War on Terror revelations in UK Sunday newspapers - 29th Jan

[xmasdale]

Friends

Do you think we can respond to these articles usefully?

BLAIR IN SECRET PLOT TO DUPE U.N.
The Mail on Sunday leads with this frontpage headline. It describes how the second edition of a book, Lawless World, by human rights lawyer Philippe Sands QC, Professor of Law at London University, reveals a White House leak which shows that in a private meeting on 31st January 2003 Blair and Bush agreed that, though they would go through the motions of trying to get a UN resolution, they would attack Iraq whatever the outcome, which in any case they did not expect to be successful. Sands' book also reveals duplicitous conduct by Jack Straw and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith.

The same story also appears in the Independent on Sunday.

It would appear there may have been a decision within the British establishment to damage Blair, now that the Conservatives are beginning to look electable again. This may account for the Mail's earlier featuring of Ian Henshall's 911 Revealed.


POLICE FAKED TUBE DEATH LOG
is the front page headline in the Independent on Sunday. Based on an alleged leak from the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the article alleges that Special Branch altered a log of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes to shift the blame from themselves, who ordered the shooting, to the fire arms officers who carried it out. The Independent attributes the story to The News of the World.

OK neither story is directly about 9/11, but both are connected to the War on Terror which 911 unleashed.

What should we do?
Congratulate the newspapers?
Contact Professor Sands QC?
Protest?
Nothing?

Personally I feel glad that yet more evidence has come out which will lead the public to doubt the integrity of the authorities. Will it lead the public to reject the lies we expect to be told to justify extending the War on Terror into Iran, possibly using nukes?

Fasten your seatbelts; we're in for a bumpy ride.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

Here is one story:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article341765.ece
Police 'faked Tube death log'
Special Branch 'altered record' in attempt to switch the blame for de Menezes shooting
By Sophie Goodchild, Chief Reporter
Published: 29 January 2006
Extraordinary allegations that Special Branch officers deliberately falsified vital evidence to hide mistakes which led to the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at a south London Underground station were made last night.

According to claims in the News of the World, police altered the contents of a logbook, which detailed the Brazilian electrician's final movements, in a bid to cover up their blunders.

The 27-year-old was shot dead at Stockwell Tube station, in the wake of the London bombings, by police exercising a shoot-to-kill policy.

Specific words were understood to have been changed to cover up the fact that surveillance officers had wrongly identified Mr de Menezes as terror suspect Hussein Osman.

Alterations were hastily made to amend the wording of the official log once the shocking truth emerged that the dead man was not, in fact, the extremist wanted in connection with the failed 21 July Tube bombings.

This was in a bid to pass the blame for the shooting on to the firearms officers who actually shot the electrician and on to senior officers at Scotland Yard who were in charge of the operation.

These revelations are reportedly contained in the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Last night, despite calls to the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office and the IPCC, The Independent on Sunday was unable to corroborate or substantiate the claims.

The family of the dead man said the revelations were "shocking" and demanded an immediate public inquiry. Asad Rehman, the family's spokesman, said these latest reports reinforced their belief that there had been a deliberate cover-up over Mr de Menezes death.

"It reinforces their belief that his killing was not the result of a catalogue of errors but that there was something more malign behind this," said Mr Rehman, who has written to the Attorney General and the Crown Prosecution Service demanding an official inquiry into Mr de Menezes' death. "Yet again, the family has to find out through leaks what might have happened to Jean Charles. We believe a public inquiry is the only solution for the real truth to be established."

The story, if proved correct, will add to the controversy surrounding the shooting. Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is already facing a separate inquiry into complaints made by Mr de Menezes' family that he made misleading comments about the shooting to the public.

The Stockwell killing has also highlighted communications failures between surveillance teams and commanding officers as well as calling into question Operation Kratos, the Met's secret policy on dealing with potential suicide bombers.

The IPCC review of the Stockwell killing was handed to lawyers at the CPS just over a week ago. Copies have also been delivered to Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, as well as to the Metropolitan Police Authority and to Scotland Yard. It is expected that they could take up to a year to decide if there are sufficient grounds on which to bring a prosecution against any of the officers.

