Tony Blair received early torture warning, court told.

There should be a day when people like Blair are called to account for what they did and didn't do.

Tony Blair was warned a matter of weeks after American forces began rounding up terror suspects that British nationals held by the US in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay were being tortured, secret documents disclosed in the high court reveal.

He expressed concern about their treatment after initially being sceptical, he admits in a hand-written note on a Foreign Office (FO) document dated 18 January 2002. It appears among heavily redacted MI5 and FO documents released in court hearings in which British nationals are suing the government, MI5 and MI6

Blair scribbled on the note, "The key is to find out how they are being treated. Though I was initially sceptical about claims of torture, we must make it clear to the US that any such action would be totally unacceptable and v quickly establish that it isn't happening."

But did anyone do what Blair's scribble asked for?

Evidence has since emerged that the British government knew the US was mistreating and torturing UK nationals and residents after January 2002 and for years afterwards, but did not seriously protest about it.

I remember that in "A Man For All Season's" Thomas More pointed out that, in such circumstances, British law relied upon the Latin phrase, "Qui tacet consentit", - silence equals consent - which would imply that, if Blair did not adequately protest against torture, that the law would assume he was consensual to it's practice.

I have yet to find any evidence that Blair protested against these American practices, and plenty of evidence exists to show that he must have been aware of them at the time that they were practiced.

A separate, previously classified Ministry of Defence document now released in heavily redacted form and dated 13 January 2002, warns that "the US treatment of the prisoners could be judged to be... [phrase blacked out]".

After noting that the ICRC was denied access, the writer of the note continues: "It is clear that the US is pushed logistically but my understanding of the Geneva Convention is that this is no excuse".

We can only surmise what the writer of the note was hinting at, but it seems pretty clear to me.

In one document, an official at the British embassy in Washington warns the FO in London reported back on discussions with the US in October 2001 about detention and treatment of detainees. "I drew attention to ECHR Article 3 [the European human rights convention's ban on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment] ..."

In January 2002 an MoD official noted: "From my visit to Bagram [prison in Afghanistan] and watching the reception of the 80 plus prisoners, it would seem that this detainee issue is one that has the potential to reflect badly on the US/coalition ... the US treatment of the prisoners could be judged to be [redacted]".

Another document, a 19-page appendix to a cabinet briefing paper dated 14 January 2002 and headed "UK nationals held in Afghanistan" is completely redacted.

During the court hearings, Jonathan Crow QC, for the security and intelligence agencies, said it was difficult and time-consuming for MI5 and MI6 to collate the documents relating to the case. Mr Justice Silber intervened at one point, saying: "But it is important in a case of this magnitude".

Richard Hermer QC, for the former detainees, told the court that at the heart of the case was the question of when MI5 and MI6 first became aware of the prisoners' treatment by the US. They were "pretty straightforward questions", he said.

Indeed, they are "pretty straightforward questions". When did we know of the torture allegations and what did we do about it?

To many of us, it appears that we did nothing.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Blair, war on terror, torture, Guantanamo Bay

Miliband Buries The Past.

In terms of style, there is clearly room for improvement, which I am sure he will achieve with time. But, as far as substance went, I thought he - at several points - got it bang on.

He started with where Labour got it right:

We changed Clause 4. We were right to do so.

Think of how we emphasised being tough on crime was as important as being tough on the causes of crime. We were right to do so.

Think of how we challenged the impression that we taxed for its own sake and that we were hostile to business. We were right to change.

And think of how we challenged the idea of a male dominated Parliament with All-Women shortlists and made the cause of gender equality central to our government. We were right to do so.

The old way of thinking said that economic efficiency would always come at the price of social justice.

With the minimum wage, tax credits, the New Deal, they showed that was wrong.

I am proud that our government lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, hundreds of thousands of pensioners out of poverty, proud that we created the highest levels of employment in Britain's history.

And he was also brave enough to say where we got it wrong.

"Iraq was an issue that divided our party and our country. Many sincerely believed that the world faced a real threat.

"I criticise nobody faced with making the toughest of decisions and I honour our troops who fought and died there. But I do believe that we were wrong. Wrong to take Britain to war and we need to be honest about that.

"Wrong because that war was not a last resort, because we did not build sufficient alliances and because we undermined the United Nations.

"America has drawn a line under Iraq and so must we."

It was extraordinary to watch his brother David and many of other Labour cabinet members sitting there as the conference hall exploded into applause. The Labour party has been held back by Blair's insistence that, although there were no WMD, he couldn't apologise for getting rid of Saddam. Many of the Labour cabinet who took part in that decision have stuck to roughly the same formula when it comes to that subject.

In a few sentences, Ed Miliband blew away that tired logic and claimed the Labour party as his own. Blair and his refusal to apologise have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

And he also attacked the notion that the United Kingdom should behave as almost a satellite state circulating a far greater world power.

"Our alliance with America is incredibly important to us but we must always remember that our values must shape the alliances that we form and any military action that we take."

His brother was too tied to Blair's legacy to ever strike such a distance between his regime and Blair's, which is why Ed is looking ever more like the most sensible choice for a party which feels the need to move on from policies - and acts of sheer stubbornness - which cost us five million voters in as many years.

However his comments about Iraq appear to have annoyed his brother, who was filmed asking Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman: "You voted for it, why are you clapping?"

The Blairites have been voted out of power and - as David's comments show - they are, even now, unwilling to admit that the sheer scale of the disaster which was the Iraq invasion contributed to Labour's loss and to their own in this leadership contest.

Ed Miliband represents a chance to move on from all that.

And he also refused to allow Nick Clegg to claim the mantle as the person most concerned with privacy and civil liberties when he stated that he would not allow the Tories or Lib Dems to "take ownership of the British tradition of liberty".

These are Labour and Liberal Democrat values, which Blair sold out, imagining that we would sacrifice our privacy for his empty promises - as 7-7 showed - of guaranteed security.

Clegg is to be applauded for his stance on civil liberties, but it is his willingness to swallow right wing economic dogma which will kill him with progressives.

