Cheer Up Sir Fred!
Like so many harumphing political commentators, I am feeling really sorry now for Sir Fred Goodwin. So here is a nice song to cheer him up.
craig
Obama – Making Your Mind Up
Barack Obama does not lie awake at night worrying what Craig Murray thinks of him. One day he will go to his grave without ever knowing what Craig Murray thought of him. But as an infinitesimal fraction of the spreading of views and information in the digital age, I thought I might tell you anyway.
I am not a socialist. I have to say that from time to time, because people imagine that I am, from my dislike of the abuse of power and wealth. But my view remains that organised socialism has generally turned out to be one of the nastier ways of concentrating power and wealth. I am a liberal. My political inspiration has come from Mill, Bright, Hobson, Gladstone, Lloyd George, Keynes and Grimond, from Paine, Cobbett and Carlyle, from Milton, Byron, Burns and William Morris. I am a radical. I am not a socialist.
The point of which disquisition is to explain to you why I was prepared to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. Many of my fellow campaigners against war and for human rights, were writing him off after a couple of weeks.
“Give the man time”, I said.
I corresponded with Democrat friends in the US, who explained that, in trying to turn round the neoconservative juggernaut, Obama needed a critical mass of support. His aim was to capture people to his side. Many of those retained, who had served Bush, were careerists not ideologues. Their loyalty was to the Commander-in-Chief. With his authority allied to his charisma, Obama would align them to the new agenda. Give it time – the result would be the most powerful change in modern US history.
The problem is, to believe that someone is changing course, you do have to observe them putting some pressure on the tiller. I see none. On human rights, Obama’s government lawyers have continued seamlessly the positions adopted by the Bush administration in seeking to deny any rights before US courts for detainees in Guantanamo Bay, arguing that they are not legal persons in the US.
The US detention centre at Baghram airbase in Afghanistan, where prisoners have been subject to terrible deprivation and torture, and many have died, is being expanded to take another 244 prisoners. That appears to be the plan for closing Guantanamo Bay, and is one of the few things that could actually make life worse for the prisoners there.
Extraordinary rendition has not been stopped. And to quote just one of myriad cases, Obama continued the Bush administration’s efforts to have the details of the torture suffered by Binyam Mohammed kept secret by the puppet UK government, which complied, and the British courts – the latter thankfully having resisted.
There are to be no prosecutions of Bush administration officals or security service personnel for instituting or implementing the policy of torture worldwide. Which policy, as far as records of the law are concerned, was entirely dreamt up by Ms Lyndie England.
Obama ought to have encouraged prosecutions to deter from it happening again – except it appears not to have stopped. But there are not just to be no prosecutions – the truth is to be buried forever. It was under Obama that Binyan Mohammed was still held, with the complicity of Miliband, while he was pressured to sign a condition of release that he would not tell anyone about his torture. We still don’t know which basements Khalil Sheikh Mohammed was held in over three years and precisely what tortures he was subjected too. At the very least, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Torture and Extraordinary Rendition.
Those rendered to the unspeakable torture of Uzbekistan came on CIA flights from Baghram and from the secret prison at Szymano-Szczytny in Poland. Most if not all now lie in graves in the Kizyl Kum desert. The Americans must have lists of who they transported. We – and their relatives all over the World – don’t know their names.
In January, one of Obama’s first foreign policy initiatives was to send General Petraeus to Tashkent for talks with President Karimov, with a view to reopening the US airbase in Uzbekistan. Diplomatic talks continue. Interestingly, I hear from my Uzbek government moles that they have stalled over Karimov’s demand for a photoshoot with President Obama. That sounds crazy if you don’t know Karimov’s megalomania, and his desire to revive a faltering personality cult.
Hillary Clinton is resisting this strongly. She has nothing against an alliance with Karimov, opening the airbase, paying him a large subsidy and resuming the Bush policy of denying Karimov’s massive human rights abuses at the UN, OSCE and elsewhere. But she has made plain that she will not under any circumstances be pictured with Karimov, who boils opponents alive (literally). She doesn’t think Obama should do it either. But there is now a split over this issue in Washington between White House and State Department, with White House senior staff seeing no harm in a photocall with a man that 99.9% of Americans have never heard of, and who (this is a telling factor) is strongly allied with Israel.
The Uzbek policy particularly interests me, and is a subset of Obama’s disastrous Central Asian policy. In Afghanistan we have presided over massive increases in opium production, to exceed all previous levels by over 50%. The Karzai family and the majority of the Ministers and Governors of the government we installed, are deeply implicated in the industrial scale refining of opium into heroin and its export – much of it through neighbouring Uzbekistan and in collaboration with the Karimov family and their bagman Gafur Rakhimov.
What Obama expects to gain by a massive surge of Western troops into this mess is beyond me. Meantime he has actually increased the rate of air strikes into Pakistan, killing many scores of innocent civilians and contributing to the destabilisaton and growth of radical insurgency in that country.
Then we have economic policy.
I praised Obama’s initial economic stimulus bill for old-fashioned Keynesianism, creating jobs in a recession through public works. But it has now been followed up by Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Program. No wonder Wall Street cheered. It represents a huge transfer of money from the man in the street, not just to the wealthy, but specifically to the speculators.
The plan will bankroll private investment firms and guarantee them huge profits in return for buying failed home loans and securities from the banks at vastly inflated prices. Its name conceals the fact that it involves no private investment of any value, and certainly no private risk. It aims to get the whole speculative hedge fund casino back up and running.
But this is not any casino. This is an exclusive casino with a very tough door policy, where the high rollers can keep their winnings, but know that if they lose, their losses will be taken by force from all the little people who were not allowed into the casino. What fun!
Barack Obama will always have the benefit of not being George Bush. I like him for that. But then I like my cat for not being George Bush. Does he really represent the positive change for which Americans yearned? Will he fulfil the aspirations of his ethereal oratory?
No.
Terrorist Scare No. 372 Bollocks
So now the government are training a Stasi of 60,000 selected nutters to spy on potential terrorists. The government is still trailing in the opinion polls, so we have Home Secretary Jacqui Smith taking a break from filling in expense claims on her sister’s home, to warn us a terror attack is “Very likely”.
Listen up everybody. You have more chance of winning first prize in the National Lottery than you have of being killed by a terrorist. On average, each year in the past decade approximately 150 people drown in their own bath in the UK. On average, each year in the past decade approximately eight people are killed in the UK by terrorists. One death is too many, but it is one of the very least likely ways you might die. Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith are trying to panic you for political reasons. Your kettle, your stepladder, a kitchen cupboard falling on your head, all much more likely to kill you than a terrorist. Terrorists do exist, but they are much, much less dangerous than your staircase.
Two excellent comments, one from Gerard Mulholland posted on the BBC website:
For 30 years we -under both Labour and Tory governments- combated serious, organised US-financed Irish terrorism.
We lost 3000 civilians and 2000 soldiers.
We had car bombs.
We had truck bombs.
We had pub bombs.
We had shopping-centre bombs.
We had letter-box bombs.
We had shoot-outs.
We had sieges.
We were mortared.
We didn’t panic.
Nu-Labour are panic-stricken wimps, stampeded into unbelievable panic.
They stir up fear and dread.
Stupid Al Qa’ida nutters aren’t the enemy.
Nu-Labour is.
One from Anticant on this website
I’m old enough to remember the Blitz in WW2, when 40,000 people were killed in a single year. They [my parents’ generation] just got on with their lives and said “sod it” when a bomb fell. They didn’t scare themselves witless with phantom plots and plotters like this daft lot, who resemble kids at hallowe’en giving themselves cheap thrills with pumpkin bogies.
Yes, there IS a threat – but this government doesn’t seem to have the least clue as to what it actually is. They can’t see that they are a large part of the problem, not the answer. That is what really scares me.
Sufi Muslim Council a Karimov/CIA Front
I have been asked to provide more proof that the Sufi Muslim Council is funded by the Karimov government and the CIA. Well, to some extent you have to take my word that as British Ambassador in Uzbekistan I had my informers and sources. But let me give you some strong supporting evidence.
The Head of the Sufi Muslim Council is Sheikh Kabbani. That is not entirely acknowledged, but is pretty clear from the SMC website.
http://www.sufimuslimcouncil.org/cs.php
Kabbani is also the head of the self-styled and CIA backed Islamic Supreme Council of America, a body which devotes much of its energy to propagandising for Karimov.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/uzbekistan.html
Fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, like praying five times a day, possessing a Koran at home or fasting at Ramadan, will bring you to the attention of the Uzbek security services as an “extremist”. Ironically religous worship is banned in the Mosque pictured in the website! There are some eleven thousand people in prison for Islamic religous observance outside the strictly controlled and limited state Mosques. They are subject to the most vile torture and frequently killed. Yet Kabbani has made numerous evidence submissions to bodies including the UN and OSCE, denying that there is any religious persecution in Uzbekistan.
