This 2007 video from Britain says about itself:
Bureaucrats often banned left-wing Labour party members for ridiculous reasons. Like for calling a Blairite a Blairite. For singing a rock song. For having voted years ago for the Green party, or a socialist party.
Certainly as long as Iain McNicol was party General Secretary, Blairite bureaucrats practiced Blairite dictatorial dirty tricks; eg,with musical preference as a pretext. Witchfinder General Iain McNicol banned a woman because she would probably vote for leftist Jeremy Corbyn in the party leader election (with as McNicol’s pretext that this woman, Ms Catherine Starr, liked United States rock band the Foo Fighters). At the same time, McNicol banned the leader of the baker’s trade union for supporting Corbyn. A poet was banned for writing a satiric poem on Tony Blair. And McNicol banned a retired miner who had been a Labour party member for 45 years for criticizing Owen Smith, the Blairite candidate in the party leadership election
Eventually, some right-wing politicians were also expelled. Not for calling Corbyn Corbyn or for singing. But for sexual harassment.
And now, Tony Blair’s Iraq war liar Alastair Campbell.
From daily News Line in Britain:
Blairite Campbell Expelled From The Labour Party
29th May 2019
This 25 May 2019 video says about itself:
Web-only discussion with Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept. They discuss the Justice Department’s decision to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on 17 charges of violating the Espionage Act for publishing U.S. military and diplomatic documents exposing U.S. war crimes.
This comes as President Trump is considering Memorial Day pardons for American military members accused or convicted of war crimes, including former Blackwater contractor Nicholas Slatten, who was twice found guilty of first-degree murder in the deadly 2007 Nisoor Square massacre in Baghdad which killed 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians. He was sentenced to life in prison last December.
As Assange faces 170-year sentence, Trump proposes pardoning US war criminals: here.
Amid grave concerns for his health, Assange transferred to Belmarsh Prison medical wing: here.
Istanbul public meeting calls for the defence of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning: here.
United Nations Special Rapporteur: Julian Assange is being tortured: here.
The British and Australian governments have blithely dismissed a May 31 report by United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer, which established that WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange has been the victim of a protracted campaign of “psychological torture.” The brazen responses demonstrate the criminality of the US-led vendetta against Assange, which is proceeding in violation of due process and the fundamental tenets of international law: here.
In legal victory for Assange, Swedish court rules against extradition: here.
In a June 1 interview with ABC Radio Adelaide, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer warned that Julian Assange could die in prison if his persecution is not stopped immediately. Last week, Melzer issued a scathing denunciation of Assange’s persecution, calling it “psychological torture”: here.
The Washington Post reported today that officials from the US Justice Department issued a formal request to British authorities last Thursday for the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The document has not been made public: here.
British Home Secretary Sajid Javid boasted on Thursday that he certified a US extradition request for Julian Assange on Wednesday, just a day after the Trump administration formally asked the British government to extradite the WikiLeaks founder and journalist. In a radio interview, Javid paid lip service to the need for the British courts to first approve the extradition, while still making plain the British establishment’s determination to hand Assange over to his persecutors in Washington: here.
Now, Ms Miller is back at her old lying warmongering. This time, not in the New York Times, but in Rupert Murdoch‘s Fox News. This time, not against Iraq, but against Venezuela. Egging Donald Trump on to escalate his war for oil on Venezuela.
In the wake of Tuesday’s stillborn coup called by the US-backed and self-proclaimed “interim president” Juan Guaidó, the Trump administration has escalated its threats of a direct military intervention to realize its aim of regime change in Venezuela. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Wednesday told the Fox Business Network that US “military action is possible”: here.
From daily News Line in Britain:
Thursday, 11 April 2019
WAR ON IRAQ PLANNED LONG BEFORE 2003
SIXTEEN years on from the start of the illegal US-led invasion of Iraq, further evidence has emerged that the war was planned long before the attack took place and that the stated reason for it, ie ‘Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction’ was bogus.
