Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit

Les Roberts
The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health

The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide

Published: 14 February 2007

On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq.

The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement.

There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous.

Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline.

And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10.

There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced.

Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available.

The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press.

Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces.

The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests?

If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people?

For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial.

Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out?

How long can BAE, Britain's biggest arms company, run a secret service and trump the armed forces?

The parallel universe of BAE: covert, dangerous and beyond the rule of law

How long can Britain's biggest arms company run a secret service and trump the armed forces in political influence?

George Monbiot
Tuesday February 13, 2007
The Guardian

There is a state within a state in the United Kingdom, a small but untouchable domain that appears to be subject to a different set of laws. We have heard quite a bit about it over the past two months, but hardly anyone knows just how far its writ runs. The state is BAE Systems, Britain's biggest arms company. It seems, among other advantages, to be able to run its own secret service.

This week, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) hopes to obtain a court order against BAE. The order would allow it to discover how the arms company obtained one of its confidential documents. CAAT instructed its lawyers, Leigh Day & Co, to seek a judicial review of the government's decision to drop the corruption case against BAE, which is alleged to have paid massive bribes to members of the Saudi royal family. Leigh Day sent CAAT an email containing advice on costs and tactics. The email ended up in the hands of the arms company.

How? Correspondence between a plaintiff and his lawyers couldn't be more private. The last people you would show it to are the defendants in the case. But somehow the letter found its way to BAE's offices.

The arms company argues that it was the unwitting and unwilling recipient of the email. So why does it refuse to tell CAAT who sent it? Why, far from assisting CAAT's attempt to explain this mystery, has it threatened the group with costs for seeking to reveal BAE's source?

CAAT has good reason to be suspicious. In 2003, the Sunday Times revealed that BAE had carried out a "widespread spying operation" on its critics. "Bank accounts were accessed, computer files downloaded and private correspondence with members of parliament and ministers secretly copied and passed on." The paper said the arms company made use of a network run by a former consultant for the Ministry of Defence called Evelyn Le Chene. "Le Chene recruited at least half a dozen agents to infiltrate CAAT's headquarters at Finsbury Park, north London, and a number of regional offices." They provided BAE with advanced intelligence on CAAT's campaign against the sale of its Hawk aircraft to the Suharto dictatorship in Indonesia. The arms company also obtained CAAT's membership list, its bank account details, the identity of its donors, its letters to ministers, even the contents of private diaries belonging to its staff.

After the story was published, CAAT asked a team of investigators to examine the messages sent from its offices. They found that one of the group's most senior members of staff, the national campaigns and events coordinator, had sent 181 emails to an unfamiliar address. Many of them contained extremely sensitive information.

The coordinator, Martin Hogbin, denied that he was an agent of Le Chene's. He claimed that the mysterious email address belonged to a former CAAT volunteer, and that he had been sending him this information because he might find it interesting.

The investigators contacted the former volunteer, who told them that he had not received any messages from Hogbin, and did not recognise the address. CAAT took the case to the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner, who found that the email address belonged to "a company with links to Evelyn Le Chene". Both Le Chene and Hogbin refused to assist the investigations. If it was true that Hogbin was working for Le Chene, it would be a tremendous coup for her and her clients. As campaigns and events coordinator, he knew more than anyone else about CAAT's plans. If BAE were to obtain and make use of such intelligence, it could anticipate and outmanoeuvre the Campaign's attempts to expose or embarrass it.

BAE's spying operations represent just one way in which the company looks like a parallel state. It also appears to enjoy crown immunity. Last August, this column suggested that the Saudi corruption case might be dropped, in order to protect a new order for 72 BAE jets. It was not a hard prediction to make - Saudi Arabia had made the new deal conditional on the abandonment of the case. But I could not have guessed that both the attorney general and the prime minister would make such a show of squashing the investigation. They seemed to go out of their way to demonstrate to BAE's clients that they would do whatever it took to protect the new order, even if it meant exposing themselves to allegations of collusion.

The prime minister has never taken such a risk on behalf of one of his departments, let alone his ministers or officials (witness how Lord Levy and Ruth Turner have been left to swing). There are just two friends for whom he will put his legacy on the line: George Bush and BAE.