Miliband has put a clear shaft of light between the Con-Dem coalition and Labour. And, I suspect, Clegg's lurch to the right - and the consequent loss of progressives votes for the Liberal Democrats - might make this a very good place for him to pitch his tent.

And, after Blair decided that New Labour would be pro-Israel, without bothering to inform the rest of us that we were now officially on the side of the occupiers, it was heartening to hear this man - whose parents fled the Holocaust - say this:

And let me say this, as Israel ends the moratorium on settlement building, I will always defend the right of Israel to exist in peace and security. But Israel must accept and recognise in its actions the Palestinian right to statehood.

That is why the attack on the Gaza Flotilla was so wrong.

And that is why the Gaza blockade must be lifted and we must strain every sinew to work to make that happen.

They were words that would never have come out of Blair's lips. And conference responded enthusiastically.

As I say, it could have been a more polished performance, but he gets ten out of ten for the substance of what he said.

Today, Miliband buried Blair. And everyone watching knew it. That's a pretty audacious start for a new leader.

UPDATE:

I am pleased that the Independents leader writers heard exactly what I heard:

There were no great game-changing announcements such as when Tony Blair signalled the abolition of the party's Clause Four. There were no breathtaking oratorical flourishes. But in an hour- long address Labour's new leader guided his party away from the traumas and contorted positioning of the recent past and pointed it in a new direction.

As such it was the most daring speech from a Labour leader delivered for a long time.

His brother could never have made that speech.

Click here for full speech.

Tags: Ed Miliband, Labour Party conference, Blair, David Miliband

Nelson Mandela 'felt betrayed by Tony Blair over decision to join Iraq invasion'.

Tony Blair famously wouldn't listen to the Pope when he asked him to reconsider his decision to join George Bush in the invasion of Iraq, and now Peter Hain is revealing that Nelson Mandela was also amongst those begging Blair to desist from his disastrous course.

Nelson Mandela felt so betrayed by Tony Blair's decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq that he launched a fiery tirade against him in a phone call to a cabinet minister, it emerged today.

Peter Hain, a lifelong anti-apartheid campaigner who knows the ex-South African president well, said Mandela was "breathing fire" down the line in protest at the 2003 military action.

The trenchant criticisms were made in a formal call to the minister's office, not in a private capacity, and Blair was informed of what had been said, Hain added. The details are revealed in Hain's new biography of Mandela.

"He rang me up when I was a Cabinet minister in 2003, after the invasion," he told the Press Association. "He said: 'A big mistake, Peter, a very big mistake. It is wrong. Why is Tony doing this after all his support for Africa? This will cause huge damage internationally.'

"I had never heard Nelson Mandela so angry and frustrated. He clearly felt very, very strongly that the decision that the prime minister had taken – and that I as a member of the cabinet had been party to – was fundamentally wrong, and he told me it would destroy all the good things that Tony Blair and we, as a government, had done in progressive policy terms across the world."

Of course, Mandela was right. Blair is now unable to even hold a party to celebrate his book launch, such is the anger that his personal appearances now generate. And, as Mandela predicted, everything else Blair achieved has been forgotten, overshadowed by the illegality of his war of choice.

The peace he negotiated in Northern Ireland might eventually earn him some kudos, but, for the moment, his negatives are so extreme that even an achievement such as that is put on the back burner.

As Mandela warned him, the Iraq war was so fundamentally wrong that it destroyed all the good which Blair had done before it. It came to define his entire time in office.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Blair, Mandela, Iraq war

Looking for Tony Blair's memoir? Try the crime section.

I know it's a terribly British form of protest, but I like it all the better for that.

A Facebook page was today inundated with pictures of the former prime minister's book in odd places after thousands joined a group entitled "Subversively move Tony Blair's memoirs to the crime section in bookshops".

The Facebook page – which had more than 5,000 members by mid-afternoon – urges them to "make bookshops think twice about where they categorise our generations [sic] greatest war criminal".

The group was started by nursing student Euan Booth – no relation to Euan Blair, or indeed Cherie Booth – to protest about the book and Blair's record in Iraq. He had thought of staining books with fake blood – but wanted to take action that was non-criminal and peaceful. "It is mischievous, but no one is coming to any harm," he said. "It is a very English way of voicing your opinion and is meant to be a bit of fun."

It's non-violent and it gets the message across beautifully. The man started an illegal war and he is currently touring the country signing copies of a book in which he defends his crime.

I think this is a much more stylish form of protest that the egg and shoe throwing which occurred in Ireland.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Tony Blair, Iraq war

Tony Blair pelted with eggs at book signing in Dublin.

This is the reception Blair can expect as he tours the country promoting his new book.

Eggs, bottles and shoes have been thrown at the former prime minister Tony Blair as he attended a book signing in Dublin.

It happened as he arrived at Easons on O'Connell Street in the city to sign copies of his autobiography.

The missiles, which were thrown by anti-war protesters, did not hit Mr Blair.

Four people were arrested as activists clashed with Irish police at a security barrier outside the bookshop.

Around 200 protesters demonstrated at Mr Blair's role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on one side of the street on Saturday morning.

Of course, none of this will have any effect on Blair at all. He says he used to try to please people too much but learned to float above their concerns.

Nothing will ever get through to that man now.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Blair, Dublin, book signing

Blair Would take Out Iran.

Blair has given an exclusive interview to the Guardian, the paper whose readers he used to define as all that was wrong with the chattering classes, and has revealed that he would not "take the risk" of allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

He has, thankfully, decided not to endorse any candidate in the Labour leadership election, but in his only interview for his forthcoming autobiography he certainly drops hints which David Miliband may very well think proves that Blair favours him.

"What people should understand is that I adore the Labour party," he says – a sentiment that will surprise many inexperienced Blair-watchers. Later he says: "As I say in my introduction, I feel the most enormous debt of gratitude to the Labour party and huge loyalty to it. I just want it to win. I want to see it win because I think that a modern progressive Labour party is better for the country than a Tory party."