Speaking before the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee last week, the former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral The Lord West of Spithead, revealed that he was told in June 2002, ‘that we would be invading Iraq with America at the beginning of the following year’.
‘It was quite clear that the Government were thinking we have to get Parliament and others on side. But what was interesting was that as it developed, there was all this stuff on weapons of mass destruction and everything, and it did seem to me that people were looking for a casus belli that they could discuss in Parliament,’ Lord West said.
Let’s think back to what we – the public – were actually told in 2002/3. Bush and Blair and their acolytes repeatedly said that the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein could prevent war by admitting he had WMDs and disarming.
As late as 25th February 2003, Blair was saying that ‘even now’ Saddam could avoid war by ‘accepting the UN route to disarmament.’ ‘I do not want war,’ he told the House of Commons. ‘I do not believe anyone in this House wants war. But disarmament peacefully can only happen with Saddam’s active co-operation.’
But it’s clear that whatever Saddam did, he and his country were going to be hit with Shock and Awe. The whole charade of weapons inspectors, sent in to search for weapons that were not there, was designed to try and convince people that war was a last resort and not the first option.
Crucially, the invasion had to come before the weapons inspectors finished their job and gave Iraq a clean bill of health – as then the pretext for war would have gone. Admiral West’s revelations, which follow on from similar comments he made in 2016, are not the only ones we’ve had from Inside the Tent figures about what was really going on in 2002/3.
He also said ‘we were all misled on the existence of WMDs’.
According to Brown, a key US intelligence report which not only refuted the claim that Iraq was producing WMDs, but also their ‘current ability to do so’, was not seen by the British government. An attempt to pass the buck? You make your own mind up. Earlier, the former British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, said that President Bush had first asked Tony Blair for his support in a war against Iraq at a private White House dinner just nine days after the 9-11 terror attacks, which had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.
We also know from the Chilcot Inquiry that on 28th July 2002, Tony Blair sent Bush a memo in which he pledged ‘I will be with you, whatever.’ He went on: ‘The military part of this is hazardous but I will concentrate mainly on the political context for success’.
That involved trying to ‘encapsulate our casus belli in some defining way’, with weapons inspections the chosen route. ‘If he (Saddam) did say yes, we continue the build-up and we send teams over and the moment he obstructs, we say: he”s back to his games.
‘That’s it. In any event, he would probably screw it up and not meet the deadline, and if he came forward after the deadline, we would just refuse to deal.’ As for timing, Blair says ‘we could start building up after the break. A strike date could be Jan/Feb next year.’
Blair continued to scare us witless right up to the launch of the invasion in March 2003 about Saddam’s deadly arsenal. A critical claim, contained in the so-called ‘September Dossier’, was the one that Iraq possessed chemical weapons which could be assembled and launched within 45 minutes.
This led to the infamous ‘Brits 45 minutes from Doom’ headline in Rupert Murdoch’s Sun and similarly terrifying headlines in other newspapers. Yet in 2004, Blair said that he had not realised before the war that the alleged weapons were not missiles but only battlefield munitions.
Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook wrote in the Guardian: ‘I was astonished by his reply as I had been briefed that Saddam’s weapons were only battlefield ones and I could not conceive that the prime minister had been given a different version.’
In July 2003 a Foreign Affairs committee report declared: ‘We conclude that the 45 minutes claim did not warrant the prominence given to it in the dossier, because it was based on intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source.’
It is clear that the Iraq War was a plan hatched by neocon extremists in Washington and lurid claims of Iraqi WMDs, which did not exist, were made to justify it. The Nuremberg Judgement of the trial of the WW2 Nazi leaders stated: ‘War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
‘To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’
The Iraq War was clearly a war of aggression, and as such, an example of ‘the supreme international crime’, yet, sixteen years on, no one has been held accountable for it. That’s in spite of over 1m people losing their lives following the invasion and the war greatly increasing the threat from terrorist groups.