In 2001, Blair overruled Clare Short and Gordon Brown to grant an export licence for BAE's sale of a military air-traffic control system to one of the world's poorest countries, Tanzania. The World Bank had pointed out that the contract was ridiculously expensive - Tanzania could have bought a better system elsewhere for a quarter of the price. In January the Guardian revealed that BAE Systems allegedly paid a $12m (£6.2m) "commission" to an agent who brokered the deal.

In 2005, Blair made a secret visit to Riyadh to expedite BAE's deal with the Saudi princes. He then sent both John Reid and Des Browne to clinch the order. Ministers in the UK have always acted as unpaid salesmen for the arms companies, but seldom has a prime minister muddied his hands this much. Blair pushed the order through by promising the Saudis that they could have the first 24 planes ahead of schedule. How? By selling them the jets already allotted to the RAF. BAE's interests, in other words, trump the requirements of our own armed forces.

Blair has also broken his government's pledge to publish the report by the National Audit Office on BAE's dealings in Saudi Arabia. It remains the only NAO report never to have been made public. We can only guess why the prime minister needs to protect it.

It could be argued, with some force, that this government has always had a special relationship with big business, rather like its special relationship with George Bush (it gets beaten up and thanks him for it). But the special favours it grants BAE are deeply resented by other corporations. After the suppression of the Saudi case, F&C Asset Management, a very large institutional investor, wrote to the government to complain that its decision undermined the rule of law and the predictability of the investment climate. Hermes, Britain's biggest pension fund, said that it threatened the UK's reputation as a leading financial centre, and the chairman of Anglo-American wrote that the abandonment of the case "damaged the reputation of Britain".

At what point does the government conclude that this company has got out of control? That it presents a danger to national interests, to the reputation of the prime minister, to the privacy and civil liberties of its opponents? Why does it appear to be above the law? For how much longer will it be permitted to run what looks like a parallel secret service? Of all the questions we might ask of our ministers, these are the least likely to be answered.

George Monbiot is the author of the bestselling books The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order and Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man’s Land.

He has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics) and East London (environmental science). He is currently visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University. In 1995 Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has also won the Lloyds National Screenwriting Prize for his screenplay The Norwegian, a Sony Award for radio production, the Sir Peter Kent Award and the OneWorld National Press Award. A full archive of his articles, with references, is available at www.monbiot.com.

Faking the case for war: "Explosively formed penetrators" rebranded UK shells, and not Iranian?

Submitted by lambert on Mon, 2007-02-12 08:30.

Alert reader Phoenixwoman writes:

Looks like that “slam-dunk” evidence that Iran is arming Iraqi insurgents is not so slam-dunk after all. NewsHog has the scoop, here and here.

For one thing, the lettering and numbering isn’t in Farsi (the language used by Iranians); for another, the UK uses 81MM shells, and Iran would be much more likely to use Soviet-style 82MM shells.

In addition: As a commenter at NewsHog noted, the UK uses shells of that type, so there’s a strong likelihood that this was grabbed out of a Brit ammo dump in Iraq, given a cursory rebranding, and then ‘found’ in an insurgents’ den.

Fakes? Say it isn’t so!

I’ve always felt that the lesson the Republicans would have drawn from the WMD fiasco was to actually fake the evidence, instead of just faking the case for war.

Disinformation | Iraq Clusterfuck | Department of How Stupid Do They Think We Are?

» Corrente front page | lambert's blog

URGENT! Emergency Vigil for al-Aqsa outside 10 Downing Street tomorrow

From: Palestine Solidarity Campaign NEWS

Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 3:58 AM

Subject: URGENT! Emergency Vigil for al-Aqsa outside 10 Downing Street tomorrow Saturday


URGENT! Vigil for al-Aqsa outside 10 Downing Street


This week in Jerusalem, Israeli troops began demolishing a part of the structure along the wall of al-Aqsa Sanctuary, known as the Meghribi [Moroccan] Gate. This has given rise to increased tensions in and around Jerusalem, and the many protests by Palestinians has gone unnoticed internationally. The destruction of Islamic holy sites constitutes a flagrant violation of International Humanitarian Law and International Law, especially the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which prohibits the destruction of civilian properties.