If that is code for an endorsement of David Miliband in the leadership race, then Blair is not admitting to it. "I decided at the outset that I wasn't going to start endorsing people," he says. He is expected to take the same line when he is interviewed by Andrew Marr on BBC2 tonight.

In the interview he faces up to the charge, which I think is an unfair one, that he donated the proceeds of the book to the troops out of guilt and he addresses the belief that he didn't feel any guilt about the deaths of troops, a charge brought about because he claimed in front of Chilcot to have "no regrets".

"How could you possibly not feel sadness at the lives that had been lost?" Blair said this week. "How could you possibly not? But … when I use the word responsibility, I mean it in a profound way. I say in the book the term responsibility has its future as well as past tense. And that's what I feel. It's not a coincidence I am devoting a large part of my time now to the Middle East or to religious interfaith."

It's somewhat irrelevant whether or not he feels regret. One can assume that as a human being he, of course, feels sad that others died because of decisions which he made. The real question is whether or not he would make those same decisions again; and Blair gives every indication that, not only would he make those decisions again, but that he would go further and take action against Iran.

Asked the classic judge's question — if he would have done anything differently in retrospect — he replies it is "very difficult to answer that". But he wishes he had seen earlier that 9/11 had "far deeper roots" than he thought at the time.

"The reason for that, let me explain it, is that in my view what was shocking about September 11 was that it was 3,000 people killed in one day but it would have been 300,000 if they could have done it. That's the point ... I decided at that point that you cannot take a risk on this. This is why I am afraid, in relation to Iran, that I would not take a risk of them getting nuclear weapons capability. I wouldn't take it.

"Now other people may say, come on, the consequences of taking them on are too great, you've got to be so very careful, you'll simply upset everybody, you'll destabilise it. I understand all of those arguments. But I wouldn't take the risk of Iran with a nuclear weapon."

This is the point about Blair which many miss. It is easy to dismiss Blair as "Bush's poodle", but I think this ignores the fact that, when it came to Saddam and Iraq, Bush was actually pushing against an open door. Blair wanted to take Saddam out.

Blair always believed in humanitarian intervention.

In a scarcely reported speech in his Sedgefield constituency, in the very earliest days of his premiership, Blair argued that we should renegotiate the Treaty Of Westphalia.

As I said at the time:

The Treaty of Westphalia was the first time that we recognised the sovereignty of other nations and our inability to interfere in their affairs.

Blair has long argued for intervention in other nation's affairs when they are said to be mistreating their populace, so when he flies to Bush's side in Washington to reiterate these points, he will be arguing a well versed Blair discourse.

However, when he attempts to fit Iraq into his own interventionist logic, he will circumnavigate why this intervention was unpopular as opposed to his similar ventures into Kosovo and Sierra Leone.

The interventionist arguments that both Bush and Blair presented for going into Iraq were all based on events that had taken place a full decade before their proposed war, events in which both respective countries - the US and Britain - had been very slow to condemn.

Kosovo had an ongoing humanitarian crisis, which is why the world supported something being done.

The argument that Saddam had "gassed his own people" had none of the same immediacy, as this was something he had done a decade earlier, and there was no indication that he was about to do so again.

Likewise, Blair's claims that the UN "shies away from rather than confronts problems" seems to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the UN's function is. The UN will always view war as a last resort, that is one of the basic elements of it's Charter. So Blair will attempt, once again, to refashion his political legacy by seeking to portray the Iraq war as a continuation of more noble ventures.

He will fail. For he is comparing apples to oranges.

Blair never understood why many of us could agree with his arguments when it came to Kosovo and Sierra Leone, and yet oppose him when it came to Iraq.

This was because the Iraq war did not fit into the principle which he was espousing.

And, from his comments here, we can see that Blair has lost none of his zeal for military intervention. And, astonishingly, he is just as willing to assume that Iran's nuclear intentions are towards a nuclear bomb, as he was to assume that Saddam was building WMD.

But, with Blair's comments that he "wouldn't take the risk" over Iran's intentions, we can see that, deep down, he is a follower of Cheney's 1% doctrine. That's why Blair finds it so hard to apologise for Iraq; he really, really doesn't think he was wrong.

And, as we can see from his comments regarding Iran, Blair really would do it all over again.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Tony Blair, Iraq war, Iran

Blair secretly courted Mugabe to boost trade.

If Labour need any other reasons as to why they should not listen to Tony Blair about who they should elect as their next leader, then this is surely it.

Tony Blair secretly courted Robert Mugabe in an effort to win lucrative trade deals for Britain, it has emerged in correspondence released to The Independent under the Freedom of Information Act. The documents show that the relationship between New Labour and the Zimbabwean President blossomed soon after Tony Blair took office in Downing Street.

Just weeks after the Government unveiled its ethical foreign policy in May 1997, the British PM wrote a personal letter to Mr Mugabe congratulating him on his role in unifying Africa and helping to improve relations between the continent and Britain. The signed message, which welcomed Mr Mugabe's appointment as leader of the Organisation of African Unity, paved the way for an attempt to bring the two leaders together in a face-to-face meeting in Downing Street during the first weeks of the New Labour administration.

Revelations about Labour's early links with Mr Mugabe come as Mr Blair prepares to publish his autobiography in which he casts himself as a force for good in world affairs.

Nothing could say more about his basic immorality than then fact that he was willing to do business with Mugabe. And, remember, this was at the very start of his premiership, when his power was at it's zenith. He could have done anything he wanted at that period and yet he chose to attempt to coddle up to Mugabe. Nor was he, at that time, unaware of who he was dealing with.

But the secret documents show how, despite international condemnation of Mr Mugabe's regime, Labour was secretly negotiating to establish close trading and political relations with Harare. At this time, Mr Mugabe was under growing pressure to accept responsibility for "crimes against humanity" in which thousands of Matabeleland civilians were killed by the Zimbabwe army's Fifth Brigade in 1983-87.

