the World Trade Center, said it was “so absurd that it’s laughable” for the Saudis to claim that the federal inquiries had exonerated them.

Unanswered questions include the work of a number of Saudi-sponsored charities with financial links to Al Qaeda, as well as the role of a Saudi citizen living in San Diego at the time of the attacks, Omar al-Bayoumi, who had ties to two of the hijackers and to Saudi officials, Mr. Graham said in his affidavit.

Still, Washington has continued to stand behind Saudi Arabia publicly, with the Justice Department joining the kingdom in trying to have the lawsuits thrown out of court on the grounds that the Saudis are protected by international immunity.

State Department officials did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday on the impact of the court declarations.

The senators’ assertions “might inject some temporary strain or awkwardness at a diplomatic level,” said Kenneth L. Wainstein, a senior national security official in the George W. Bush administration. Even so, he said, “the United States and the Saudis have developed strong counterterrorism cooperation over the last decade, and that relationship will not be undermined.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-sa udi-9-11-link.html

[TonyGosling]

Billions wasted as MoD police fraud squad turn a blind eye to procurement crime
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/03/493343.html
29:00 - Systematic fraud at the MoD as the government plans to privatise procurement. Cost plus contract fraud report by former Radar, Sonar, Communications Command and Control and Tactical Data Systems software engineer Robert McCartney. MoD police fraud squad work for MoD so will not prosecute even when there is clear evidence of fraud saying that what MoD chiefs and other ‘important people’ say ‘must be true’. Former BAe Chief Executive Admiral Sir Raymond Lygo told BBC Radio 5 in January 2004 that BAe routinely used changes to contract specification which doubled or tripled costs to taxpayers without any competition. Some of those to blame for endangering our armed forces and national security. James Arbuthnot, Michael Portillo, Greg Simpson and current LibDem Minister for Defence Procurement Nick Harvey all alleged as complicity in fraud. Is present chair of the Public Accounts Committee Margaret Hodge succeeding in cutting this fraud down? Mainstream newspapers afraid to publish known facts about MoD procurement fraud.
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/58333

UK government arms contract fraud and corruption
My name is Robert McCartney. I worked in the defence industry between 1979 and 2000, when I resigned. I then reported a whole series of frauds to the MoD Police. Most of these were from 1995-2000. In 2003 I met with Lawrence Cockroft and another member of TI to explain how:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.a.mccartney/ti/ti2007agm.html

[TonyGosling]

Hey guess what - this super-crook criminal just got a promotion

Former ambassador to U.S. known as ‘Bandar Bush’ is new Saudi intel chief
By Agence France-Presse - Sunday, July 22, 2012 16:30 EDT
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/22/new-saudi-intel-chief-is-former- ambassador-to-u-s-nicknamed-bandar-bush/?
RIYADH — The appointment of Saudi Arabia’s longtime envoy to the United States as intelligence chief marks an attempt to give the service a diplomatic edge at a time of turmoil in the region, analysts say.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who served in Washington from 1983 to 2005 and was named intelligence chief on Thursday, has the ability “to think outside the box, overcome obstacles, make decisions and work in an innovative way,” international relations analyst Abdullah al-Shummari told AFP.

He could play a key role in helping the kingdom “re-evaluate its strategies in foreign policy… (as) major geostrategic changes across the Arab world will rearrange the roles of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran in the Middle East,” Shummari said.

Saudi Arabia has “an opportunity to regain its leading role” in the region after it “subsided in favour of Iran and Turkey following the September 11, 2001 attacks and the US invasion of Iraq” in 2003, he said.

Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Centre, believes that “the current situation requires greater coordination, not only on a regional level but also internationally.”

The kingdom, which had traditionally focused on maintaining strong ties with Western powers, had in recent years tried to “establish good relations with Russia and exchanged visits on the highest levels,” said Sager.

But relations with Moscow have taken a series of hits since the Arab Spring uprisings swept the region last year, notably over Russia’s support for its longtime ally Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

While Saudi Arabia has openly called for the arming of rebels fighting Assad’s regime, Russia has joined China in repeatedly using its veto to block tough action at the UN Security Council over the 16-month revolt.

The situation “requires someone accustomed to the game of interests” of international powers, Sager said, noting that Prince Bandar had achieved “several” major successes on the world stage over the years.

For instance he managed to convince Russia not to oppose UN resolutions to expel now executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s troops from Kuwait following his invasion of the emirate in 1990.

Bandar was also heavily involved in diplomatic contacts over the crisis in Lebanon that followed the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri, a key Saudi ally.

The outcry that followed the killing resulted in Syria’s withdrawal of troops and intelligence agents from its smaller neighbour, ending a three-decade presence in a boost to Saudi interests.

In 2005, Bandar also took charge of the newly created National Security Council to oversee the kingdom’s battle against Al-Qaeda following a string of deadly attacks.

The prince will retain that position even after his appointment as intelligence chief but his new posting is expected to bring him back to the limelight after a nearly five-year absence.

Born in 1949, he is son of the late crown prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, who died last year, and enjoyed close ties with both US president George Bush and his son, president George W. Bush.

He “is among the people who best understood US policies and managed to deal well with the decision-makers,” said Anwar Eshki, president of the Saudi-based Middle East Centre for Strategic and Legal Studies.