The Karimov regime is strongly pro-Israel. The Israelis run Karimov’s personal security. Interestingly, Sheikh Kabbani belongs to a tiny Lebanese Muslim faction aligned to Israel and the Christian Falangists, and has been the envoy for Karimov’s dealings with Israel. This article in the Jewish Daily Forward is interesting.
http://www.forward.com/articles/3544/
Now this Karimov organisation is pro-actively promoted by New Labour, and pimped by Sky News, as the way forward for British Muslims.
Sky News, “First For Faking News”
Quite interesting filming in Sky News on the situation in Pakistan, including an interview with President Asif Ali Zirdari, in which his slow-witted performance indicates why he so rarely gives them. The Pakistanis, Italians and Israelis are quite happy to elect crooks to lead the nation. The rest of us tend only to find out we have elected crooks after the event.
But Sky of course go on to hype the “Terrorist threat in the UK”, and mar their report by faking a discussion among “Community and business leaders in Rochdale” into which they introduce a spokesman for the Sufi Muslim Council, attempting to pass him off as a representative of the Rochdale community. This is quite simply fake journalism. Rafiq is now Rochdale based – which I strongly suspect is why Sky News chose Rochdale – but his accent and above all his jargon and use of language are totally different from the others, and the body language of the others when he talks shows he is not one of them.
The Sufi Muslim Council is a propaganda initiative of the Uzbek government of President Karimov and US Neocon foundations, embraced in this country by the Blairites and Blearsites. It had its genesis in cooperation between the CIA, German and Uzbek security services. It is the counterpart of a “Black” organisation the same security services set up, the Islamic Jihad Union. The Islamic Jihad Union was blamed for faked “Bombings” in Tashkent and remains a cover for agent provocateur operations, particularly in Germany.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/10/hazel_blears_ma.html
Despite government promotion, and almost unlimited access to funds enabling it to start up its own TV channel,
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/156/156432_soap_stars_help_launch_tv_treat.html
the Sufi Muslim Council has had no success in attaining a mass membership in the UK, where its adulation of the Karimov regime is well understood. It represents nobody in Rochdale and Sky’s use of it to direct a conversation of the Rochdale community is highly reprehensible fake journalism.
99% of Britain’s Sufi Muslims have no connection to the Sufi Muslim Council.
A Nation Mourns
I cannot ignore the fact that the whole nation is in mourning. I view the current mawkishness with even more bemused detachment than I did the dead Diana phenomenon. If only we saw such outpourings of grief for the British soldiers – let alone their opponents and hundreds of thousands of civilians – who have died in recent evil motivated wars. I am sorry when anyone dies prematurely, even Saddam Hussein. I tried hard not to rejoice when Suni Abacha died.
Death is a sad thing, especially for family. But someone has to stand against the excess. I am not afraid to say that there is something really gone wrong with the national psyche when a person deficient in intelligence, talent and even looks can rise to such national prominence for no apparent reason, except for an apparent desire to celebrate something aspiring to mediocrity. I am talking of course of Employment Secretary Tony McNulty and the shock this morning of the death of his political career.
The scarcely articulate McNulty was cashing in on his parents’ house as his parliamentary “Second home”, even though his constituency home was already in London and he spent only 20 nights a year in the parental home. He has claimed some £60,000. He is now insulting our intelligence by appearing all over the TV channels as a campaigner against the system he himself abused. Not one journalist has so far dared ask him the obvious questions about his hypocrisy.
What a sleazy shower of little crooks. I don’t care how sad Gordon Brown is, I shan’t shed a tear for McNulty’s political demise. He will linger a bit, of course, perhaps to the next election, because being a crook is a pre-qualification for membership of Brown’s cabinet.
Intellectual Protectionism
I am stunned by Canada’s decision to ban George Galloway from entering the country. I have known George for too many decades to share in the hero-worship he attracts from some; but he is a truly talented speaker and debater. George was right on Iraq when so many Western politicians hid behind the coward’s shield of patriotism. He is right on the disaster of Afghanistan too, the full horror of which is still unfoldng. I see that three more Canadian soldiers were killed there yeasterday, and nine maimed. The kind of debate George brings is urgently needed in Canada.
I was also surprised by the Canadian government spokesman’s description of him as an “Infandous street corner Cromwell”. Cromwell was a truly great man, a towering figure, with a driving concern for the common good. His statue stands guard outside Parliament. A peculiar comparison indeed.
Canadians should be ashamed today. George has fallen foul of the trick by the Israeli lobby of tarring everybody sympathetic to the Palestinians as a terrorist.
There is a spirit of protectionism abroad in these troubled times – of intellectual protectionism. As the frailties of an economic system built upon unrestrained greed and speculation become clear, as it becomes more and more obvious that recent Western invasions of Muslim lands are a drive to corner key areas for access to increasingly scarce hydrocarbons, and as the spectre of climate change looms over everything that was viewed as “Progress”, governments are desperate to control the narrative thier population hears.
The British government banned Geerst Wilders and several Muslim theologians. Canada is banning George Galloway, of all people. When the British banned the Dutch MEP Wilders, the Dutch government commendably supported the right to free speech in Europe and the Dutch Ambassador offered to meet him at Heathrow. The British government should make Canada know of our displeasure at the banning of somone for voicing opinions which are held by a large proportion of the British nation.
Fat chance.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw to be Accused on Torture in Parliamentary Inquiry
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed to hear my evidence on torture on Tuesday 28 April at 1.45pm. Many thanks to everyone who helped lobby for this.
I am delighted, as I have been trying for over four years to lay the truth about British torture policy before Parliament. I will testify that as British Ambassador I was told there is a very definite policy to accept intelligence from torture abroad, and that the policy was instituted and approved by Jack Straw when Foreign Secretary. I will tell them that as Ambassador I protested formally three times in writing to Jack Straw, and that the Foreign Office told me in reply to my protests that this was perfectly legal.
I will prove my evidence with documentation.
Here is the written evidence I will speak to
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html
There is now a wealth of evidence from individual cases to support my testimony that such an underlying secret policy exists.
It is likely that I will face hostile questioning from government supporters and from “War on Terror” hawks. In the past the government has accused me of corruption, sexual blackmail, and alcoholism (all completely untrue) and hinted that I am insane, in an effort to deflect attention from the cold facts of my testimony. The hearing will be open to the public, so if anyone can make it along, some friendly faces in the gallery would be extremely welcome.
I will also see if I can discover if anything usefully can be done by way of lobbying to ensure that the Parliament channel films it for broadcast.
Motion of Support For Torture Truth Formally Tabled in Scottish Parliament
SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
MOTION
Date of Lodging: 18 March 2009
Short Title: University Rector’s Torture Evidence
S3M-03730 Bill Wilson (West of Scotland) (SNP): That the Parliament
supports the request by the rector of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, to give evidence to the Westminster Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights on the subject of the UK Government’s policy on receiving intelligence obtained by torture abroad and considers that Mr Murray is offering first-hand eye-witness testimony with documentary proof of a secret and reprehensible policy of attempting to benefit from torture, endorsed and directed by UK ministers.
Bill Wilson MSP has also put out this press release:
University Rector Must Present Torture Evidence, says MSP
Dr Bill Wilson, SNP MSP for the West of Scotland, announced today that he had just lodged a motion calling for the Rector of the University of Dundee, Craig Murray, to be allowed to present evidence of the UK Government’s involvement in torture to Westminster’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Dr Wilson commented, “I have long admired Mr Murray’s principled stand against UK complicity in human rights abuses, a stand that lost him his job as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. He has clear evidence of the fact that the UK Government is prepared on a regular basis to receive intelligence from torture.
“I agree with the suggestion by commentators on Mr Murray’s website that the fact that he is not being allowed to present his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights strongly suggests that the purpose of this committee is not to uncover the truth but to bury it, to ‘prove’ that the government isn’t involved.”
Mr Murray commented on Dr Wilson’s Motion: “It is essential that people are told the truth about some of the terrible things that have been done in their name, if we are to avoid such outrages in future. There is a degree of integrity on this issue being shown in Holyrood that appears so far lacking in Westminster.”