Friends of Al-Aqsa calls upon everyone to attend a vigil outside 10 Downing Street demanding that the government asks for an immediate cessation to this violation.


DATE: Saturday 10th February

TIME: 4pm - 6pm

VENUE: 10 Downing Street


Supported by the British Muslim Initiative, PRC, IHRC, PSC and others.


Please circulate widely.


**************************

For more information on events, protests and news about Palestine in the UK please visit:

www.palestinecampaign.org


***********************************************

Palestine Solidarity Campaign

info@palestinecampaign.org

www.palestinecampaign.org

Tel: 020 7700

Is it too cynical to suggest that the government may have inspired tales of counter-terrorism plots, mass kidnapping and tethered goats?

Scare stories

Richard Norton-Taylor

February 8, 2007 04:36 PM

If we believed the media reports, the police and MI5 have thwarted a devastating plot to kidnap 25 targets, including a Muslim servicemen on leave. The Ministry of Defence had come up with a plan whereby soldiers would act as "tethered goats" to lure the kidnappers.

But the plot was nipped in the bud by what the Home Office described a "major counter-terrorism operation", leading to the highly-publicised dawn arrests of nine Muslims in Birmingham last week. The Maktabah Islamic bookshop was sealed. Other targets included the Blades Cyber Cafe, and the Khan General Store. The police described the arrests as "the foothills of a very major investigation". Yesterday, two of the nine men were released by order of a district judge.

Stories about mass kidnapping and tethered goats are not invented by journalists. They - we - are fed them by "sources" with an agenda and who, of course, remain anonymous. It is all very easy.

It is made easier because, officially, the security and intelligence agencies, the police, and the Home Office, make no comment about anti-terrorist operations, not least because of the danger of prejudicing the jury at any future trial. But the temptation to indulge in the dark art of black propaganda is too great.

Who inspired the lurid tales surrounding the Birmingham arrests will never be known. It is unlikely, however, to have been officers in MI5 or the police anti-terrorist branch in the forefront of the operation. Such stories can sabotage their investigations as well as the gathering of evidence. And it does not endear them to members of the Muslim community, on whose cooperation they say they rely.

Would the government be above inspiring such stories? Certainly, in the past, ministers, including Tony Blair, have played politics with security by praying MI5 and the police in aid of his demand, for example, that suspects should be held without charge for 90 days, as opposed to the present 28-day limit.

And if those arrested have to be released when the 28 days are up for lack of evidence, then the government can argue that this is further proof that 28 days are not enough. Maybe this is too cynical an observation. Whether it is or not, such scare stories are increasingly dangerous and, in the end, counter-productive.

Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security editor.

Freed kidnap suspect: my terror at police raid

Steven Morris
Thursday February 8, 2007
The Guardian


The minaret of Birmingham central mosque. Photograph: Martin Godwin

One of the men arrested during the Birmingham terror raids launched a blistering attack last night on the authorities for the way he was seized, held for a week and questioned for barely four hours about apparently trivial matters.

Abu Bakr, a 27-year-old English teacher and bookshop worker, told the Guardian how his wife screamed in terror as police burst into their house at dawn on January 31 and took him away in handcuffs.

At no point during his detention did officers question him about the alleged plot to kidnap and behead a Muslim soldier, he said. He added that he was friends with only one of the eight other men arrested in the high-profile raids last week and believed he and the other men were "pawns" in a higher political game.

Mr Bakr, one of two men released in the early hours yesterday, said he felt "stigmatised" by what had happened and claimed a white person would not have been treated in the same way.

He said: "It's been like a funeral in my house. My father and mother have aged 10 to 15 years. I don't think I understand yet how it's affected my wife and children."

Mr Bakr, who has two children, a boy, six, and girl, four, said the first he knew of the dawn raid on his home in the Sparkbrook area of the city was when his wife started screaming. "I immediately looked to see if the police were armed and thought about what happened at Forest Gate. I thought there was going to be a shot. There was a copper there and I said to him: 'Don't humiliate my family'. An Asian guy read me my rights. They then handcuffed me and put me in a police car and the guy spoke on the radio and mentioned 'Operation Gamble'."