Even Tony Blair himself has conceded there were ‘elements of truth’ in the claims that the Iraq War led to the rise of Daesh/IS [ISIS]. Worse still, the war on Iraq was followed by more aggression against Libya, in 2011, and Syria, wars which like the invasion of Iraq, have helped provoke a refugee crisis of Biblical proportions.
Let’s go back to 27th January 1998, more than three and a half years before 9-11.
It was on that date that a letter was sent to President Clinton, on behalf of the neoconservative ‘Project for a New American Century’.
The letter called for ‘removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now has to be the aim of American foreign policy’. Among the signatories to the call to arms were Elliott Abrams and John Bolton.
Abrams is now the US special envoy to Venezuela– and seeking regime change in Caracas, while Bolton is President Trump’s National Security Advisor and warning us about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons programme’. It’s as if the Iraq War never happened.
Wikipedia says about this 1990 video from the USA:
Nayirah Kuwaiti girl testimony
Nayirah al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح), called “Nurse Nayirah” in the media, was a fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl, who alleged that she had witnessed the murder of infant children by Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait, in verbal testimony to the U.S. Congress, in the run up to the 1991 Gulf War. Her testimony, which was regarded as credible at the time, has since come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.
She was not a nurse at all. She later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States.
The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony. Nayirah’s testimony was widely publicized. Hill & Knowlton, which had filmed the hearing, sent out a video news release to Medialink, a firm which served about 700 television stations in the United States. That night, portions of the testimony aired on ABC’s Nightline and NBC Nightly News reaching an estimated audience between 35 and 53 million Americans.
Seven senators cited Nayirah’s testimony in their speeches backing the use of force. President George [H W] Bush repeated the story at least ten times in the following weeks.
By Ian Sinclair in Britain:
Monday, February 18, 2019
The distortions of the corporate media: An interview with Media Lens
DAVID EDWARDS and DAVID CROMWELL from media watchdog Media Lens speak to Ian Sinclair about their new book Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality
Ian Sinclair: What is a “propaganda blitz” and how does it work?
Media Lens: A “propaganda blitz” is a fast-moving campaign to persuade the public of the need for “action” or “intervention” of some kind furthering elite interests.
Corporate media line up to insist that a watershed moment has arrived – something must be done! Eyewitness testimony proves that Iraqi storm-troopers have killed hundreds of babies by hurling them from incubators in Kuwait. Reports from Libya show that Gadaffi is certainly planning a terrible massacre in Benghazi. Survivor accounts make it impossible to deny that pro-Assad forces [in Syria] have cut the throats of hundreds of women and children in Houla, and so on.
These claims are instantly affirmed with 100 per cent certainty right across the supposed media “spectrum”, long before the facts are clear, long before the credibility and motives of the sources have been established. The resulting declaration: “We must act!”, “We cannot look away!”
Often, as above, the claims turn out to be utterly bogus. The same corporate journalists who never have anything to say about massive US-UK crimes in Iraq, Libya and Yemen pop up in unison to rage about these alleged horrors.
This is important – the more enraged they seem to be, the more the public will assume there must be some truth behind their claims. Understandably, many people find it hard to believe that so many journalists could be professional fakers, or just deceived.
The idea is to generate an atmosphere of such intense moral indignation that dissidents even questioning the sincerity and accuracy of this shrieking can be damned as “Assad apologists”, “Saddam’s willing executioners,” “Corbyn’s useful idiots,” and so on.
If the propaganda blitz has done its job, these smears will resonate with the public who will turn their noses up at dissidents viewed as morally unhygienic.
The “humanitarian action” usually involves destroying an Official Enemy of the West regardless of the cost to the civilians “we” claim to care about.
Once the enemy has been overthrown, the welfare of those civilians is never again a concern for the propaganda blitzers. Who cares about the fairness of elections in Iraq now, or the freedom of its press, or the justice system?