I can make contact details for Bill Wilson available to anyone who wants them. I am very grateful for this support, which makes it still more difficult for the government to pretend that my evidence does not exist.
UPDATE
MSPs Robin Harper, Dr Christopher Harvie, Christina McKelvie, Stuart McMillan, Joe FitzPatrick, and Bill Kidd have now added their names to Dr Bill Wilson’s motion calling for my evidence to be heard.
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/business/motions/Default.aspx?motionid=16106
The 207, A Bendy Bus
Yesterday, as I often do, I took the 207 bus from Ealing Common to Shepherds Bush. Coming back again, I decided to make a survey of something I had noted many times.
Of those who could not have been too old or too young to pay, only 17 of the 42 people I managed to watch touched in an Oyster card on the bus. Now the remaining 25 could have had pre-bought paper tickets or travelcards, but I very much doubt that many of them did. I never see any significant percentage of passengers at a stop use one of those machines.
I hate Bendy Buses. They are a disaster in terms of road safety. Not only have they maimed or murdered hundreds of cyclists, but on numerous occasions when I have tried to cross on a little green man I have had to negotiate my way past thirty metres of bendy bus parked right across it.
On top of that there is evidently a widespread perception that it is OK to ride them without paying. I should say that I have never seen one of London Transport’s claimed random ticket inspections.
I do not approve of fare-dodging. Public goods need to be financed. And these completely inappropriate monstrosities need to be off our roads sooner rather than later.
Unicef Must Break Ties With Child Slavery Supporters Barcelona FC
Kudos to pitchinvasion.net for an excellent article on the disgusting decision by Barcelona FC to accept sackloads of cash to promote Islam Karimov, the world’s most vicious dictator.
http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/03/15/bunyodkor-barcelona-and-the-dictators-daughter/
Pitch invasion were building on an article in the Observer by Kevin O’Flynn, who is almost the only sports journalist who ever tackles the seamy underside of the beautiful game.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/15/bunyodkor-uzbekistan-rivaldo-craig-murray
Kevin O’Flynn’s reckoning of salaries in Uzbekistan as £25 a week is an official statistic. Some urban folk get that. Most of the population live on much, much less. For this poor and terrorised state to be spending hundreds of millions of pounds of money stolen from the Uzbek people on building a glamour football club to glorify the President’s daughter, is obscene in the extreme.
High among the many horrors of the Karimov regime is the mass use of child slavery to pick the State – ie Karimov family – owned cotton crop. Hundreds of thousands of children are forced into the cotton fields for weeks in conditions that mirror those of black slaves in the USA in the 19th century. Uzbekistan is the second largest exporter of cotton in the world.
http://www.ejfoundation.org/?op=modload&name=PagEd&file=index&page_id=141
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2007/03/uzbek_cotton_in.html
The situation is so appalling that even Walmart and Tesco have joined a voluntary private sector boycott in the US and UK of all items containing Uzbek cotton.
Barcelona should be ashamed of the collaboration with Karimov. They carry the Unicef logo on their shirts. The irony of Unicef being advertised on a team that is paid to glorify the leader of the world’s largest system of child slavery, is staggering.
Unicef must break their ties with Barcelona. Now.
Tuition Fees
The BBC Today programme haven’t asked me to appear, but have used a quote from me on their website on the tuition fees debate. That is as close as I’ve been allowed to get to coverage by the BBC in the last twelve months. Presumably it will disappear shortly, but while it’s there:
Emails to Joint Human Rights Committee Were Read
Mark Egan, clerk to the committee, has sent an assurance that the emails to the Joint Human Rights Commission were in fact read, at least by the secretariat. Thanks to the correspondent who passed this on:
Thank you for your email to Andrew Dismore MP, Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Mr Dismore has asked me to reply.
The Committee staff received over 500 emails relating to Craig Murray’s request to give oral evidence to the Committee. All were read by the staff – I read many of them myself – and the Committee was informed of the number of emails we received and the nature of them.
The emails were deleted on Friday because Mr Dismore had replied to Mr Murray and indicated that people who had emailed the Committee should read his reply, and we needed to free up space in our inbox. We were not able to respond to each email individually because of the number we received.
Most of the emails were read using Outlook’s preview facility, which is why they were technically “unread” according to Outlook. Those which were opened properly were converted back to “unread” so that we could more easily count the total number we had received.
I hope this fully explains how we handled the Murray emails and deals with your suggestion of discourtesy.
Yours sincerely
Mark Egan, Commons Clerk, JCHR
I accept Mark Egan’s word on this. It remains the fact however that the Committee has still not agreed to hear my evidence.
Mark Egan should be receivng the signed top copy by registered post today. This bears repeating at every possible occasion: this is the signed statement I have sent to the Joint Committee and on which I wish to testify.
WITNESS STATEMENT TO THE PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
My name is Craig Murray. I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.
I had joined the Diplomatic Service in 1984 and became a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Senior Management Structure in 1998. I had held a variety of posts including Deputy High Commissioner, Accra (1998 to 2001) and First Secretary Political and Economic, Warsaw (1994 to 1997).
I had also been head of the FCO section of the Embargo Surveillance Sector leading up to and during the first Gulf War, monitoring and interdicting Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In consequence I had obtained security clearances even higher than those routinely given to all executive members of the Diplomatic Service. I had extensive experience throughout my career of dealing with intelligence material and the intelligence services.
It was made plain to me in briefing in London before initial departure for Tashkent that Uzbekistan was a key ally in the War on Terror and to be treated as such. It was particularly important to the USA who valued its security cooperation and its provision of a major US airbase at Karshi-Khanabad.
As Ambassador in Uzbekistan I regularly received intelligence material released by MI6. This material was given to MI6 by the CIA, mostly originating from their Tashkent station. It was normally issued to me telegraphically by MI6 at the same time it was issued to UK ministers and officials in London.
From the start of my time as Ambassador, I was also receiving a continual stream of information about widespread torture of suspected political or religious dissidents in Tashkent. This was taking place on a phenomenal scale. In early 2003 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in the preparation of which my Embassy much assisted, described torture in Uzbekistan as “routine and systemic”.
The horror and staggering extent of torture in Uzbekistan is well documented and I have been informed by the Chair is not in the purview of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But what follows goes directly to the question of UK non-compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.
In gathering evidence from victims of torture, we built a consistent picture of the narrative which the torturers were seeking to validate from confessions under torture. They sought confessions which linked domestic opposition to President Karimov with Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden; they sought to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist threat in Central Asia. People arrested on all sorts of pretexts ?” (I recall one involved in a dispute over ownership of a garage plot) suddenly found themselves tortured into confessing to membership of both the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Al-Qaida. They were also made to confess to attending Al-Qaida training camps in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. In an echo of Stalin’s security services from which the Uzbek SNB had an unbroken institutional descent, they were given long lists of names of people they had to confess were also in IMU and Al-Qaida.
It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers ?” and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.
I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.
I asked my Deputy, Karen Moran, to call on a senior member of the US Embassy and tell him I was concerned that the CIA intelligence was probably derived from torture by the Uzbek security services. Karen Moran reported back to me that the US Embassy had replied that it probably did come from torture, but in the War on Terror they did not view that as a problem.
In October or November of 2002 I sent the FCO a telegram classified Top Secret and addressed specifically for the attention of the Secretary of State. I argued that to receive this material from torture was:
A Really Stupid Policy from some Really Stupid People
A report today from Universities UK addresses the very real problem of underfunding in our universities, and suggests tution fees may need to double. In tandem, a BBC survey of Vice Chancellors and Principals in England and Wales finds that over half of them wish tuition fees to be at least £5,000 pa, and suggestions ranged from £4,000 to £20,000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7946912.stm
I feel called upon to make an ex cathedra pronouncement as Rector of the University of Dundee.
What a bunch of arseholes!
How did we reach the position where the people in charge of our institutions of higher learning are among the most stupid in the country? Only one third of them have retained half a marble. “Two thirds believed fees had not deterred applications from students from poorer families.”
That is a terrible condemnation of how remote these people are from their students in particular, and reality in general. The macho management culture that beset these isles led to these people becoming vastly overpaid and cosseted.
The Thatcherite New Labour system of a mass market for higher education, in which students pay, has never been tested in this country in a period of recession. It ran as a model only during the artificial boom of the Brown South Sea Bubble. At present it is mostly the very poor who are put off university by the levels of debt it entails. Whether demand will hold up as it becomes increasingly clear that the choice of whether to go to university will be between unemployment now, or unemployment in three or four years saddled with a huge debt, is still unclear. My money is that demand will be affected. To increase fees at the present would be a ridiculous gamble.