West Midlands police defended last week's raid and ongoing investigation, saying it was not uncommon for people to be released without charge at this stage of an operation.

Mr Bakr said he had been told he was arrested under anti-terrorism legislation. "I thought, if they take me to Paddington Green it must be serious. When they took me to Coventry I thought it couldn't be so bad."

He said he was questioned no more than four times, and for no more than an hour each time.

"It was farcical. I was questioned for seven days but not once did they put these allegations about a plot to kidnap and behead a soldier to me. They were doing things like putting a piece of paper in front of me - a note, a scribble by one of my children, a jacket, a hat - and asking me about it. My solicitor advised me to make no comment so that's what I did. It felt a bit amateurish like they didn't really know what they were doing."

Mr Bakr, a tall, bespectacled English teacher who is studying for a master's degree and works in the Maktabah bookshop which was also raided, said he read George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier to pass the time while he was held.

He said he "kept on asking" why he was there. "You can't comprehend how confusing it all was. I didn't know what it was all about until I got out this morning. I've been on the internet catching up with all the crap that was being alleged.

"Look, I've always been a bit of a cynic. I've always thought there's no smoke without fire. In this case there is no fire at all.

"We were arrested at 4am. Within a few hours everyone was talking about this plot to behead a soldier. I feel angry. Why have we been used in this way? We are pawns in some kind of bigger game."

Mr Bakr said he was a friend of the other man who was released yesterday - a 19-year-old who is training to be a plumber. He knew one other of the men arrested through football - but did not know any of the other six at all. "They showed me photos of them. I had no idea who they were."

Mr Bakr said he was not scared. "With the help of god, I wasn't. I knew my conscience was clear."

Third mail bomb attack in Britain

Third letter bomb injures woman in Wales
Xinhua - 51 minutes ago
BEIJING, Feb. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- BBC News reported Wednesday a woman was injured when a parcel bomb exploded at Britain's vehicle licensing agency in Swansea, Wales, although police refused to confirm the nature of the explosion.
Third mail bomb attack in Britain The Australian
UK Driving License Center Attacked With Letter Bomb (Update4) Bloomberg

Tape may change way US fights

© Steve Bell 2007 steve.bell@guardian.co.uk

UK took part in friendly fire inquiry MoD denied videotape's existence. Tape may change way US fights Five errors that led to disaster Old technology, poor training Comment: Geoffrey Wheatcroft Leader: Justice not secrecy

Woman hurt in 'letter bomb' blast

Last Updated: Monday, 5 February 2007, 12:35 GMT

A woman has received minor injuries in a "small" explosion at an office building in central London.

BBC Home Affairs correspondent Daniel Sandford said what was thought to be a letter bomb was found at the Capita building in Victoria Street, Victoria.

London Ambulance said a female employee had been taken to hospital for treatment to her injuries.

Bomb disposal experts were at the scene and Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism command was investigating.

The scene is just 200 yards from Scotland Yard's headquarters. The Capita building remains closed off, but a cordon on Victoria Street has now been lifted.

One female employee was injured and taken to a local hospital...her injuries are fairly minor Chief Supt Ian Thomas

Chief Supt Ian Thomas, of the Metropolitan Police, speaking at the scene, said: "At about 9.40am emergency services were called to the offices behind us following reports of a small explosion.

"We are still investigating the cause of that explosion and the Met Counter Terrorism Command are looking at all the issues involved.

"One female employee was injured and taken to a local hospital and while this is a very traumatic incident for her, her injuries are fairly minor."

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the counter-terrorism group was leading the inquiry "as a matter of procedure for an incident involving an explosion of this nature".

The Capita Group is a leading business out-sourcing company which runs London's congestion charge system among other services.

All six floors of the office were evacuated.

A spokesman for the company said: "Capita can confirm that a small incident took place at its Victoria street office this morning involving an incendiary device.

"The police have asked us to make no further comment at this time as their investigation is proceeding."