I know that many mocked Robin Cook's intention to have an "ethical foreign policy", but at least Cook had good intentions at heart. Blair, it appears, was willing to deal with just about anybody as long as their was trade at the end of it.

So let's listen to him when it comes to who should be the next Labour leader.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Tony Blair, Mugabe

Labour contenders await Tony Blair intervention.

Why the Hell should anyone care about who Tony Blair thinks should lead the Labour Party?

The contenders for the Labour leadership are bracing themselves for an intervention this week by Tony Blair, whose memoirs will be published as ballot papers drop on doormats across Britain.

The former prime minister was reported today to have remarked that Ed Miliband, who is making a pitch for traditional Labour voters, would be a "disaster".

Blair has been careful to ration his interventions in British politics since he stood down as prime minister in 2007, seeking to avoid Margaret Thatcher's mistake of acting as a "backseat driver" to John Major.

But the former prime minister, who is recording an interview with Andrew Marr to be aired on BBC2 on Wednesday night to coincide with publication of his memoirs, knows he will face questions about the Miliband brothers, who are the frontrunners for the Labour leadership.

This is the man who dragged the Labour party so far to the right that rock solid Labour seats like Glasgow East started to peel off towards the SNP. This is the man who lied repeatedly to us about what we apparently KNEW about Saddam's WMD and led us into the worst US foreign policy debacle since Suez. This is the man who appeared in front of the Chilcot Inquiry and found it impossible to even express regret for the loss of British troops.

So, why is the Labour party poised to listen to what he has to say now?

Blair believes the older Miliband has grown into a highly skilled politician and communicator who understands the central tenet of New Labour: that electoral oblivion will follow if the party resorts to its "comfort zone". Jibes this week by Ed Miliband about the dangers of remaining in the "New Labour comfort zone" have confirmed Blair's view that the younger brother would consign Labour to an even longer spell in opposition.

The Mail on Sunday reported today that Blair believes a victory for Ed Miliband would be a "disaster". This is an authoritative reflection of the views of the former prime minister, whose supporters have made clear his unease about Ed Miliband at social occasions in recent weeks.

Blair ran the Labour party as a Tory-lite organisation, often using the excuse - on subjects such as education funding - that he had to do what he was doing as the Tories would only do it more brutally than he was doing it.

He was never, in his heart, a Labour politician. Which is why he often mocked left wing critics of what he was doing as "Guardian readers". He saw many of us as hopeless Utopians, as unrealistic dreamers. According to Tony's logic, the swing to the right was the only way to keep the Daily Mail reader on board. And that had limited success. Often, Tory friends of mine would tell me how wonderful they thought Tony was and lament the fact that he wasn't a Tory as they would have loved to vote for him. I would suggest to them that perhaps he was a Tory which is why they all loved him so much.

But it honestly baffles me as to why we should listen to him now. I know he brought us electoral success, but at what a bloody price? He achieved this by occupying the middle ground and forcing the Tories further and further to the right. The problem with this plan was that Cameron caught wind of it and told his party to vote for Labour policies when they were, in reality, Tory policies in disguise. At that point Tony's great plan collapsed as the Labour backbenchers were outraged that they were being so right wing that even the Tories were backing what they were doing.

And it was during the reign of Tony that the Labour party went so far to the right that the Liberal Democrats became the voice of left wing politics in Britain.

So, the blessing by Blair will be as much of a curse to David Miliband as it is anything else.

David Miliband makes it clear that Labour has to reassemble the coalition that handed Blair his victories. In an interview with G2, which took place during a tour of community groups in Milton Keynes and Stevenage, he says: "Unless we start winning back the Milton Keynes, we'll never win power. We've got just 10 seats out of 212 in the south, excluding London."

He makes clear he has no patience with his brother's criticism of the governments of Blair and Gordon Brown. "I'm not going to run away from the best of what we've done over the last 13 years and I'm not going to reduce our crime policy to ID cards, or reduce our foreign policy to Iraq. We did lots of other things as well. We shouldn't get into a situation where just because we find one thing people disagree with, we trash the whole of it."

Oh, we remember the other things as well. I remember Blair refusing to ask Israel to desist as she pummelled Gaza and agreeing with Bush's plan to reverse all US policies since 1967 and allow the retention of many of the illegal settlements. We remember similar behaviour when it came to Lebanon. And which of us could ever forget David Miliband's intervention in the battle between Russia and Georgia, when he announced solidarity with Georgia, who were later found to have been totally responsible for starting the war.

So, Blair is right to identify young David as his successor, but for many of us that is not, in itself, a good thing. Like Blair, David can find no fault at all with the New Labour experiment. But I certainly can.

With each election New Labour fought, the turnout at every general election fell lower that the last. Many argued that people had lost all interest in politics. Then a million people took to the streets in protest against the Iraq war and it became clear that people still cared passionately about politics, they simply didn't care for the choices which were on offer to them.

The country deserves better than two parties offering essentially the same right wing bollocks. Which is why we should pay no attention to anything which Blair has to say.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Tony Blair, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Labour party leadership

Tony Blair's donation to British Legion receives mixed response.

Anyone who reads here regularly will know of my opinion of Tony Blair and his disgraceful dalliance into Iraq. I am not his biggest fan.

However, it takes a special kind of cynicism to greet the news that he is to donate the sales from his new book to the Royal British Legion as no more than an attempt to assuage a guilty conscience.

Now, I understand that the man has become terribly wealthy since leaving office, and some think that this lessens the generosity of what he is proposing, but I disagree.

He is handing over an advance of $4.6 million along with the sale from every book which the public buy. I agree that he is rich enough to be able to do this, but I wonder how many other rich people would manage to resist such a serious amount of money.

It's certainly not that I think this act of generosity should change any one's opinion of him; what he did is what he did and he will have to live with the consequences of that, but we shouldn't find ourselves so bitter that we can dismiss such a generous act so easily.