There is also, of course, the very real loss of social mobility. The deterrence to potential students from poorer backgrounds will worsen as the debt mountains become higher – and the number of people who have poorer backgrounds is about to rise substantially.
I regard the ending of the social mobility that came from free university education as the biggest single disaster of the Thatcher/Blair era.
The tragedy is that our universities could be fixed with under 1 per cent of the money that has been poured into the insatiable maw of corrupt financiers. Scotland’s universities need only an extra £200 miilion pa to return to financial soundness. For the UK, the figure is about £2 billion.
The failure of this stupid government to realise that universities are in fact more economically essential than the speculative wings of banks, is criminal.
The money must be found. But not from the students. And those leaders of universities who favour screwing the students further should be sacked en masse.
How the hell did they get the job in the first place?
Islamophobia and the Jailing of Hicham Yezza
In May 2008 Hicham Yezza, an IT technician at the University of Nottingham, was arrested, together with student Rizwaan Sabir, in a well-publicised anti-terrorist swoop. They had downloaded al-Qaida material from the US Department of Defense website as part of Sabir’s academic work on terrorism.
Disgracefully, they were reported to the police by Nottingham University. The abandonment by British universities of any idea of academic independence is one of the unsung tragedies of our recent history. Our universities have become factories for churning out ever increasing numbers of “vocationally trained” graduates into a market with far less graduate jobs than the supply. Such research as is undertaken is tightly targeted, measured and constrained in terms not of human knowledge but of such state concepts as economic and social impact.
In the panic to be seen as helpful to the government, Nottingham University turned in these two Muslims, presumably on the basis that if you were planning to commit terrorist offences, then openly studying terrorism at university would be a good cover.
Actually, as far as I can tell no recent terrorist has had a proper qualification in terrorism from a British university. Surely, given the government’s obsession with vocational training as the purpose of university education, that is something the government must seek to remedy?
The ludicrous nature of the arrests quickly became apparent even to Nottinghamshire Police, and after an unpleasant six days in cells and the permanent shredding of their reputations, the men were released. Disgracefully, there has been no public apology from Nottingham University.
Just as with the face saving alleged “discovery” of child porn on the computer of the innocent “terrorist suspect” the police shot in Leyton, lo and behold Nottinghamshire Police discovered that Yezza was a criminal after all. He was an illegal immigrant!
Yezza has now been jailed for nine months for “securing avoidance of enforcement action by deceptive means”. As he was working and studying at Nottingham University under his own name, the deception is not apparent. But a formal jail sentence for an illegal immigrant in this country is extremely unusual. Yezza was not part of the criminal underworld and if he had applied properly his immigration status would in all probability have been able to be regularised. It is very hard to believe the judge was not motivated by the original slur of terrorism. This must go down as yet another striking example of Islamophobia in this country.
The government refuses to put a figure on the number of illegal immigrants in the UK. Academic estimates tend to put the figure around 800,000. It is generally agreed that aound 1 in 25 Londoners is an illegal immigrant. Having much professional experience with immigration and close personal links to a number of immigrant communities, I would put the overall figure much higher, at around 1.5 million. But to take even the lower estimates, can you imagine the chaos if we started to jail illegal immigrants for nine months? The singling out of Yezza is appalling victimisation.
Castelvecchio Pascoli Rules Scottish Academia
The lady on the right in the less elaborate hat is my grandmother, Valentina Coletti. The gentleman next to her is her brother Leonardo Coletti. They look pretty exotic for Edinburgh, as they were immigrants from Castelvecchio Pascoli in Italy.
I am Rector of Dundee University. At a recent meeting of Rectors I was speaking with Kevin Dunnion, the Rector of neighbouring St Andrews University. We were astonished to discover that his grandparents also came from Castelvecchio Pascoli.
Perhaps it explains our amazement if I tell you that Castelvecchio has a population of 509. For this tiny Tuscan hilltop village to produce Rectors of two of Scotland’s finest universities – at the same time – is pretty mind-boggling.
Castelvecchio is in the municipal district of Barga. There was a mass exodus from Barga to the central belt of Scotland around the start of the twentieth century. A recent study of Scots Italians was entitled Barga No More. I recall some years back an exhibition in Chambers Street Museum which suggested that some 20% of modern Scots are at least a quarter Italian.
So You Think This Is A Democracy?
Emails sent by members of the public to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights were deleted by the committee without even being read. Two people who happened to have enabled tracking sent me the following two automated repllies they received:
Your message
To: Joint Committee On Human Rights
Subject: Craig Murray:
Sent: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:51:41 -0000
was deleted without being read on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:46:42 -0000
and
Your message
To: Joint Committee On Human Rights
Cc: craig murray
Subject: Torture evidence on 10 March
Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 14:47:36 -0000
was deleted without being read on Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:46:42 -0000
Note the identical time of deletion. Evidently people’s emails were not even deleted individually but selected as a group and deleted en masse.
This is a shame because there was no template and people made some very telling individual points. Plainly people put time and thought into attempting to participate actively in a key part of a supposedly democratic process. It is a disgrace that these emails were deleted unread. Is the UK really a democracy now?
Here is a selection of some 500 which were copied to me. As people sent them to the committee over their names, I presume they would not mind the names being published here, but I do not give email addresses. Remember, if you even glance at them, that is more than the parliamentary committee on human rights did.
Dear Sirs/Mesdames
I have heard Craig Murray speak on the issue of torture in Uzbekistan and read his book Murder in Samarkand. I consider it of the utmost importance that a committee dealing with human rights should hear his testimony and display the openness which one would expect in a truly democratic country which claims to pride itself in transparency in all aspects of public life.
Yours faithfully
I Roberts-Parry
Dear Member of Joint Committee on Human Rights,
I am very concerned about the degree to which evidence appears to be stacking up to confirm that the UK Government may have been complicit in the rendition and torture of foreign nationals for the purposes of obtaining intelligence related to counter terrorism operations.
The latest reports which disturb me greatly relate to the report by UN Special Raporteur Martin Scheinin, together with the testimony of Binyam Mohammed, recently released from US custody at Guantanamo Bay, as reported in the Independent newspaper.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/un-condemns-britains-role–in-torture-cases-1641147.html
However, I have also followed the earlier reports about the claimed use of UK airports by CIA civil flights alleged to have been engaged in rendition of terrorism suspects, and am aware of the compelling evidence placed in the public domain by Mr Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Having read Mr Murray’s book ‘Murder in Samarkand’ about the circumstances surrounding his claimed efforts to prevent the UK government from continuing to knowingly use intelligence information obtained through torture, and his subsequent dismissal from office I have to say that I regard Mr Murray’s accounts of his experiences as entirely credible and worthy of scrutiny by your committee.
I understand that Mr Murray has offered to appear before the Joint Committee on Human Rights and that your will meet shortly to consider whether to hear his evidence. I believe that Mr Murray by his actions at the time – as recorded in his book – and subsequently bears all the hallmarks of an honourable ‘whistleblower’ who should be heard, if there is any chance of the truth being uncovered.
In the interests of democracy and the reputation of Parliament I urge you to hear and assess Mr Murray’s evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Thompson
Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights,
I hope you will be hearing evidence from Craig Murray about the use of
evidence/intelligence gained by torture. He has had first hand experience of
this in Uzbekistan as many of us know who have heard him speak. It would
be extraordinary if you were to deliberately exclude him and not transparent
at all.
It would be to Britain’s shame if his evidence had to be routed through the
Human Rights Committee of the UN the next time they meet to review the
United Kingdom’s record on Human Rights.
Yours in peace, Robin Brookes
Devizes Peace & Justice Group
Dear JCHR,
It is my understanding that Craig Murray may not be allowed to give evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Unles there is an agenda which seeks other than the whole truth this makes no sense.
Leslie Dalton
Hi,
I have heard and read works by Craig Murray and believe you should hear his evidence related to whether or not the UK government used evidence as the result of torture.
It is important there is not cover up in this case.
Regards,
Martin
I would like to register my concern that the Government is trying to block Craig Murray’s valuable testimony to the human rights committee. I heard him speak in Caernarfon last year and his evidence is compelling. The validity and integrity of the committee’s discussion and conclusions depend on it hearing every side of the case.
Thank you
Anna Jane Evans
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to urge you to listen to Craig Murray’s evidence on torture claims. I have followed Mr Murray’s work and believe he is raising issues that the government are conveniently ignoring,often those who speak the truth are labelled madmen as the unthinkable become normalised.