Ben Hetchin, an eye-witness, said: "At first we thought, presumed, it was a fire alert, as we often get, but then a woman was led out with her hands bandaged like a boxing glove, totally covered.

"She looked shocked and shaken, nervous. They then ushered us away behind the police cordon and two firemen said that it was a letter bomb on Victoria Street."

The location of the blast is less than a mile from the Houses of Parliament, Victoria Station and Westminster Abbey.

Are you caught up in the area? Did you see anything? Send us your experiences using the form below.

You can send your pictures and moving footage to yourpics@bbc.co.uk or text them to 61124

When taking photos or filming please do not endanger yourself or others, take unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.

Name:

Email address:

Town and Country:

Phone number (optional):

Comments:

Breaking News Alert: One injured after 'package blast'

Police are investigating after a suspicious package reportedly exploded in Victoria Street, central London - one woman has been injured.

U.K.: Banks living on borrowed time

Banks living on borrowed time

As insolvencies climb, Heather Connon questions lenders' optimism on bad debts

Sunday February 4, 2007
The Observer

When the high-street banks report their results over the next month or so, virtually all are expected to announce a drop in bad debt provisions. Yet, according to last week's statistics, the number of people becoming insolvent rose by almost 60 per cent last year - and experts are predicting a further 20 per cent increase this year - while house repossessions are also rising sharply.

There is little doubt that a growing number of people (107,000 last year) are having difficulty repaying credit cards and other unsecured loans, but far more of us are still increasing our borrowings. However, instead of splurging on credit cards we are adding our debts to our mortgages. Mortgage borrowing rose by a fifth last year, to more than £360bn, and the Council of Mortgage Lenders expects a further rise this year; credit card borrowing, by contrast, fell 2 per cent to £120bn. Unsecured lending on cards and other personal loans represents just 17 per cent of the £1.3 trillion personal debt total.

Article continues
And that means rising house prices - up 9.3 per cent last year - continue to bail out most borrowers and their banks. While repossessions are high - 17,000 in 2006 - they are still less than a quarter of their 1991 peak, and the number of borrowers in arrears is actually falling. 'The UK consumer has been fairly sensible in what he is doing, looking at secured, not unsecured, lending,' says Ian Poulter, banking analyst at brokerage Teather & Greenwood. By remortgaging, consumers can transfer their credit card debts to secured loans, buying not only time but also lower interest rates.

Of course, that helps only if you own a house and can carry on paying the mortgage. For the minority not in that lucky position, the insolvency statistics suggest that life could well be getting tougher.

The increasingly acrimonious disputes between banks and the debt management companies that have sprung up to help us deal with our borrowings is already having an impact. Individual voluntary arrangements, under which borrowers agree to repay some of their debts over five years, all but stagnated in the last quarter of 2006. That reflects the fact that some lenders are taking an increasingly hard line on approving IVAs. Northern Rock and HSBC, for example, say they will not approve deals that give back less than 40p for every £1 they are owed (a substantially higher threshold than the industry norm of 25p); credit card company MBNA is taking a similarly hard line, while some lenders refuse to consider such arrangements.

Judging by statistics from The Insolvency Exchange (TIX), set up in November to advise lenders on negotiations with insolvency practitioners, there is good reason for banks to be suspicious. TIX has already signed up HBOS and HSBC, which means it sees about 70 per cent of all IVA proposals, and it found that fees vary from £1,500 to £15,000. TIX rejects a quarter of all proposals, and asks for modifications on a further 65 per cent of them. Chief executive Mark Onyett says he expects the firm to have an impact: 'It could weed out the good and the not so good - who is giving good advice to debtors and who is managing the IVA through the life cycle.'

TIX's research also highlights the perils of those seeking an IVA: the majority of people whose cases it sees have annual incomes of £12,000-£15,000, and, says Onyett, 'quite a lot have debts of more than three times their income'. That, says John Hall, chief executive of debt management company Invocas, underlines the fact that the banks have only themselves to blame. 'They brought on their own problems: the UK economy has been kept going on consumer spending.'