However, sources quoted by the News of the World allege that the IPCC report reveals that the log was altered from "it was Osman" to read instead "and it was not Osman".

The alteration should have been signed but was not. This was regarded as a clumsy error by the IPCC investigators. Their report says: "This looks like an attempt to try to distance Special Branch from the decision [to shoot de Menezes].

Extraordinary allegations that Special Branch officers deliberately falsified vital evidence to hide mistakes which led to the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at a south London Underground station were made last night.

According to claims in the News of the World, police altered the contents of a logbook, which detailed the Brazilian electrician's final movements, in a bid to cover up their blunders.

The 27-year-old was shot dead at Stockwell Tube station, in the wake of the London bombings, by police exercising a shoot-to-kill policy.

Specific words were understood to have been changed to cover up the fact that surveillance officers had wrongly identified Mr de Menezes as terror suspect Hussein Osman.

Alterations were hastily made to amend the wording of the official log once the shocking truth emerged that the dead man was not, in fact, the extremist wanted in connection with the failed 21 July Tube bombings.

This was in a bid to pass the blame for the shooting on to the firearms officers who actually shot the electrician and on to senior officers at Scotland Yard who were in charge of the operation.

These revelations are reportedly contained in the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). Last night, despite calls to the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office and the IPCC, The Independent on Sunday was unable to corroborate or substantiate the claims.

The family of the dead man said the revelations were "shocking" and demanded an immediate public inquiry. Asad Rehman, the family's spokesman, said these latest reports reinforced their belief that there had been a deliberate cover-up over Mr de Menezes death.

"It reinforces their belief that his killing was not the result of a catalogue of errors but that there was something more malign behind this," said Mr Rehman, who has written to the Attorney General and the Crown Prosecution Service demanding an official inquiry into Mr de Menezes' death. "Yet again, the family has to find out through leaks what might have happened to Jean Charles. We believe a public inquiry is the only solution for the real truth to be established."

The story, if proved correct, will add to the controversy surrounding the shooting. Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is already facing a separate inquiry into complaints made by Mr de Menezes' family that he made misleading comments about the shooting to the public.

The Stockwell killing has also highlighted communications failures between surveillance teams and commanding officers as well as calling into question Operation Kratos, the Met's secret policy on dealing with potential suicide bombers.

The IPCC review of the Stockwell killing was handed to lawyers at the CPS just over a week ago. Copies have also been delivered to Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, as well as to the Metropolitan Police Authority and to Scotland Yard. It is expected that they could take up to a year to decide if there are sufficient grounds on which to bring a prosecution against any of the officers.

However, sources quoted by the News of the World allege that the IPCC report reveals that the log was altered from "it was Osman" to read instead "and it was not Osman".

The alteration should have been signed but was not. This was regarded as a clumsy error by the IPCC investigators. Their report says: "This looks like an attempt to try to distance Special Branch from the decision [to shoot de Menezes].

[Andrew Johnson]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_ar ticle_id=375453&in_page_id=1770

Blair in secret plot with Bush to dupe U.N.
by SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday

A White House leak revealing astonishing details of how Tony Blair and George Bush lied about the Iraq war is set to cause a worldwide political storm.

A new book exposes how the two men connived to dupe the United Nations and blows the lid off Mr Blair's claim that he was a restraining influence on Mr Bush.

What do you think about the revelations? Have your say in the reader comments below

He offered his total support for the war at a secret White House summit as Mr Bush displayed his contempt for the UN, made a series of wild threats against Saddam Hussein and showed a devastating ignorance about the catastrophic aftermath of the war.

Based on access to information at the highest level, the book by leading British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands QC, Professor of Law at London University, demonstrates how the two men decided to go to war regardless of whether they obtained UN backing.

The revelations make a nonsense of Mr Blair's claim that the final decision was not made until MPs voted in the Commons 24 hours before the war - and could revive the risk of him being charged with war crimes or impeached by Parliament itself.

The book also makes serious allegations concerning the conduct of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith over Goldsmith's legal advice on the war.