But these were big issues when journalists were supporting efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2002-2003.
IS: How does the current media coverage of Venezuela fit with this model?
ML: It is an excellent example of a propaganda blitz. When opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself “interim president” on January 23, US-UK journalists depicted it as a classic watershed moment – Venezuelans had had enough of the socialist government of Nicolas Maduro, who had to go, had to be replaced, probably by Guaido.
Maduro is a sworn enemy of the West, which has been working long and hard to regain control of Venezuela’s oil.
Moral outrage focuses on the claim that Maduro is a “tyrant”, “despot” and “dictator” (he is democratically elected), who is full-square to blame for the economic and humanitarian crisis (US sanctions have played a significant role), who rigged the May 2018 elections (they were declared free and fair by many credible observers), who crushed press freedom (numerous Venezuelan media are openly and fiercely anti-government).
This propaganda blitz has been particularly surreal. “Mainstream” media don’t seem to notice that it is Donald Trump – the same groping, bete orange widely denounced by these same media as an out and out fascist – who is guiding efforts to overthrow Maduro. Adam Johnson made the point for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:
“The same US media outlets that have expressly fund-raised and run ad campaigns on their image as anti-Trump truth-tellers have mysteriously taken at face value everything the Trump White House and its neoconservative allies have said in their campaign to overthrow the government of Venezuela.”
IS: You argue “corporate media reporting and commentary” furthers “the interests of the state-corporate elites”. What role does the Guardian – a “thoughtful, progressive, fiercely independent and challenging” newspaper, according to Guardian editor Kath Viner – play in this?
ML: The Guardian was Blair’s greatest cheerleader, just as it is now among Corbyn’s greatest critics. In 2018, journalist John Pilger described how he was persona non grata at the Guardian: “My written journalism is no longer welcome in the Guardian which, three years ago, got rid of people like me in pretty much a purge of those who really were saying what the Guardian no longer says any more.”
A couple of decades ago, George Monbiot told us that there were two distinct factions competing within the Guardian: a reasonable, liberal faction working for progressive change, and a group of hard-nosed neocons who made the lives of the progressive faction “hell”.
That sounded credible. Our guess would be that, under editor Kath Viner, the neocons have gained much greater ground and now hold the paper under a kind of occupation (something similar seems to have happened at the BBC).
Most embarrassing was the recent front-page Guardian claim that Julian Assange had repeatedly met with Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy. The story turned out to be fake.
Most telling is that editor Kath Viner has completely refused to respond to any queries, even from former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald. This is a seriously disturbing sign of real dishonesty, of a brutal refusal to be in any way answerable to the public.
IS: It seems journalists are less willing to engage with you than they used to. Do you agree? If so, why do you think this is?
ML: Corporate interests have never been content to just have their wholly owned parties – Tories and Republicans – and their newspapers – The Times and the Telegraph. They have always also wanted to own the supposed “opposition” offering tiny glimmers of dissent: thus, the rise of New Labour and the Clintonian Democrats, thus the neocon-occupied BBC and Guardian. There currently is no functional “mainstream” opposition to corporate dominance.
With the arrival of social media, this power-serving corporate journalism has been forced to retreat behind thick walls of silence. It must have been the same in the past when tyrannical kings and queens were challenged by democratic forces.
Corporate journalists know that their propaganda promoting Perpetual War and corporate control of politics cannot withstand rational challenge; they have learned that they lose less credibility by ignoring us, for example, than by engaging.
Their problem is that we have solid arguments backed up by credible facts and sources. Often, there’s just nothing they can say. And because we’re not angry and abusive, they can’t dismiss us for being rude and emotional.
They also have the problem that they’re not free to comment on their brand – their employer, its product, its advertisers, their colleagues – in front of customers, so they can’t even discuss why they can’t discuss these issues. Better just to ignore us.