Rose Gentle, an anti-Iraq war campaigner whose 19-year-old son, Fusilier Gordon Campbell Gentle, was killed in Basra in 2004, said she was pleased injured troops would benefit but said it would not change the way she felt about Blair.

"I have spoken to other parents and everyone is agreed that this doesn't make any difference. It is OK doing this now, but it was decisions Blair made when he was prime minister that got us into this situation. I still hold him responsible for the death of my son."

Lindsey German, from Stop The War Coalition, said: "It would have been much better for everyone if he hadn't taken us into these wars in the first place. Blair lied about the Iraq war, he refused to express any regret at the Chilcot inquiry and his attempt to save his conscience will be little comfort to those injured or who have lost their loved ones."

Of course, it would have been better had he not made the decision to invade Iraq in the first place. And, of course, parents like Rose Gentle are right to still consider him responsible for the death of loved ones.

But that's a sort of separate issue from whether or not the Royal British Legion could use a gift of over £4.6 million.

It doesn't change my opinion of him at all. And I agree that it is only because of the wealth that he has made since leaving office that he is able to be so generous, but I still can't bring myself to slag someone off for giving away such a vast sum.

There are many others, far wealthier than he, who would still have pocketed the money.

I don't expect George W. Bush to donate the sales from his autobiography to American servicemen. And, if he did, much as a loathe him, I might say that it's the least he could do, but I couldn't bring myself to be cynical enough to attack his generosity.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Royal British Legion, Tony Blair, book sales, donation, Iraq war

Prescott: files on Iraq's WMD made me nervous.

It's astonishing how so many Labour party members, who were utterly silent as Blair led us into the war in Iraq, now want us to know that they really didn't agree with it. John Prescott is the latest person to perform this pathetic dance in front of Chilcot, but it's the reasons he gives for his behaviour that I find mesmerising.

Intelligence reports that were the evidence that sent British troops into war in Iraq consisted of "a bit of tittle- tattle here and a bit more information there", the former deputy prime minister John Prescott said yesterday.

The flimsiness of those reports made him "a little bit nervous", but did not shake his support for the war, he told the Iraq war inquiry. His role, as he saw it, was to support Tony Blair and keep the Cabinet united.

His role was to support Tony Blair and "keep the cabinet united". Even as the nation prepared to go to war on a false premise.

Even as his government were preparing to do something which would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and bring years of misery to the Iraqi people. All that mattered was supporting Blair and holding the cabinet together.

Lord Prescott told Sir John Chilcot and his panel that he saw the reports, and they made him "nervous". He said: "I just thought: 'Well, this is the intelligence document; this is what you have. It seems robust, but not enough to justify it.' Certainly what they do in intelligence is a bit of tittle-tattle here and a bit more information there."

The outrage of the families who have lost loved ones is perfectly understandable.

Mike Aston, whose 30-year-old son Corporal Russell Aston was one of six military policemen killed during a riot in Basra in June 2003, said: "His [Lord Prescott's] remarks are absolutely disgraceful. There are 179 families who have lost their loved ones in this war. It has cost me a son. I have to keep that at the back of my mind to stop it boiling over."

Rose Gentle, whose 19-year-old son Gordon was one of the first British casualties, said: "I'm disgusted. This is my boy's life they are talking about. The smug look on that man's face made it seem as if it was just a joke to him."

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "It just goes to undermine further any sense that the Government's stated reasons for going into Iraq were accurate.

"We have always suspected that there were other reasons. The sense that we were in there to protect British interests or security is further undermined by what Lord Prescott said."

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn said: "If John really believes that, why was he so silent at a time of such a momentous decision that has led to a war that has cost the lives of half a million people?"

What I find most striking about Prescott's comments are the utter lack of shame. That's because he sees no shame in what he saying. He really thinks that his job was to protect Blair - even as he stood on the precipice of an utterly illegal war - and to "hold the cabinet together".

That mattered more to him than what he was "holding the cabinet together" to do.

And he now admits that Blair was being duplicitous when he laid the blame for the war at the door of the French.

He also contradicted the claim made in Parliament at the time, by Mr Blair and the former foreign secretary Jack Straw that the UK had not applied for a second UN resolution authorising the invasion because the French had announced in advance that they would veto it.

Lord Prescott said they had been wrong to blame "the poor old French".

The fact that Blair ludicrously attempted to blame France for the war is yet another indication of the mindset which, at that time, gripped his government. The truth mattered little, what mattered most was what Blair could sell to the public.

Prescott is yet another Labour politician who could have spoken out at the time and made a vital difference. He chose not to. And he has told us his reasons for not doing so.

And he's not ashamed and he's not even embarrassed. He saw his role as protecting Blair and holding the cabinet together. Even as they prepared to wage a war outside of the UN Charter.

People have gone to jail for less.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Prescott, Chilcot Inquiry, Iraq war

Gaza is a "prison camp", says Cameron.

Let me applaud Cameron when applause is due:

“Turkey's relationships in the [Middle East] region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

Let me be clear.

The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp. But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it's Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.“

Tony Blair was always ridiculously one sided when it came to the Israel Palestinian dispute, even though he did recognise the need for peace to be made possible between the two sides. But it is simply unthinkable that Blair, whilst Prime Minister, would have (a) spoken out so forcefully against an Israeli attack anywhere, or (b) recognised Gaza as a prison camp. Indeed, after the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008/9 Blair said that he thought the debate about proportionality was "not really a sensible conversation".

The UN famously later disagreed with him finding that war crimes had actually been committed. And yes, the UN also found the subject of proportionality to be rather relevant.

The 575-page report concluded that Israel used disproportionate force, deliberately targeted civilians, used Palestinians as human shields, and destroyed civilian infrastructure during its Dec. 27-Jan. 18 incursion into the Gaza Strip to root out Palestinian rocket squads.

So, Cameron is to be congratulated for having a courage which Blair always lacked on this subject.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Cameron, Gaza, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Blair

British army's alleged torture of Iraqis goes to judicial review.