I have followed Mr Murray’s work from his days in Uzbekistan and still cannot believe the British government’s complicity with that nation
I hope that he is given a chance to present his evidence
thank you
Dr N Haque
I hope I am in time to add my voice to those urging the Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear Craig Murray’s evidence on the government’s use of intelligence obtained through torture. His evidence may be unpalatable, but this issue must be dealt with comprehensively in order that the government never again resorts to such tactics. As a long time member of Amnesty, I spend a fair bit of time asking governments around the world to observe international law and the conventions they have ratified. Prohibition on the use of torture is absolute; we need to be setting an example, not sitting in the dock ourselves.
Liza Lishman
Swindon
We heard Craig Murray speak and read his book, Murder in
Samarkhand, in Caernarfon recently. We believe that a committee dealing
with human rights would
be derelict in its duty not to hear his evidence. Only when the
evidence is heard can its validity be determined. Your committee needs
to know all that it can learn about the use of evidence gained by torture.
Diolch yn fawr
Val Williams
Brian Thirsk
I strongly urge your committee to hear out Craig Murray’s evidence, which he is eager to give, as he has first-hand knowledge, as an ex-Ambassador to Uzbekistan, of this government’s skullduggery with regard to evidence gained from torture abroad.
I have heard Craig speak many times in public, and have the highest regard for his honesty and integrity in the face of a government with a track record of lies, deception, spin and secrecy.
The fact that the government is lobbying hard for his exclusion shows that it has something to hide. And, if you are in earnest at uncovering the truth and thereby stopping the evil practice of torture and restoring Britain’s battered reputation abroad, you cannot allow yourselves to capitulate to government pressure.
Nor can you take the risk of your inquiry becoming a white-wash if you fail to discharge the solemn duty entrusted to you.
Best wishes
Zahir Mecci
Dear Sir/Madam
I urge you to allow Craig Murray to stand as witness at the meeting on Tuesday 10 March of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I heard him speak a few years ago, he has valuable information concerning UK complicity with torture which must be heard and acknowledged. He was a witness recently during the European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition and his contribution was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.
It would implicate the government still further in allegations of complicity in torture not to call this man as a witness, since he was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004 where he
was regularly seeing intelligence from detainees in the Uzbek torture chambers, sent him by the CIA via MI6. He can confirm that British Ministers and officials were seeing the same torture material.
In October/November 2002 and January/Februray 2003 he sent two Top Secret telegrams to London specifically on the subject of UK receipt of intelligence gained under torture. He argued this was illegal, immoral and impractical. The telegrams were speciifically marked for the Secretary of State.
He was formally summoned back to the FCO for a meeting held on 7 or 8 March 2003 specifically and solely on the subject of intelligence gained under torture. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe, FCO, Sir Michael Wood, Chief Legal Adviser, FCO, and Matthew Kydd, Head of Permanent Under-Secretary’s Department, FCO.
He was told at this meeting that it is not illegal for the UK to obtain intelligence gained by torture, provided that we did not do the torture ourselves. He was told that it had been decided that as a matter of War on Terror policy we should now obtain intelligence from torture, following discussion between Jack Straw and Richard Dearlove. He was told that we could not exclude receipt of specific material from the CIA without driving a coach and horses through the universality principle of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement, which would be detrimental to UK interests.
Sir Michael Wood gave legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture.
This would seem to go the heart of the issue.
I repeat there can be no excuse for excluding this evidence from your enquiry.
Yours faithfully
Roslyn Cook
Dear Chair
My name is Mair Jones and i’m writing to you and your Committe to request that you take evidence from Mr Craig Murray on the intelligence gathered from torture. It is unclear to me why your Committe has not come to a clear conclusion on whether to hear evidence from Mr Murray.
I had the honour to meet Mr Murray about 18 months ago on a visit to North Wales.
He attracted two large audiences on his visit to North Wales and was very well received.
I have been in the unfortunate position of being a whistleblower myself and regard Craig Murray’s actions as very honourable.
His uncomfortable testimony is crucial and needs to be heard.
You as a Committe need to set an example here by your actions and invite Mr Murray to give his evidence.
If we are to rebuild true democratic processes once again at some point in Britain, testimonies like Mr Murray’s need to be heard openly and with respect.
Yours sincerely
Mair Jones
Peace activist and carer
Dear Sirs, I am writing to urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear Mr Craig Murray’s evidence in relation to your investigations into the UK’s compliance with the UN Convention against Torture. Clearly, Mr Murray has invaluable information for the Committee as a result of his experiences as Ambassador to Uzbekistan and his communications with the UK Government during that time. It seems to me that were it not for Mr Murray, the question of the UK’s compliance with UNCAT might not be in the public eye at all. I note that the Committee has already heard evidence from Mr Ian Cobain of The Guardian and from Human Rights Watch. Surely Mr Murray’s evidence will be at least as valuable as theirs. Yours faithfully,
Jane Ballard
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to urge that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights receive Craig Murray’s testimony with regard to torture. Neither the credibility of the committee, not that of the country is served by neglecting critical sources.
As an expatriate British citizen, I am deeply concerned with the loss of even the perception of honour, adherence to law, human dignity, or even handedness in our foreign relations. I do not believe that our government should consider itself above such petty considerations. When it does, far more than the mere perception of honour is lost.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Abbott
I think it is imperative for Craig Murray to give evidence before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad. I believe torture is morally repugnant and I think that it is an outrage that Britain is supporting torture in the 21st century.
I feel is rather worrying that a Committee specifically gathered to debate HUMAN RIGHTS should fight to silence one side of the debate.
Government Officials would do well to remember that they are elected representatives of the British public to be involved in atrocities in our name is totally unacceptable.
Miss Allen
To whom it may concern.
It is of the utmost importance that Craig Murray, (human rights activist and former British Ambassador) is able to give crucial evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on Tuesday 10th March. At a time when there is real concern over the issue of the awareness of the British Government to the issue of torture of detainees prior to their rendition to Guantanamo and elsewhere, evidence must be tested, and if necessary contested. It is inappropriate for any attempt to be made to prevent such evidence being given.
In my letter to the Foreign Secretary of 6 July 2006 concerning Benyam Mohammed Al Hasbashi I questioned whether the Government accepted evidence obtained by torture, and was assured in a reply from David Triesman, that the ‘British Government including the intelligence and security agencies, never uses torture for any purpose, including to obtain information. Nor does the British Government or its Security and Intelligence agencies ever instigate, condone, or otherwise support others in the use of torture for any purpose.’
The nature of democracy depends upon truthful responses from government, particularly in the area of Human Rights. I received this answer from the minister in good faith. If there is reason to question its veracity, the evidence must be able to be presented to ensure the integrity of democracy and the people’s trust in their elected representatives.
+Peter
The Rt Revd Peter B Price
Bishop of Bath & Wells
Dear members of the JCHR,
I met Mr. Craig Murray in Stockholm 2007 where he gave a talk about the situation in Uzbekistan, during a seminar on human rights, organized by Amnesty International. I have also read his book “Murder in Samarkand”, with great interest.
I believe his evidence to be a matter of grave importance and of high standard, and therefore kindly ask you to include his statement as a witness before the Joint Commission on human Rights.
Yours sincerely,
Fredrik W Engberg
Dear Sir/Madam
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: Hearing Evidence from Craig Murray.
I would like the committee to take the opportunity to hear the evidence that Craig Murray is willing to put forward. You will be aware of the range of experience that Mr Murray has, including his interest in human rights. I am sure that the evidence he can provide would be of interest to the committee.
Aefauldlie
Dr Bill Wilson MSP
Dear Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights,
On hearing that it was being ‘considered’ that Craig’s valuable evidence be withheld from a hearing where no less that the core ethical underpinnings of our society will be discussed, I was morally outraged. Such censoring is more akin to a totalitarian state than a self-proclaimed liberal democracy. This brief message is being sent in wholehearted support of Craig’s case and I am certain that my belief in his right to have his voice heard would be shadowed by the majority to the peoples of Great Britain.
Yours faithfully,
Adam Rolfe
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am very disturbed that Craig Murray is being denied the chance to speak to the JCHR. The UK government is involving itself in actions that are shaming it across the world, of which this is yet another example. Freedom of information and human rights must be aspects of life that Britain begins officially to respect. I have heard Craig Murray speak and his testimony to our disregard for fundamental aspects of democracy demands official action.