For the moment, they are being bailed out by a buoyant housing market and low unemployment. Even with the recent interest rate rises, few are expecting repossessions to reach the levels of the last housing downturn. But if the economic climate cools, banks could be stuck with a painful bad debt headache.

At debt's door

Two of the largest providers of IVAs, Debt Free Direct and Accuma, issued surprise profit warnings last month.

While Accuma said approval rates had climbed back from 78 to 85 per cent, its shares remain less than half their price two weeks ago. The problem is not just the hard line being taken by some banks; rather it is that the sector's rapid growth and generous fees have attracted too much competition. Some customers, too, may be deterred by recent bad press.

Captain America calls it friendly fire. We call it murder

Jasper Gerard
Sunday February 4, 2007
The Observer

You can see where America is coming from: having killed so many in Iraq - some innocent, some not - is it worth making a fuss about one more? The one more is Lance Corporal Matty Hull of Windsor. He died four years ago in a so-called 'blue on blue' killing, which has usurped that other laughably hollow euphemism: 'friendly fire'. A pair of circling American A-10 tankbuster planes opened fire on the Household Cavalry troop in 2003 and Hull died of multiple injuries in his blazing Scimitar armoured truck. So far, so Iraq.

---

---

But now it emerges there is a cockpit recording of the incident which America refuses to allow our - visibly furious - coroner to play in court. This despite the tape's crucial importance, as it is said to contain 'incriminating' information, including the line: 'Someone's going to jail for this.'

Susan, Hull's widow, is rather keen to hear it. Alas, our Ministry of Defence is complicit in a cover-up. Not merely because it will not let the Oxfordshire coroner flick the 'play' switch until America gives permission, but because, scandalously, for four years it has denied 'categorically' that any such recording exists, knowing this to be a lie. The MoD claims to be 'in discussions' with America, but that promises quite a phone bill. How many years can one conversation take?

Hitherto, Des Browne, bumbling Defence Secretary, has escaped parliamentary gunfire because even Mrs Browne would struggle to put a face to him. But if he can't ensure this tape is admissible when the inquest reconvenes later this month, shouldn't he be fired in a manner most unfriendly?

And what of America? It claims the right to try foreign nationals in foreign countries for 'crimes' defined by American law. It requires Britain to extradite suspects while failing to ratify a treaty that would let us try Americans, such as those who kill our citizens. So often, British ministers plead with this administration to show some slight consideration that would make our support for the Iraq war easier, but usually they are rebuffed.

And so, while George and Tony smile on deck suggesting a chipper Anglo-American relationship, below, the good ship Atlantic slowly sinks. Not only are their policies in Iraq diverging - Britain pulling out, America pushing in - but British hearts are hardening.

Proof came last week when William Hague called on Britain to be less slavish. Hague! If the American ambassador gives a damn about British domestic opinion, he must have choked on his pretzel.

Hague was the arch-Atlanticist who urged war in Iraq - not, primarily, because he gave much of a hoot about Iraq - but because he believed the world tends to be safer when Britain acts in consort with America.

The sadness is that with a Democrat Congress and - we hope - a less ideological President, American activism and interventionism could become a more consensual force for good in the world once again. But that might be too late for Britain. It certainly is for Lance Corporal Hull.

Don’t Flirt with the Occupation - February 10th Mass Demonstration Against Carmel-Agrexco in London

January 31st, 2007

Agrexco is Israel’s largest exporter of fresh agricultural produce. The company is 50% owned by the Israeli state. Agrexco accounts for 70% ofIsraeli fresh produce sold abroad with annual sales of $750 million in 2006. Agrexco boast of being able to get produce to European markets within 24 hours.

The Valentines Day period is one of Agrexco UK’s busiest times as the company deals with large amounts of fresh flowers from Israel and the settlements.

The Boycott Israeli Goods campaign is planning a mass picket of the depot on Saturday February 10th in opposition to the sale of Israeli goods and in support of Palestinian farmers who are not able to market their goods internationally

In the UK Agrexco is known under the Carmel, Coral and Jaffa brands. The UK is the most important foreign market for Israeli fresh produce. Agrexco exports a wide range of produce to the UK including peppers, tomatoes, strawberries, herbs, spices, flowers and avocados.