There has been a substantial High Court victory for lawyers representing 102 men detained after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The high court today gave permission for a judicial review of the government's failure to hold a public inquiry into the British army's detention policies in Iraq amid allegations that large numbers of civilians were tortured.

The court said it could be argued that "the alleged ill-treatment was systemic, and not just at the whim of individual soldiers". It went on to criticise the effectiveness of Ministry of Defence proposals to investigate the claims.

If a full inquiry is now ordered, it is likely to run alongside the judicial review David Cameron announced last week into the UK's role in rendition and torture in the so-called war on terror.

The notion that torture could be "systemic" was one of the first things I argued on here when talking about the stories of mistreatment coming from prisoners held by the Americans.

I was struck at the time by the uniformity of the allegations; nudity, stress positions, use of loud noise, freezing temperatures, use of dogs.

It didn't appear to matter whether the prisoners were held in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the stories all had a creepily familiar ring. It occurred to me then that either all of these "bad apples" had a singular lack of imagination, or they were working to a set of instructions.

Now we, of course, know that the Bush administration received a memo from the Justice Department in August 2002 which set out to justify the use of torture.

If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later.

We also know that the Bush administration approved certain "enhanced interrogation techniques", which is why the torture we heard of was always so uniform.

They were actually following a script.

Now, the High Court is implying that torture may also have been systemic on the British side of the war on terror.

One of the lawyers, Phil Shiner, said: "There are now hundreds of Iraqi civilians making thousands of allegations of being subjected to repeated sexual, physical and psychological abuse. The MoD's claim that this is the result of the actions of a few bad apples has been shown by the high court to be untenable.

"The court has today sent a clear signal that they expect the truth to be uncovered and these matters efficiently and fully investigated. This must take place in a public forum, not behind closed doors at the MoD."

The MoD has conceded that there needs to be an investigation, but does not wish to see a full public inquiry.

I bet the MOD would like any inquiry to be held behind closed doors, but they have no right to be granted such privacy.

If we have had a torture policy then we have the right to know about it. And, the people who put such a policy into place should be prosecuted. Perhaps, only by us doing that, will Obama's administration ever get serious about looking into the crimes which were committed by Bush and Co.

There have now been changes of administration on both sides of the Atlantic, so there really is no excuse for this not to be vigorously examined.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Bush, Cameron, Brown, Blair, Torture, war on terror

Classified documents reveal UK's role in abuse of its own citizens.

A number of highly classified documents, disclosed during high court proceedings, appear to show that the British government colluded in the torture of British citizens. And that the British government had decided that British prisoners being flown to Guantanamo Bay was its "preferred option".

Among the most damning documents are a series of interrogation reports from MI5 officers that betray their disregard for the suffering of a British resident whom they were questioning at a US airbase in Afghanistan. The documents also show that the officers were content to see the mistreatment continue.

One of the most startling documents is chapter 32 of MI6's general procedural manual, entitled "Detainees and Detention Operations", which advises officers that among the "particular sensitivities" they need to consider before becoming directly involved in an operation to detain a terrorism suspect is the question of whether "detention, rather than killing, is the objective of the operation".

Other disclosed documents show how:

• The Foreign Office decided in January 2002 that the transfer of British citizens from Afghanistan to Guantánamo was its "preferred option".

• Jack Straw asked for that rendition to be delayed until MI5 had been able to interrogate those citizens.

• Downing Street was said to have overruled FO attempts to provide a British citizen detained in Zambia with consular support in an attempt to prevent his return to the UK, with the result that he too was "rendered" to Guantánamo.

Blair's reputation will finally be shot be pieces when the extent to which the British government acquiesced in the treatment handed out to it's citizens is revealed, I suspect.

What is undeniable at the moment is the government's almost casual indifference to the fact that it was taking part in criminal activity:

At this time, the fact that "rendition" – abducting an individual and moving them against their will from one country to another – was illegal appears not to have been a concern. A document disclosed by the Foreign Office, dated 10 January 2002 and entitled Afghanistan UK Detainees, expresses the government's "preferred options". It states: "Transfer of United Kingdom nationals held by US forces in Afghanistan to a United States base in Guantánamo is the best way to meet our counter-terrorism objectives, to ensure they are securely held." The "only alternative", the document adds, would be to place these individuals in the custody of British forces in Afghanistan, or to return them to the UK.

At around the same time Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, was sending a telegram to several British diplomatic missions around the world in which he signalled his agreement with this policy, but made clear that he did not wish to see the British nationals moved from Afghanistan before they could be interrogated.

"A specialist team is currently in Afghanistan seeking to interview any detainees with a UK connection to obtain information on their terrorist activities and connections," Straw wrote.

"We therefore hope that all those detainees they wish to interview will remain in Afghanistan and will not be among the first groups to be transferred to Guantánamo. A week's delay should suffice. UK nationals should be transferred as soon as possible thereafter."

The notion that one is innocent until proven guilty was clearly dispensed with as Blair made a priority out of making sure that there was not a sliver of light between his administration and that of George W. Bush.

So far just 900 papers have been disclosed, and these have included batches of press cuttings and copies of government reports that were published several years ago. However, a number of highly revealing documents are among the released papers, as well as fragments of heavily censored emails, memos and policy documents.

Some are difficult to decipher, but together they paint a picture of a government that was determined not only to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States as it embarked upon its programme of "extraordinary rendition" and torture of terrorism suspects in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but to actively participate in that programme.

The extent to which Blair's government participated in illegal torture activities will eventually trickle out. Cameron will do his best to limit this, especially as he is anxious to preserve the UK's intelligence links with the US, but one gets the feeling that the people who were tortured are determined to have their story told and there are strong indications that the courts are inclined to agree with them.

Today the government failed in an attempt to bring a temporary halt to the proceedings that have resulted in the disclosure of the documents. Its lawyers argued that the case should be delayed while attempts were made to mediate with the six men, in the hope that their claims could be withdrawn in advance of the judicial inquiry. Lawyers for the former Guantánamo inmates said it was far from certain that mediation would succeed, and insisted the disclosure process continue.

