BRITISH GOVERNMENT TRIES TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF TORTURE IN GUANTANAMO

When governments, even democratically elected ones, face embarrassment or potential ridicule, they all do the same thing: clam up.

We see that with the British government. The British courts have ruled that information about torture of a British citizen previously held in Guantanamo must be released and made public. In response, the Foreign Office claims, all without any basis or reason, that the torture disclosures will harm British intelligence and national security.

Richard Norton-Taylor reports in The Guardian yesterday:

"A top Foreign Office official has accused high court judges of damaging Britain's national security by insisting that CIA evidence of British involvement in torture must be revealed. . . .

"In an unprecedented assault on the judiciary, he claims that demands by two judges that the CIA material should be disclosed have already harmed Britain's intelligence and diplomatic relations with the US. In a statement, Manley says the judges have "served to undermine confidence within the US in the UK's ability to protect the confidentiality of diplomatic exchanges and will inevitably have a negative impact on the candour of their exchanges with UK officials"."

So the British government is claiming that because the United States government wants to keep all these dark doings a secret, that it too has a right to conceal what the Americans did to one of its citizens. There is of course no basis in the law for allowing a government to cloak its evil doings in secret. Just because the information, if released, has the potential to diminish the reputation of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown is of no legal consequence. Those leaders who approved, endorsed and implemented methods of torture cannot escape the glare of publicity by claiming "national security" as a reason to continue refusing to disclose.

Writes Norton-Taylor:

"The judges rejected the foreign secretary's claims that disclosing evidence of unlawful treatment would harm national security and threaten the UK's vital intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US. "The suppression of reports of wrongdoing by officials in circumstances which cannot in any way affect national security is inimical to the rule of law," they ruled. "In our view, as a court in the United Kingdom, a vital public interest requires … that a summary of the most important evidence relating to the involvement of the British security services in wrongdoing be placed in the public domain … Championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, is the cornerstone of democracy.""

That's exactly what American leaders and now British leaders are trying to do: hide wrongdoings in the cloak of national intelligence and national security. Why? Because they know that the whole world would condemn them and their actions of torture once the veil is lifted.

"The judges made it clear they were exasperated by the attitude of the foreign secretary and British officials. There was no "rational basis" for claims made by Miliband and Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, that disclosure of the CIA material would put British lives at risk."

We always say, no one is above the law. But government leaders are always trying to prove the statement wrong if their honesty, reputation or wrongdoings are apt to be disclosed.

BRITISH INQUIRY ON IRAQ WAR WILL HEAR TESTIMONY OPEN TO PUBLIC

Good news. Sir John Chilcot, head of the British inquiry on the causes and reasons for the Iraq War, has decided that evidence be taken in public. This means that former PM Tony Blair will give evidence in public regarding his decision to have the U.K. join Bush and the U.S. in the disastrous invasion of Iraq. I say "disastrous, because over 600,000 Iraqis lost their lives, not counting the lives of 4,600+ Americans and the 150+ British who were part of the military invasion and occupation.

Nicholas Watt reports the story for The Guardian today:

"In a setback for Brown, who had hoped the inquiry would be held in private, Sir John Chilcot has ruled that all witnesses will be expected to give evidence in public. This will apply across the board unless there are "compelling reasons" in a small number of cases for evidence to be heard in private. This would be if evidence could jeopardise national security or upset allies."

Originally, Gordon Brown had signaled that the inquiry would take evidence and testimony in private. Reportedly, Tony Blair wanted private hearings because he feared that opening them to the public would amount to a "show trial" of his own decisions in going along with Bush and Cheney.

Writes Watt:

"The prospect of public grillings for Brown and Blair shows how the prime minister's plans for the inquiry have been dramatically changed since it was established last week. On 15 June Brown told MPs that the inquiry would be modelled on the Franks inquiry into the 1982 Falklands war, which met in private. He said: "I believe that that will also ensure that evidence given by serving and former ministers, military officers and officials is as full and candid as possible.""

Still, the testimony from Tony Blair and others will not be under oath. This is indeed unfortunate, because we have seen how Bush and Cheney managed to avoid sworn testimony when talking to the 9/11 Commission.

OPEN BRITISH INQUIRY RE WAR IN IRAQ TO THE PUBLIC

This Wednesday at Prime Minister's Questions, British MPs are going to debate the controversial order of PM Gordon Brown to conduct an closed-door inquiry into the intelligence and decisions that took Britain into war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

The key question is why Brown has ordered the inquiry and hearing to be closed to the public. Obviously, Brown desires to keep the truth from the British public. This reminds me of Pres. Obama's current attempt to conceal photos of prisoners being subjected to the harsh interrogation methods approved by George Bush and Dick Cheney. There is no legitimate reason why Brown should want the hearings closed other than to prevent the world from seeing Blair's fawning acceptance of Bush's crazed and illegal policies.