We also send fewer emails than we used to – we always get more responses from emails – partly because it’s easier to challenge people via Twitter, but also because we have a sense that too much criticism drives journalists into a corner where they become more resistant to change, rather than less.
IS: After 18 years of analysing the British media [Media Lens was set up in 2001], what advice would you give to young journalists just starting out?
ML: Avoid working for corporate media at all costs. It’s not possible to work as a fully human, compassionate, rational journalist within this system. Carrot and stick pressures are bound to force you to compromise your integrity, your honesty.
Pretty soon, you’ll find yourself writing garbage for money, which is a sure way of living a boring, soulless, destructive life.
In an age of looming climate collapse – which currently looks like killing us all within the next few decades – we can no longer afford for young, vibrant, juicy human beings to sacrifice their energy and delight for dead cash in a lifeless corporate media machine.
As Norman Mailer observed: “There is an odour to any press headquarters that is unmistakeable… The unavoidable smell of flesh burning quietly and slowly in the service of a machine.”
Write what you believe is true, important and helpful for reducing the suffering of yourself and other people and animals. If you get paid, fine. If you don’t, support yourself some other way, part-time.
Relax and enjoy, live simply. What you absolutely must not do is write something because you think it is most likely to make you most money.
Propaganda Blitz: How the Corporate Media Distort Reality is published by Pluto Press, priced £14.99.
This 6 February 2019 video says about itself:
Ex British soldiers: UK commanders authorized civilian killings in Iraq
“Our commanders, they would tell us: ‘We will protect you if any investigation comes. Just say you genuinely thought your life was at risk – those words will protect you.’”
By Jean Shaoul in Britain:
13 February 2019
An investigation by Ian Cobain, based upon statements by former UK soldiers and published by the Middle East Eye (MEE) website, points to war crimes having been committed.
Cobain, who writes for the Guardian, has covered six wars, including the 1991 Gulf War and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In September 2005, he revealed that the UK was supporting the CIA’s illegal extraordinary rendition program. While the MEE was unable to independently verify all the interviewees’ accounts, several ex-soldiers serving in different units at different times and in two different theatres of war made broadly similar allegations. In what can only be construed as an admission of guilt, the Ministry of Defence refused to comment.
Cobain interviewed several former British army soldiers who confirmed they were given orders to shoot at civilians suspected of surveilling them. This was sanctioned under the pretext that civilians were suspected of planting roadside bombs, or of acting as spotters or “dickers”—a term used during the conflict in Northern Ireland—for armed fighters.
Soldiers shot civilians without evidence they posed a threat. One soldier stationed in southern Iraq claimed he and fellow troops were told they were allowed to shoot anyone who acted suspiciously. Simply holding a mobile telephone, carrying a shovel, or being on the roof of a building—a normal occurrence in the summer heat—constituted “acting suspiciously” and warranted shooting, mostly carried out at night.
According to military law experts and the 1977 Geneva Conventions, shooting civilians is only lawful if they are participating directly in hostilities. But with no precise definition of “direct participation”, civilians are expected to be given the benefit of the doubt. Under UK domestic law, which is applicable to the armed forces, a soldier can use force to defend him/herself and others, including lethal force, only provided that it is reasonable in the circumstances.
This relaxing of the rules of engagement resulted in “a killing spree.” One former soldier said he saw a significant number of fatal shootings of civilians in Basra, not all of whom he believed were keeping British troops under surveillance. He claimed that he and his fellow soldiers were promised that they would be protected in the event of any investigation by military police. He told the MEE, “Our commanders, they would tell us: ‘We will protect you if any investigation comes. Just say you genuinely thought your life was at risk—those words will protect you’.”
Another former soldier, who served in Basra in 2007, said that he “had never seen such lawlessness.” He added, “We were shooting old men, young men.” They were not expected to ask for permission before opening fire, he said. “Anyone you deem is a terrorist, you shoot them. But how could we know if they were a threat? Not all of them were dickers, some were just holding phones.”