Cameron appears determined to try to buy the silence of these men before the inquiry starts, but I don't get the feeling that these guys are up for sale.

They want the truth to come out. Cameron appears to want an inquiry which doesn't put any pressure on our relationship with the United States. But, as it was the United States, in collusion it appears with Blair's government, who were doing the torturing, I can't see how Cameron can have an honest inquiry and avoid embarrassing our American ally.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Omar Deghayes, Binyam Mohamed, Martin Mubanga, Guantanamo Bay, torture, rendition, Blair, Bush, war on terror

MPs urge Iraq inquiry to recall Blair.

With the recent release of Goldsmith's advice to Blair prior to the Iraq war, there are several MP's insisting that the Chilcot Inquiry should recall Blair and question him on this subject as, although Chilcot was aware of this evidence at the time Blair was questioned, it was classified and they were unable to raise it whilst Blair was addressing them.

MPs last night said that Mr Blair should be the first of the witnesses to be re-examined. Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour MP for Islington North, said: "This new evidence is highly significant. I would hope and assume that the inquiry would recall the former Prime Minister to answer for this.

"He always maintained in parliament and public that the war was legal. The inquiry needs to go through the contents of these memos with him."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: "These letters are confirmation of conclusions that had already been reached – either by inference or from other documents which have been previously leaked.

"It's clear the Attorney General's view went through a 180 degree turn while he was in the United States."

Where I disagree with the MP's is that I see no purpose whatsoever in recalling Blair, as that snake oil salesman is not going to be caught out whilst on the stand.

However, I do think it would be useful to recall Lord Goldsmith as I would love to know what occurred to produce such a 180 degree turn in his opinion on the legality of the war.

This seemed to coincide completely with his visit to Washington and his talk with the Bush administration officials, and resulted in Goldsmith suddenly reversing all of his previously held positions and declaring a war he had previously deemed illegal as "legal", even without a specific second resolution warning Saddam that it would take "all necessary means" to see that the resolution was obeyed.

It is Goldsmith who has questions to answer here, not Blair, as Goldsmith's astonishing change of heart gave Blair the cover he needed to proceed.

But Goldsmith has never adequately explained - and has until now been covered by the fact that his memos were classified - what process he used to reverse his position to such an astonishing degree.

Now that these memos have been declassified, we deserve to hear Goldsmith's logic before and after that visit to Washington. Why, in Goldsmith's mind, did something illegal suddenly become legal over such a short period of time? He'll be hard pushed to convince many of us that it wasn't political pressure.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Chilcot Inquiry, Blair, Goldsmith, Iraq war

How Goldsmith changed advice on legality of war.

There has never been any secret of the fact that Lord Goldsmith changed his mind in the lead up to the Iraq war concerning what would be legal and illegal regarding the invasion. However, the Chilcot Inquiry have now got hold of - and allowed to be made public - the advice Goldsmith was giving to Blair at the time.

What's startling about this is that the change in his advice is starkly different just before the invasion from what it was a year earlier. And, as none of the legal requirements which Goldsmith had insisted upon to guarantee legality had been met, one must consider seriously the fact that political pressure was probably brought to bear on the Attorney General.

For instance, on 30th July 2002, Goldsmith laid out what was needed to ensure legality:

"The key issue here is whether an attack is imminent. The development of WMD is not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence. On the basis of the material which I have been shown – and I appreciate that there may be other documentation which I have not seen – there would not be any grounds for regarding an Iraqi use of WMD as imminent.

"My view therefore is that in the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach, military action would be unlawful. Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force, it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action – but without it the position is, in my view, clear."

So, he is making it quite clear that not only is a UN resolution needed, but that it must "explicitly authorise the use of force". And, when Bush and Blair manage to obtain UN Resolution 1441, Goldsmith makes it crystal clear that this resolution is not enough to justify war.

"It is clear that Resolution 1441 contains no express authorisation by the Security Council for the use of force.

"However, the authorisation to use force contained in Resolution 678 (1990) may revive where the Security Council has stated that there has been a breach of the ceasefire conditions imposed on Iraq by Resolution 687 (1991).

"But the revival argument will not be defensible if the Council has made it clear either that action short of the use of force should be taken to ensure compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. In conclusion therefore, my opinion is that Resolution 1441 does not revive the authorisation to use of force contained in Resolution 678 in the absence of a further decision of the Security Council."

So, the argument put forward by many hawks who supported the war - that 1441 revived Res 687 - was clearly not one which the British Attorney General accepted on 14th January 2003.

Blair was clearly becoming impatient with Goldsmith as he send off a note stating, "I just do not understand this" and, after Goldsmith sent advice on 30th January 2003 - the day before Blair met with President Bush - an aide to Blair wrote on top of Goldsmith's advice, "Specifically said we did not need further advice this week." It really does seem as if Goldsmith's advice was starting to annoy Number Ten.

Goldsmith then famously changed his advice after consulting with Bush's lawyers in Washington, stating on the 12th January 2003:

"Since our meeting on 14 January I have had the benefit of discussions with the Foreign Secretary and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who have given me valuable background information on the negotiating history of Resolution 1441. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to hear the views of the US Administration from their perspective as co-sponsors of the resolution.

"Having regard to the arguments of our co-sponsors which I heard in Washington, I am prepared to accept that a reasonable case can be made that Resolution 1441 revives the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678."

It is the change of tone which I find most startling. In his initial pieces of advice, Goldsmith states quite clearly what is legal and what is illegal. "If we do X, this would be illegal, unless we obtain Y".

But, after consulting with Bush lawyer's he stops talking about what is legal and what is illegal and starts to argue "that a reasonable case can be made".

That's very different from saying that something is legal or illegal, that's saying that one could make an argument to back one's case, but it falls way, way short of saying that your argument would be accepted if it ever went in front of a court of law.

The more that comes to light, the more we can be assured that Goldsmith stopped telling Blair what was legal and illegal, and started to argue reasonable cases which could be put forward to support an invasion.