Yours sincerely,
Louis Bayman
To the Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Commission
I am very concerned about the reports that are coming to light regarding the British Government’s involvement in human rghts abuses outside the UK. It is of grave concern that our government are being implicated in such atrocities abroad.
I find it deeply worrying that David Milliband and Jacqui Smith have refused to appear before the human rights committee to answer questions regarding these allegations. I believe that these questions need to be answered and the truth revealed to the public.
I believe it is your duty to investigate the matter fully and consider all evidence available and to this end I would like to advocate that you listen to the evidence of Craig Murray, as I believe he has compelling evidence relating to this matter.
Yours sincerely
Cheryl MacDonald
Dear Sirs
I understand the Joint Committee on Human Rights has not yet decided to hear
the evidence of HM former Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray.
I am writing to respectfully ask that the committee hear Mr Murray’s
evidence.
I have followed Mr Murray’s writings closely since he was dismissed
from the FO for speaking out against British Government policy on torture.
He is clearly in a unique position to provide evidence pertinent to the
committees enquiries and is I believe in possession of documentary evidence
to substantiate his claims.
Were the committee to decline to hear his evidence it might be construed as a
Government ‘cover up’.
I can also highly recommend his latest book. “The Catholic Orangemen of Togo”.
It is very illuminating about the ‘Arms for Africa’ affair and a good read
too.
Yours
Derek Jennings
I’m writing to urge that Craig Murray be given an opportunity to
present evidence on rendition and torture to the parliamentary
enquiry.I have read and listened to some of Craig Murray’s compelling
evidence on this matter and it would be a travesty if an ex ambassador
with his insight was denied an opportunity to present evidence.
Yours sincerely,
Selwyn Wiliams
Senior Lecturer
Education Department
Bangor University
Dear Craig ‘
Have sent an email tp the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights as follows:
Dear Committee members,
I think it is most important that your committee hears Craig Murray, a former ambassador to Uzbekistan, on the subject of evidence of use of torture there used to produce evidence justifying them being held as terrorist suspects against the western powers, and possibly transported out of the country.
I heard him speak, and believe him to be a creditable witness, and I also have read his book, Murder in Samarkand.
Elaine Miles
Dear Sirs,
I consider it of crucial importance that Craig Murray be allowed to give evidence on the UK government’s secret collusion with the criminal Bush administration policy condoning the use of intelligence gained by torture. Only a rigorous process of investigation and prosecution can save Britain from being permanently stained by this vile, archaic foolishness. You are fortunate that Mr. Murray is willing and able to assist.
Yours faithfully,
A. Strenger Hodson
As someone who as read Craig Murray’s books and as a result gained an amount of respect for what he has to say, I feel for you to listen to what he as to say about UK government involvement in torture will serve multiple purposes.
Firstly it will likely open an avenue of enquiry which others with more to lose would not want to go down. Secondly it will likely furnish your enquriy with more depth and presumably lead to a more satisfactory outcome. And thirdly, it will help convince people like me that government equiries actually have real value, and are not just excuses to hide unpleasant truths.
Your faithfully,
Julian Coombes
Skelmersdale
Lancashire.
Dear Sirs,
Like many others, I am profoundly concerned to learn, while on
research leave abroad, that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human
Rights decided not to come to an immediate decision on March 3 on
whether to hear the evidence of our former ambassador in Uzbekistan,
Craig Murray, on the UK government’s policy on intelligence obtained
through torture. Given his diplomatic experience, Mr Murray is an
extremely credible witness and a person who has clearly suffered
considerable defamation as a result of his following the dictates of
his conscience. Any evidence on British government collaboration with,
or acquiescence in the routine use of, torture by foreign governments
should be properly and exhaustively scrutinised by parliament. Having
read (and been shocked by) both the concerns that he reported to the
government and the government’s responses to them, I feel that it
would be particularly disturbing if he was not heard. I would
therefore like to add my voice to those urging that the Committee
determine on March 11 that it will hear Craig Murray’s evidence.
Yours sincerely,
John Gledhill
Max Gluckman Professor of Social Anthropology
Co-Director, Centre for Latin American and Caribbean Studies
The University of Manchester
I would like to urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights to give Craig
Murray the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee on what he
knows about the use of information obtained with the use of torture.
Unless his evidence is heard and evaluated any conclusions reached by
the Committee will always be suspect.
Frank Land
Emeritus Professor, Information Systems and Innovation Group London
School of Economics
I hear with disquiet about the likelihood that Craig Murray will be refused
the opportunity to present his evidence on torture to the Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The present course of government and parliament, ready to sacrifice all in
the interests of some imagined perfect world of ‘security’, is extremely
worrying, and is remarked on around the world. Failure to follow President
Obama’s lead and embrace the possibilities for making a better world are
being closed at every turn for reasons inconceivable to all but an obsessed
few.
I have heard Craig Murray talk, and am myself somewhat acquainted with the
situation he confronted when he was in Uzbekistan. I can only hope that good
sense will prevail, and that this witness to inhumanity will be allowed to
speak where it matters. Whatever his evidence, the reports of all who have
seen torture at first hand must be brought out into the open if it is ever
to end. And any British government complicity in torture, wherever it took
place, needs to be uncovered so that British subjects do not suffer the
eternal shame of what might have been done in their name.
I urge you to hear Murray’s evidence.
Dr Caroline Finkel
It is very important that the evidence of Craig Murray be heard by the committee. Please do ensure that it forms part of the presentations to the committee.
Thank you,
Martha Mundy
Professor of Anthropology
LSE
re Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Craig Murray wishes to offer himself as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad. Any attempt to ‘blacklist’ him is an affront to so-called democracy in the UK,
J B Robinson
Dear Sir
Having read Craig Murry’s case I urge that you allow him to act as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.
I have seen the letter sent by Sir Michael Wood’s describing his legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture was sent on to Mr Murry in Tashkent and I find it utterly disgusting and inappropriate that the British government has co-opperated with individuals or other state forces to gain evidence and/or intelligence from detainees under torture.
As a British film maker, I have fought against and followed the case of British resident Guantanamo Bay Prison detainee Binyam Mohammed (as supported by British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith). I fully understand the case and position that Mr Murry wishes to give evidence for and how this has implicated the British government as acting in an illegal and immoral manner.
I urge that Craig Murry, British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, be allowed to give evidence before the Parliamentary Joint Commission on Human Rights on the above on the 10th March 2009./
Yours sincerely,
Anthony Bairstow
I am writing in support of Craig Murray’s appeal to be heard by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I have often heard Craig Murray interviewed. I can quite understand the governments desire to exclude him, but I am distressed and confused by the apparent reluctance of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear and to question him.
Regards,
Miles Stuart.
The Chairman and Members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
I strongly urge you to accept the offer of Craig Murray, former Ambassador to Uzbekistan, to submit evidence before the Joint Commission on Human Rights concerning the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.
Given his first-hand account and documentary evidence on the subject, to conduct the hearing without him as witness would surely result in the serious undermining of the credibility of the commission.
Whilst reservations may be held by some within the FCO and parliamentary circles about his breaching of the Official Secrets Act, much of the body of his evidence is already documented through his website and two published books, and it therefore deserves the scrutiny of the commission if the matter is to be taken seriously. The importance of understanding our government’s behaviour on the issue of using intelligence from torture and flouting of basic human rights should supersede this and all other concerns.
Yours faithfully,
Gareth Williams,
I am writing to express my abhorence and total disagreement with the view currently held by our government that the use of torture to obtain intelligence is acceptable provided othe people do our dirty work for us. Apart from strong moral objections the practice doesn’t even work!!!.Evidence obtained under torture is totally unreliable and I am appalled that my government condones these medieval practices.
I write to urge the jchr to hear evidence from Craig Murray on March 10. It is essential that such an important witness be allowed to speak. This very grave matter should not be hushed up and swept away . What will future generations think of us?
Yours sincerely
Mary Weston (Mrs)
I am writing to urge that Craig Murray should be allowed to give
evidence to the JCHR session on March 10th.
I followed Craig’s work for several years, in particular since my time
as Acting Programme Director at Amnesty International, and feel I can
vouch for his integrity, consistency and relevance.
The points he wishes to submit with respect to his posting in
Uzbekistan are clearly substantial and relevant to your committee’s
current investigations.
I would be grateful if you would inform me of the committee’s position
on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Dr. Dan McQuillan FRSA
Having served as a member of HM Diplomatic Service in the 1970s and having heard him speak at Chatham House, of which I am a member, I would urge the committee to hear what Craig Murray has to say.