A former Royal Marine who served in Helmand province in Afghanistan in 2008 said that although he had to issue verbal warnings to “dickers” before firing warning shots, this routine was not always followed. He cited an incident where his captain had shot an eight-year-old child, “under the impression they were dicking us.” The captain acknowledged he had not followed the rules and insisted upon reporting it to his superiors, even though they made it clear that if he said he had followed the rules of engagement, they would back him up regardless of whether he had or had not done so. “But”, he said, “The boss reported what he had done and was removed from the troop.”
The rules on shooting changed from time to time. One former soldier, who served in Helmand in 2010 with the Parachute Regiment, said that on arrival in the province he was told that he was no longer permitted to shoot civilians thought to be keeping troops under surveillance. “During our first briefing, we were told: ‘We are no longer shooting dickers.’ It was back to winning hearts and minds.”
The soldier said that British troops continued to shoot civilians, and even mounted a cover-up of the killing of two unarmed teenage boys. He and other soldiers had seen two youths approaching on a scooter. “The lieutenant who was in charge ordered that warning shots be fired. We were firing over their heads and then at the ground in front of them, but they just kept coming. They were laughing. I wondered whether they were high.” As they were riding away, a corporal decided to fire his machine gun at them. When the patrol discovered that both boys were unarmed, two Soviet-era weapons—an assault rifle and a machine gun—were taken from the base and placed beside their bodies and photographed.
The UK’s Royal Military Police have been investigating other claims that special forces troops planted weapons on a number of Afghan men who were shot dead during night raids on their homes.
Such was the anger over civilian casualties that they became a frequent source of contention between the coalition commanders and civilian authorities in Iraq and Afghanistan, prompting the US puppet Afghan President Hamid Karzai to speak out. While the US commander General Stanley McChrystal adopted a policy of so-called “courageous restraint”, under which forces were expected to use less firepower, British troops were soon complaining that they were being expected to fight the Taliban “with one hand tied behind our backs.”
Such crimes flow from the thoroughly predatory motives of the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, where there are still 1,000 and 1,400 British troops (fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria), respectively. The September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were seized upon as the pretext to take over these countries to secure domination over one of the world’s most strategic and resource-rich regions.
The murders made public by the Middle East Eye are a devastating exposure of the bloody role of British imperialism in Afghanistan and Iraq, whose civilians have alleged numerous incidents of abuse. Along with the hundreds of thousands of documents made public by WikiLeaks, they form the factual basis for a war crimes indictment of the leaders of the British government.
Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Gordon Brown and all the top military and foreign policy officials who served in the Labour governments that approved the wars and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, deserve to face an international war crimes tribunal. Their Conservative counterparts should stand in the dock alongside them.
The response of the British media is significant. None of the mainstream media outlets in Britain have mentioned Cobain’s findings. The only English-language media channels carrying reports were Al Jazeera and several Russian and Iranian channels.
The revelations of war crimes are also a warning to workers and youth. Such operations and policies are part of preparations for use at home. As well as deployments to new overseas neo-colonial wars, the armed forces will be used to suppress domestic unrest in the name of combatting the disruption caused by Brexit.
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson laid out proposals for a massive escalation of British militarism post-Brexit in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute. The UK must be ready to use “hard power to support our global interests,” he insisted. His speech in London Monday was framed around the need to confront Russia (mentioned 14 times), which was “rebuilding its military arsenal,” and China, which is “developing its modern military capability and its commercial power.” Quoting Winston Churchill on the necessity of British forces being able to develop “a reign of terror down enemy coasts,” Williamson declared that “Churchill’s vision” was now the goal for “our Royal Navy and for our Royal Marine Commandos.” Virtually any pretext could be used by Britain’s armed forces to go into combat, because the “very character of warfare itself is changing” as “boundaries between peace and war are becoming blurred”: here.