And the clearer it becomes that Elizabeth Wilmshurst was telling the truth when she stated that Goldsmith was performing a U-turn and that many of the other lawyers at the office of the Attorney General did not share Goldsmith's reading of international law.

"People shouldn't be focusing on Elizabeth so much as the others who will be giving evidence on Tuesday – in particular, Sir Michael Wood," a source said last night. "He advised clearly that the war was unlawful.

"Elizabeth was one in a team – she wasn't a voice in the wilderness. They worked closely together and spoke about this a lot. The invasion ran counter to international law."

I find it hard to accept Goldsmith's insistence that no pressure was ever brought to bear on him politically. It is quite clear that there was a marked change in his advice the nearer the war became and the less likely it appeared that the US and the UK would obtain the kind of legal cover which Goldsmith initially insisted upon.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Iraq war, Goldsmith, Blair, Bush, United Nations

The battle to write the inside story of New Labour.

Winston Churchill once famously declared, "history will be kind to me for I intend to write it", and that appears to be the aspirations of the architects of New Labour.

Tony Blair is the next ex-Prime Minister to go into print, with a memoir acquired at vast expense by Random House, which will come out just as the party political conference season gets under way in September.

Gordon Brown will probably follow him, in another year, though someone who is in touch with the former Prime Minister said yesterday: "He has not been on to a publisher yet – but that doesn't mean he is not going to."

Lord Mandelson is not saying what the focus of his book will be. He has not signed a deal with a publisher yet, but he is unlikely to have any difficulty finding one. The Times has already signalled an interest in the serial rights.

One could be forgiven for thinking that we are watching the obituaries of New Labour being written. For we are surely at the end of the road where Labour pitch their policies in purely conservative terms in an attempt to please the readers of the Daily Mail.

When Labour lost Glasgow East there was surely a movement within the party which realised it was becoming utterly divorced from it's base?

The leadership election must address that fact.

And, in the meantime, we will watch the people who divorced Labour from it's base issue their utterly self serving reasoning's.

I won't be reading any of them.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Brown, Blair, New Labour

Cabinet did not need to hear legal doubts over Iraq invasion, says Straw.

This video is the moment when Alastair Campbell - Tony Blair's right hand PR man during the build up to the Iraq war - is said to have broken down on TV. He doesn't actually break down, but he appears flustered by Andrew Marr's question which is: If the intelligence does not show that the evidence about Iraq's WMD's was "beyond doubt", as Blair claimed it did, has Tony Blair mislead parliament?

Campbell's answer is that a decision was made and that Blair is an honourable man. It's clearly not an answer to the question.

Blair appeared recently on Fox News and attacked the hunt for a "conspiracy" and a "scandal" over his decision to commit British troops to the war.

On Fox news today, asked why the UK had had a succession of such probes into the invasion, Blair said: "Partly because we have this curious habit – I don't think this is confined to Britain actually – where people find it hard to come to the point where they say: we disagree; you're a reasonable person, I'm a reasonable person but we disagree.

"There's always got to be a scandal as to why you hold your view. There's got to be some conspiracy behind it, some great deceit that's gone on, and people just find it hard to understand that it's possible for people to have different points of view and hold them … for genuine reasons. There's a continual desire to sort of uncover some great conspiracy, when actually there's a decision at the heart of it."

That's what Blair and Campbell's defences have now come down to: "you're a reasonable person, I'm a reasonable person, but we disagree". Blair made "a difficult decision" - and from Blair's world view difficult decisions are always to be applauded - and that's where we have a fundamental disagreement. Blair is now arguing that we are being unreasonable to even question the logic of his decision and to question whether or not he was telling parliament the truth when he made statements, some of which we now know to be false, in order to persuade parliament to vote in favour of the war Blair was proposing.

Blair now sees even asking these questions as "a continual desire to sort of uncover some great conspiracy", rather than what they actually are. An attempt to discover whether or not Blair over played his hand when trying to get the country to agree to the Iraq war. An attempt to clarify whether or not Blair "sexed up" - to use Gilligan's famously disputed phrase - his case for war.

Blair now objects even to that question being asked. One gets the distinct feeling - when one looks at both Blair and Campbell's reactions - that they are starting to circle the wagons.

Now, Jack Straw goes back to the Chilcot inquiry to claim that there was no need for the cabinet to be told that the legality of the war was questionable.

Straw told the inquiry that the cabinet included a number of "strong-minded people", among them Gordon Brown, John Prescott, David Blunkett, Charles Clarke and Margaret Beckett: "None of them were wilting violets; their judgment was that it was not necessary to go into the process by which Peter Goldsmith came to his view. I don't recall cabinet as a whole receiving legal advice on the matter," Straw told the inquiry. "All [the cabinet] wanted to know was: is it lawful or is it not lawful?" What was required in the end was "essentially a yes or no decision" from the attorney general, he added.

The inquiry has heard how Sir Michael Wood, the FO's legal adviser, and his deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, said an attack was unlawful without a fresh UN resolution. In a memo, Wood warned Straw: "Force without security council authority would amount to a crime of aggression." Straw, now justice secretary, replied: "I note your advice but I do not accept it."

The fact that the questionable legality of the proposed war was kept from the cabinet only strengthens the appearance that Blair was intent on war at all costs, if that was what Bush decided upon.

It is easy to see why Blair wants this entire escapade to be viewed as merely "a difficult decision" which he had to take, for that's the only way to look at it which casts him in a honourable light.

My problem with Blair in the run up to the Iraq war was that I found it impossible to believe - as he often claimed at the time - that he looked at evidence and made "a difficult decision". I got the distinct impression that he was doing the very opposite. He had made a decision to stand beside Bush no matter what, and he then started looking for evidence to back that decision.

The entire process was back to front. And that's why Blair and Campbell and others are so outraged at the current line of questioning.

Their mendacity is coming under the spotlight.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Chilcot Inquiry, Straw, Blair, Campbell, Iraq war