Toby Helm and Gaby Hinsliff write in yesterday's The Guardian:

"Tony Blair urged Gordon Brown to hold the independent inquiry into the Iraq war in secret because he feared that he would be subjected to a "show trial" if it were opened to the public, the Observer can reveal.

"The revelation that the former prime minister - who led Britain to war in March 2003 - had intervened will fuel the anger of MPs, peers, military leaders and former civil servants, who were appalled by Brown's decision last week to order the investigation to be conducted behind closed doors."

I don't think the British public is going to allow Gordon Brown to proceed behind closed doors. There is too much awareness in Britain that Tony Blair was George Bush's poodle, that he let himself be led around on Bush's leash, and that he was overwhelmed by the prospect of disagreeing with the then U.S. administration.

STOP FOOLISH TALK ABOUT ATTACKING IRAN

Everytime that Bush, Cheney or one of their minions like Condoleeza Rice threatens Iran, the price of oil and gold go up. Apart from this financial effect, the far worse effect of this war mongering is that these guys might cause a nuclear war in the Middle East.

Instead of using tanks and war planes as the primary instrument of U.S. foreign policy, we need to look on other countries as friends, not "enemies." This means the Obama plan of sitting down and simply talking. No country should be threatened by U.S. bully military power. Every country, including Iran, has the right to peaceful use of nuclear power.

Even Gordon Brown, British prime minister, should back off from the threats. Today he said that Iran was pursuing development of nuclear weapons.

The BBC reports on his speech:

"Mr Brown stressed: "Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear weapons programme and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response, not just of one nation, but of all nations round the world." "

Gordon Brown shows no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons or that it has a "nuclear weapons programme." To the contrary the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate last December opined that Iran had discontinued any nuclear arms development back in 2002. By saying the opposite without any proof, Gordon Brown throws gasoline into the firestorm being fanned by Bush, Cheney and Rice.

BUSH DOMINATES EUROPEAN "LEADERS" - THEY PARROT BUSH'S ANTI-IRANIAN THREATS

It amazes me to think that the lame duck George Bush has obtained the support of the major European leaders in his bullying of Iran over its nuclear development. Merkel, Sarkozy and now Brown. These "leaders" turn out to be abject followers, and George Bush turns out to be their dominator. Talk about Tony Blair being Bush's poodle. The present leaders especially Gordon Brown are but Bush's toads.

The BBC reports:

"Mr Brown said Britain would urge Europe to impose "further sanctions" on Iran and Europe would take action to freeze the overseas assets of the country's biggest bank and impose new sanctions on oil and gas.

"President Bush thanked Mr Brown for his "strong statement" and added: "The Iranians must understand that when we come together and speak with one voice we are serious.""

We have seen all this bluster and threatening talk before from Bush preceding the invasion and war in Iraq. Let's hope time prevents the bully Bush and his suck-ups from doing even worse as to Iran.

JIMMY CARTER CRITICIZES EUROPEAN LEADERS FOR NOT DENOUNCING ISRAEL'S UNJUST TREATMENT OF PALESTINIANS

The Guardian has an article by Jonathan Steele and Jonathan Freedland about former president Jimmy Carter criticizing a "supine" Europe for failing to protest the Israeli blockade of Palestinians in Gaza.

Write Steele and Freedland:

"Britain and other European governments should break from the US over the international embargo on Gaza, former US president Jimmy Carter told the Guardian yesterday. Carter, visiting the Welsh border town of Hay for the Guardian literary festival, described the EU's position on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as "supine" and its failure to criticise the Israeli blockade of Gaza as "embarrassing"."

Carter is the only American out there who is not afraid to go up against the powerful Israeli lobby and denounce Israel's unjust and criminal collective punishment of the Palestinians.

Steele and Freedland report more on Carter's speech:

"The blockade on Hamas-ruled Gaza, imposed by the US, EU, UN and Russia - the so-called Quartet - after the organisation's election victory in 2006, was "one of the greatest human rights crimes on Earth," since it meant the "imprisonment of 1.6 million people, 1 million of whom are refugees". "Most families in Gaza are eating only one meal per day. To see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing," Carter said."

Carter brings up a subject upon which European leaders such as Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown have been strangely silent. And how about the silence of former prime minister Tony Blair? He has a job of trying to bring peace to Palestine, yet he has remained incommunicado. Why hasn't he spoken up as Carter? Europe's leaders are a milquetoast bunch. They loudly protest against Iran's development of nuclear power but they are mute when it comes to Israel's enforcement of collective punishment.