Lawrence F T Smith OBE
Sir/Ms
I understand that on Tuesday 10 March the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will discuss whether or not to hear the evidence of Craig Murray on the UK government’s policy of using intelligence from torture, having discussed whether to hear his evidence on 3 March but failed to reach a conclusion.
I have read Murray’s book, attended a number of speaking engagements by him and discussed his knowledge with him on two occasions. His knowledge of British Government attitudes and actions in respect of the use of torture for intelligence are both of critical importance and as yet unimpeached but legitimate objection. This is the view of many scholars up and down the country who have reviewed it, and his own narrative and correspondence and compelling. Murray appeared as a witness in person before both the European Parliament and European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition. His evidence was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.
That the JCHR is considering whether to hear the evidence is disappointing to all who think that the best way to come to some resolution of some of the worst excesses perpetrated in the name of, but ineffectively for, security is to have a proper and legitimate enquiry. Failure by the appropriate Parliamentary Committee will only strengthen views that it is ineffective and at the behest of a Government and establishment anxious to cover up its lapses in judgement and ethical conduct. It will also strengthen calls for a full public enquiry. The question is not whether the JCHR should hear Murray’s evidence, it is whether it can afford not to. Either the JCHR is interested in Human Rights as fundamental to a civilised society and willing to accept that involves hearing unpalatable truths, or it is a product of lip service to legislation with no credibility to its enquiries. I dearly hope it is the former.
Regards
Paul Reynolds
Centre Director
Centre for Research Ethics and Ethical Deliberation
To the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights:
As a psychologist who has worked with victims of torture from around the world, I ask that you Mr. Craig Murray be allowed to testify at your upcoming hearing. I have followed Mr. Murray’s work from afar, and his courage in speaking out against government collusion in torture is both honorable and heroic. A number of my colleagues found inspiration and hope for the future by the example of Mr. Murray’s public stand against torture.
Our two societies — the United States and the United Kingdom — are struggling to emancipate themselves from the most barbaric of all practices by which a government can exercise its power. Terrible crimes have been and are being done in our names. I look to the the great traditions of the English Parliament, which historically stood against tyranny and executive absolute rule, to make once again a historic stand against the brutality embraced by supposedly democratic governments.
Mr. Murray has a great deal of first hand evidence to offer. He should be called as an important material witness, and all efforts by the executive to exclude him should be rebuffed.
I speak as a clinician to many whose lives were ruined by torture. I am also a scholar, having given a paper at the 2007 meeting of the American Psychological Association on the history of U.S. government-funded research into sensory deprivation during the 1950s-1960s, and the results of that research, which was later used to help shape the abusive detention and interrogation policies of the modern day.
I thank the good members of the Joint Committee for your time.
Yours respectfully,
Jeffrey S. Kaye, Ph.D.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I urge the Joint Committee on Human Rights to call the former British Ambassador Craig Murray to give evidence regarding the British Government’s policy on the torture of terrorist suspects, at your meeting on 10 March. Not to do so would deprive the Committee of the opportunity to hear important evidence calling into question the truth of the Government’s stated public position on this crucial matter, offered by someone with direct experience of the issue in his capacity as the senior British representative in Uzbekistan from 2002 – 04. It is difficult to see how the JCHR can properly carry out its function of scrutinising the Government’s track record with respect to fundamental human rights, or retain any credibility as an independent Parliamentary watchdog, if it closes its ears to critical voices and refuses to consider relevant evidence.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Graham Dawson
Reader in Cultural History
Dear Sir or Madam Chair
I would like to urge you in the strongest possible terms that Mr Craig Murray be allowed to give evidence before your Committee next week. I have heard Mr Murray speak most movingly and with both unalloyed clarity and utmost authority on the issue of torture, extraordinary rendition and the wholesale abuses of human rights that have proliferated since the inception of so-called ‘War on Terror’, launched after that terrorist outrage more popularly, if improperly, known as ‘9/11’.
I have read Murray’s work on Uzbekistan and I would suggest that given the recently publicised, yet long denied, cases of torture having been meted out on UK residents in various locations abroad, apparently with the alleged connivance of the British security services, his voice should most definitely be heard.
I am convinced he has a series of evidentially based observations that will most definitely illumine your Committee’s deliberations on this subject, which, given your undoubted desire to maintain Britain’s standing in the world as the mother of parliaments, as well as to protect the sanctity of our reputation for being inveterate champions of international justice, liberty and fair play, is presently one of greatest possible public concern.
Therefore, I can think of no one more qualified to speak to you at this most critical period in the struggle for the preservation of our human rights and civil liberties, someone who has helped ensure that our long cherished, democratic values are unequivocally upheld at a time when the current UK government has seen fit to drastically curtail our hard won freedoms and to control/ structure the debate around our security by donning the dubious, and by now it must be said, rather tattered cloak of the ‘national interest’, which, in my long experience, is most invariably invoked whenever governments are being less than candid.
Thanking you in anticipation of your most careful consideration of this matter
Yours sincerely
Phil Vellender
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing to urge the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to hear evidence from Craig Murray. His evidence and opinions have a provenance in the current public debate that make it imperative that he be heard in this important forum.
Sincerely,
Dr Richard Jackson
Editor, Critical Studies on Terrorism
Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University
Dear Sir/Madam
I understand the Joint Committee on Human Rights is due to take
evidence on the question of using security intelligence obtained via
torture abroad, and that Mr. Craig Murray, former British Ambassador,
has offered to take part.
It would seem to me that if the UK has accepted intelligence obtained
through torture, or has encouraged torture abroad in order to procure
specific items of evidence, that any session on this topic would be a
waste of time unless these questions can be considered. Since Mr.
Murray would like to give evidence, and since he maintains with good
reason that he can prove that the UK had/has a policy of co-operating
with torturers, I cannot think of a single reason why you may not want
to see him.
I believe that your committee discussed the question of accepting Mr.
Murray as a witness, on 3 March, but were unable to come to a
decision. I am perplexed as to why this could be the case, and would
hope that if you choose not to call him as a witness, that the
official record of the session includes a clear statement as to the
reason why.
Meanwhile, I have read Mr Murray’s written work, and in my view he is
a man of principle and great courage. Whilst there are some people who
clearly would prefer Mr Murray to be excluded from your process, I am
confident that you can overcome those obstacles and I look forward to
reading what comes out of your sessions.
Needless to say, should it come to the attention of the committee that
Members of the Cabinet have actively colluded in torturing people, it
can only be right that those Members are also required to give
evidence, so that justice can be done, can be seen to be done, and can
be seen to apply to everybody equally.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Hinks
Birmingham
To whom it may concern,
I would like strongly support the right of Craig Murray to give evidence on the UK government’s policy of
using intelligence from torture at the upcoming meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. This is important evidence that needs to be heard,
yours
Professor Mark McGovern
Edge Hill University
Not to allow Craig Murray’s evidence to inform your considerations would be
like discussing space exploration without listening to the leading space
scientist – and to give in to pressure that it’s part of your responsibility
to resist.
Bob Brecher
Reader in Moral Philosophy
University of Brighton
Trying Again to Stop Torture: My Formal Statement for the Joint Committee on Human Rights
WITNESS STATEMENT TO THE PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
My name is Craig Murray. I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.
I had joined the Diplomatic Service in 1984 and became a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Senior Management Structure in 1998. I had held a variety of posts including Deputy High Commissioner, Accra (1998 to 2001) and First Secretary Political and Economic, Warsaw (1994 to 1997).
I had also been head of the FCO section of the Embargo Surveillance Sector leading up to and during the first Gulf War, monitoring and interdicting Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In consequence I had obtained security clearances even higher than those routinely given to all executive members of the Diplomatic Service. I had extensive experience throughout my career of dealing with intelligence material and the intelligence services.
It was made plain to me in briefing in London before initial departure for Tashkent that Uzbekistan was a key ally in the War on Terror and to be treated as such. It was particularly important to the USA who valued its security cooperation and its provision of a major US airbase at Karshi-Khanabad.
As Ambassador in Uzbekistan I regularly received intelligence material released by MI6. This material was given to MI6 by the CIA, mostly originating from their Tashkent station. It was normally issued to me telegraphically by MI6 at the same time it was issued to UK ministers and officials in London.
From the start of my time as Ambassador, I was also receiving a continual stream of information about widespread torture of suspected political or religious dissidents in Tashkent. This was taking place on a phenomenal scale. In early 2003 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in the preparation of which my Embassy much assisted, described torture in Uzbekistan as “routine and systemic”.