He “will be able to achieve better understanding between Americans and Arabs” as the Middle East faces persistent upheaval from the Arab Spring uprisings that erupted at the end of 2010, said Eshki, who worked with Bandar in Washington.

[TonyGosling]

As the smoke clears after Saudi Arabia's latest mass execution by firing squad... Charles and Camilla fly in
The Prince isn't expected to raise the issue of human rights with his hosts. Perhaps he should, wonders Jerome Taylor
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/as-the-smoke-clear s-after-saudi-arabias-latest-mass-execution-by-firing-squad-charles-an d-camilla-fly-in-8533382.html
Jerome Taylor Wednesday 13 March 2013

Above: photograph appears to show preparations for the execution of seven men in Saudi Arabia;
Below: Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall, visit the Roman ruins in Jaresh, Jordan

They were led out at dawn today, one by one, to the public killing grounds. The Seven Saudi Arabian men had been sentenced to death following what human rights groups and the UN said were deeply flawed trials conducted under Sharia law. Some of them were juveniles when they were charged with being part of a gang of thieves in the Saudi town of Abha. But that didn’t save them from the firing squad.
A few hours later, just over 1,000 miles to the north, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall were visiting the victims of another brutal Middle Eastern dictatorship. At a refugee camp in northern Jordan they met some of the one million people who have had to flee the death and destruction now enveloping Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. Charles described the scene he saw as an “unbelievable and heartbreaking situation” while Camilla hailed the “strength of spirit” shown by the women she encountered.
But anyone expecting the Royal couple to show equivalent sympathy for the victims of Saudi Arabia’s authoritarianism when they visit the Kingdom on Friday as part of their Middle Eastern tour will be disappointed. Human rights are off the agenda. Instead, according to the press release put out by Clarence House, the themes of the visit are “military collaboration, opportunities for women in society, inter-faith dialogue, education and environmental sustainability”.
For the struggling human rights activists and reformists in the Kingdom, visits from the US and Britain are a consistent source of disappointment. While London and Washington berate Moscow for its ongoing support of the Assad regime, they rarely if ever go public with criticisms of the Al Sauds – their closest ally in the Gulf. Last week, both the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the Attorney General, Eric Holder, returned from separate trips to the Kingdom. Between their visits, the Saudi regime was emboldened enough to press ahead with the jailing of Mohammed Fahd al-Qahtani and Abdullah al-Hamed – two of the country’s most prominent non-violent reform advocates. In the few days between the US delegations and Prince Charles’ arrival, the King also found time to reject clemency for the Abha Seven, despite documented evidence that confessions were extracted under torture, that the men were not appointed adequate legal representation and that most of them were juveniles when they committed their alleged crimes.
Although the Prince is officially apolitical, human rights advocates have expressed dismay that while he is happy to talk about Britain’s military and commercial links to Saudi Arabia, he avoids topics such as the highest execution rates per capita in the world or something as fundamental as a woman’s right to drive.
“Prince Charles has always had the tip of his well-polished brogues in the political world and he should use his influence to tell the royal House of Saud a few home truths about the country’s dreadful human rights record,” said Kate Allen, Amnesty International’s UK Director. “Surely, arriving in the wake of controversial executions and the jailing of human rights activists Charles will want to at least broach these matters?”
Eric Goldstein, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East section, said Saudi Arabia’s allies had to do more to confront the regime over its human rights abuses. “There is no public discourse on human rights from Saudi Arabia’s allies,” he said. “We think it’s critical to raise these issues publicly.” Asked whether Prince Charles should speak out he said: “We think everyone, every government, every third party that visits Saudi Arabia should make human rights a central part of the discussions with that country.”
The Independent asked a spokesman from Clarence House whether the Prince would be bringing up human rights during the visit, but was told: “The themes and agenda of the visit... are those that have been announced already.”
There is an emphasis on the role of women in the Middle East, but both Camilla and Charles are steering clear of anything remotely controversial. In Jordan, Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia the focus is on visiting schools and universities for women.
Saudi Arabia has some of the highest female enrolment rates in the Gulf even if the opportunities to use their degrees is massively curtailed. But there are no plans to meet any of the women who risk jail in car-driving protests, or highlight the dozens of women detained after demonstrating for the release of political prisoners.
Instead, the royal couple will meet newly appointed female members of the Shura Council, an advisory body of technocrats appointed by King Abdullah. Critics say the recent appointment of women to the council is a purely symbolic move to appease the West and will have no palpable impact on improving the lives of women in one of the most repressive countries in the world for gender equality.
“All dictators in the past and present have used women to seek international legitimacy given the prominence of global gender equality talk,” Professor Madawi al-Rasheed, an expert on Saudia Arabia at King’s College London, told The Independent. “Such visits do more damage to the human rights cause because they give recognition to a regime that continues to oppress women and men.”

Hardline regime: Saudi Arabia’s record

Executions
Saudi Arabia has the highest execution rate per capita in the world. It still executes minors and has put 23 people to death this year compared to 76 in 2012 and 79 the year before. Public beheadings and firing squads are common.

Suppression of dissent
While the West turns a blind eye to Saudi excesses against violent Islamists, it also stays silent when peaceful reformists are imprisoned. In the last few weeks the Saudis have jailed three prominent peaceful activists, including a judge.

Women
The country remains one of the harshest places in the world to be a woman. Female Saudis cannot drive, leave their house or travel abroad without a male chaperone.