And it alleges the British Government boasted that disgraced newspaper tycoon Conrad Black was being used by Mr Bush's allies in America as a channel for pro-war propaganda in the UK via his Daily Telegraph newspaper.

The leaks are contained in a new version of Sands' book Lawless World, first published last year, when it emerged that Lord Goldsmith had told Mr Blair the war could be unlawful - before a lastminute U-turn.

The new edition, to be published by Penguin on Thursday, is likely to cause a fierce new controversy on both sides of the Atlantic.

It follows recent charges against two British men under the Official Secrets Act after a transcript of another conversation between Mr Bush and Blair, in which the President raised the possibility of bombing the Al Jazeera Arab TV station, was leaked by a Whitehall official.

Both governments will be horrified that the stream of leaks revealing the grim truth about the war is turning into a flood. The most damaging new revelation concerns the meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Bush at the White House on January 31, 2003, during which Mr Blair urged the President to seek a second UN resolution giving specific backing for the war.

The Mail on Sunday has established that the meeting was attended only by Mr Blair, his Downing Street foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning, Mr Bush and the President's then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, plus an official note-taker.

The top-secret record of the meeting was circulated to a tiny handful of senior figures in the two administrations.

Immediately afterwards, the two leaders gave a Press conference in which a nervous-looking Mr Blair claimed the meeting had been a success. Mr Bush gave qualified support for going down the UN route. But observers noted the awkward body language between the two men. Sands' book explains why. Far from giving a genuine endorsement to Mr Blair's attempt to gain full UN approval, Mr Bush was only going through the motions. And Mr Blair not only knew it, but went along with it.

The description of the January 31 meeting echoes the recent memoirs of Britain's former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Meyer, who was excluded from the private session between Blair and Bush, claimed the summit marked the culmination of the Prime Minister's failure to use his influence to hold back Mr Bush.

Equally significantly, Meyer was puzzled by Blair's behaviour when the two leaders emerged to join other aides. Meyer writes: "We were all milling around in the State dining room as Bush and Blair put the final touches to what they were going to say to the media.

"Bush had a notepad on which he had written a form of words on the second resolution...He read it out...There was silence. I waited for Blair to say he needed something as supportive as possible. He said nothing. I waited for somebody on the No 10 team to say something. Nothing was said. I cursed myself afterwards for not piping up.

"At the Press conference, Bush gave only a perfunctory and lukewarm support for a second resolution. It was neither his nor Blair's finest performance."

In view of Sands' disclosures, Blair had every reason to look awkward: he knew that despite his public talk of getting UN support, privately he had just committed himself to going to war no matter what the UN did.

When, in due course, the UN refused to back the war, Mr Blair seized on the fact that French President Jacques Chirac said he would not support any pro-war resolution, claiming that the French veto was so 'unreasonable' that a UN vote was pointless. In reality, Bush and Blair had decided to go to war before Chirac uttered a word.

The disclosures will be seized on by anti-war critics in Britain, including Left-wing MPs who say Mr Blair should be impeached for his handling of the war.

However, Ministers will argue that after three major British inquiries into the war, and with thousands of British troops due to be sent home from Iraq this year, it is time to move on.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said last night: "These matters have been thoroughly investigated and we stand by our position."

[Andrew Johnson]

Noel,

Good thoughts. I think that the Hidden Hand is getting more and more obvious...

I don't know what the best course of action is.

Blair has become a liability. Cheery fresh-faced Cameron can now be wheeled into to position to dupe all the right-wing people (who don't mind Blair really) that "things are going to change!".

What was that that Cameron Said the other day? Ah yes...

"David Cameron will this week dramatically praise Tony Blair for his 'profound' understanding of the political mood of Britain in the Nineties, and make an audacious claim to be the Prime Minister's 'natural heir'. In a challenge to Blair's would-be successor, "

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/story/0,9061,1697470,00.h tml?gusrc=rss

So, there is no real opposition anymore. Good. I always hated confrontational politics anyway. So let's all sail off into the cheery sunset of armageddon...

[Jane]