The horror and staggering extent of torture in Uzbekistan is well documented and I have been informed by the Chair is not in the purview of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But what follows goes directly to the question of UK non-compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.
In gathering evidence from victims of torture, we built a consistent picture of the narrative which the torturers were seeking to validate from confessions under torture. They sought confessions which linked domestic opposition to President Karimov with Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden; they sought to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist threat in Central Asia. People arrested on all sorts of pretexts ?” (I recall one involved in a dispute over ownership of a garage plot) suddenly found themselves tortured into confessing to membership of both the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Al-Qaida. They were also made to confess to attending Al-Qaida training camps in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. In an echo of Stalin’s security services from which the Uzbek SNB had an unbroken institutional descent, they were given long lists of names of people they had to confess were also in IMU and Al-Qaida.
It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers ?” and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.
I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.
I asked my Deputy, Karen Moran, to call on a senior member of the US Embassy and tell him I was concerned that the CIA intelligence was probably derived from torture by the Uzbek security services. Karen Moran reported back to me that the US Embassy had replied that it probably did come from torture, but in the War on Terror they did not view that as a problem.
In October or November of 2002 I sent the FCO a telegram classified Top Secret and addressed specifically for the attention of the Secretary of State. I argued that to receive this material from torture was:
Joint Human Rights Committee Postpones Again Decision on Whether to Call My Evidence on UK Complicity in Torture
Considering for a second time whether to hear my direct evidence of conscious UK government complicy in torture, on Tuesday 10 March the joint human rights committee decided to postpone a decision again. At the same time they decided to rebuke me for questioning their motives and integrity.
This is the text of the letter from Andrew Dismore MP, Chairman of the JCHR:
BEGINS
Request to give oral evidence to the Committee
Dear Mr Murray
Thank you for writing to the Committee to offer to give oral evidence about the allegations of UK complicity in torture abroad. The material you sent has been circulated to Members of the Committee, who have now had time to discuss your request fully.
Select committees usually request oral evidence from some of the individuals and organisations who have submitted detailed written memoranda, which form the basis for the questioning and can be made available to the public and the press at the start of the evidence session. In your case, it would be helpful if you could expand on the bullet points that you have already submitted and set out in more detail the case you wish to put across to us. Written evidence should not exceed 2,500 words and we would ask you to supply us with a signed hard copy as well as an electronic version, preferably in Word.
In preparing your memorandum you should be aware of the Committee’s terms of reference, which relate to human rights in the UK and which encompass the compliance of public bodies (including the intelligence and security services) operating overseas with the UK’s human rights obligations.
Our starting point for this inquiry is that the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service are both public bodies for the purposes of the Human Rights Act and its agents are required to act in accordance with the Act. In addition, the agencies should comply with the provisions of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT). Our 2006 report on UNCAT (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/185/18502.htm) includes sections on cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies and complicity in torture and abuse (paras 52-60) which are relevant to our current inquiry.
We are not able to consider the policies and activities of other countries in relation to the treatment of detainees. This would be a matter for the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.
If you have any questions about submitting written evidence to the Committee, I suggest that you contact the Commons Clerk, Mark Egan, with whom you have already been in correspondence.
Finally, the comments you published about the Committee on your website last week were intemperate, unjustified and untrue. I have already drawn your attention to the Committee’s report on UNCAT, which clearly demonstrates that we have consistently sought to hold the Government to account on torture. I would also like to draw your attention to the membership of the Committee (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/joint_committee_on_human_rights_members.cfm): not only are there no Whips on the Committee, but Labour members are in the minority. The Committee deprecates your comments and hopes that you will take a more constructive attitude towards our work from now on.
We will publish this letter on our website (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/tortureiniraq.cfm) and I expect that you will do likewise. I would be grateful if you could direct readers of your website to this letter so that those who have emailed the Committee about your evidence can see my response. We are unable to reply individually to everyone who has emailed the Committee.
Yours sincerely,
SENT UNSIGNED
ANDREW DISMORE MP
Chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights
I telephoned the Committee Clerk to check what this meant. He confirmed that I have to submit a further memorandum of up to 2,500 words. Only after receipt of that memorandum will the Committee consider – again – whether to accept my evidence.
I had of course already submitted,this memorandum, with attachments:
BEGINS
I wish to offer myself as a witness before the Joint Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the UK government’s policy on intelligence cooperation with torture abroad.
I appeared as a witness in person before both the European Parliament and European Council’s enquiries into extraordinary rendition. My evidence was described by the European Council’s Rapporteur, Senator Dick Marty, as “Compelling and valuable”.
The key points I wish to make are these:
– I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
– I learned and confirmed that I was regularly seeing intelligence from detainees in the Uzbek torture chambers, sent me by the CIA via MI6.
– British Ministers and officials were seeing the same torture material.
– In October/November 2002 and January/Februray 2003 I sent two Top Secret telegrams to London specifically on the subject of our receipt of intelligence gained under torture. I argued this was illegal, immoral and impractical. The telegrams were speciifically marked for the Secretary of State.
– I was formally summoned back to the FCO for a meeting held on 7 or 8 March 2003 specifically and solely on the subject of intelligence gained under torture. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe, FCO, Sir Michael Wood, Chief Legal Adviser, FCO, and Matthew Kydd, Head of Permanent Under-Secretary’s Department, FCO.
– This meeting was minuted. I have seen the record, which is classified Top Secret and was sent to Jack Straw. On the top copy are extensive hand-written marginalia giving Jack Straw’s views.
– I was told at this meeting that it is not illegal for us to obtain intelligence gained by torture, provided that we did not do the torture ourselves. I was told that it had been decided that as a matter of War on Terror policy we should now obtain intelligence from torture, following discussion between Jack Straw and Richard Dearlove. I was told that we could not exclude receipt of specific material from the CIA without driving a coach and horses through the universality principle of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement, which would be detrimental to UK interests.
– Sir Michael Wood’s legal advice that it was not illegal to receive intelligence got by torture was sent on to me in Tashkent (copy attached).
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf–
On 22 July 2004 I sent one further telegram on intelligence got by torture, with a lower classification, following FCO communications on the subject. Copy attached.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Telegram.pdf
It was my final communication before being dismissed as Ambassador.
In conclusion, I can testify that beyond any doubt the British government has for at least six years a considered but secret policy of cooperation with torture abroad. This policy legally cleared by government legal advisers and approved by Jack Straw as Secretary of State.
Craig Murray
2 March 2009
Frankly my statement of 2 March seems to me concise, damning and to answer the exact questions that the Committee is supposed to be investigating. I cannot understand the lengthy passages in Andrew Dismore’s letter which appear to imply that my evidence is about a foreign country and not about the UK’s human rights compliance. I do not see how my evidence can go further to the heart of the subjects Dismore says the committee is supposed to be investigating.
Anyway, I will jump through the hoops and expand my above evidence into a memorandum which will say exactly the same thing.
Then the committee can discuss a third time whether to accept my evidence.
[Comments are enabled again. Apologies we were suffering the most massive spam attack involving many tens of thousands of items of spam. Many comments blocked today are not retrievable so please post again. Thanks]
Light Relief
I had a very enjoyable and relaxed weekend. I am very grateful indeed to more than four hundred people who have so far emailed the parliamentary joint human rights committee to ask that the committee accept my direct witness evidence on the UK and US governments’ use of intelligence from torture.
There are still 30 hours before the committee decides whether to hear me. If everyone can email round the appeal and encourage others to write, it would be very helpful.
Meanwhile, my weekend was cheered by small things. Nadira is now entering the eighth month of pregnancy. She still occasionally makes delightful little slips of English in her lovely light accent. Yesterday we had “Hot crutch buns” for breakfast, which made me giggle a lot in a Homer Simpson kind of way.
On Friday night I met some lovely people at a dinner party at my friend Elsie’s. They included the Turner Prize winning artist Grayson Perry. I was surprised to find he was not dressed as Marie Antoinette but was in fact completely down to earth in manner and appearance. It led me to recall that there is an old fashioned craft in his ceramic making which has little apparent relationship to his perfomance art (I presume that’s what his appearances in wedding cake outfits is).
We discussed art education, which has become a great inerest of mine as Dundee University includes the Duncan of Jordanstone Art College. Perry’s view was that you can neither teach creativity, nor can you expect it to reveal itself in great bursts. What you can teach is skill. I was very impressed by him.