Agrexco is the largest exporter of settlement produce for sale overseas. Much of this produce comes from colonies in the Jordan Valley. Carmel Agrexco hgave had dealings with the colonies of Tomer, Mehola, Hamra, Ro’i, Massua, Patzael, Mekhora, Netiv Ha-Gdud and Bet Ha-Arava.

Palestinian workers in the settlements suffer much worse working conditions and receive half the pay of Israelis.

Carmel-Agrexco’s UK depot has been blockaded 3 times by Palestinian solidarity activists.

Palestinians are calling for the solidarity movement to take action against Carmel Agrexco. 180 Palestinian organisations and unions, in response to the Israeli onslaught, have called for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Apartheid Israel.

Meet at 11am, (Bridge Place, Behind Victoria Station, Opposite UK Passport Office, outside the Hisperia Hotel) Central London, for transport to Agrexco’s depot in Middlesex.

Meet at Carmel, Swallowfield Way, Hayes at 1pm (see map) if you are making your own way there. Email boycott@palestinecampaign.org to let us know you are coming.

Posted in Press Releases, International Actions, Boycott & sanctions

*******************************

Click here for YNet report on Israeli flower exports.

by Boycott Israeli Goods

Inquest told of deliberate US attack on British convoy

Inquest told of 'rogue' US attack on British convoy

Matthew Taylor
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

A group of British soldiers yesterday described their frantic attempts to stop an attack on their convoy by "rogue" US warplanes that left one dead and four injured.

Oxfordshire coroner's court heard that two US A10 planes opened fire on a patrol in southern Iraq in March 2003, killing Lance Corporal of Horse Mattie Hull three days before his 26th birthday.

Yesterday his colleagues told the court that the "friendly fire" incident had happened on a clear day as they patrolled an area about 30 miles north-west of Basra.

---

---

Staff Corporal Ashley Bell said there had been a flash as the first attack started. He had immediately radioed forward air control with the "Stop, stop, stop" instruction but had been told the planes were being flown by "rogue US pilots".

"[The controller] could not contact the US pilots because they had switched frequencies and were talking to each other."

Soldiers in the five-vehicle convoy released smoke canisters to identify them to friendly pilots. The smoke was visible as one of the planes returned at low level and attacked a second time.

L/Cpl Steven Gerrard said: "Something exploded, there was just a massive flash ... I just shouted to everyone to get out."

L/Cpl Chris Finney, 19, who was awarded the George Cross, went back to the burning wreckage twice in an attempt to rescue his colleagues. He said: "At first there were sparks everywhere and the vehicles stopped, they obviously had been stopped by something. I couldn't actually see what had hit us or where from." He realised there were still people inside as he took cover. He said: "I looked back at my vehicle to see my gunner trying to get out."

The Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner, Andrew Walker, said the gunner was suffering from a large leg wound. L/Cpl Finney, then a trooper with just one year's experience, pulled him out of the burning vehicle and gave him medical treatment.

As he did so, he was aware that a type of smoke used by coalition forces to indicate a friendly fire incident had been released. "I was still with my gunner on the floor at this point, and the plane came back into view to start its second run."

The inquest heard that although he had been injured he went back to L/Cpl Hull's tank to try to save whoever was inside, but flames forced him back.

Despite requests by the coroner and the British government, the pilots of the US planes that shot Corporal Hull have never been publicly named and will not attend the inquest.

The inquest continues.

US and Britain are in denial over failed policy, says former envoy

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor

Published: 20 November 2006


Iraq needs a new government to begin a process of national reconciliation leading to the withdrawal of foreign troops, because the US, Britain and Iraqi leaders are in a "state of denial" about their failed policy, a former UN envoy to the country says.

"There is a refusal to accept that the so-called process is not working. It collapsed a long time ago. They should sit down and put something else up. What we need is a serious attempt at national reconciliation that has never taken place," said Lakhdar Brahimi, the Algerian diplomat who put together the first blueprint for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Mr Brahimi, who has testified to the Iraq Study Group led by the former US secretary of state James Baker, emphasised that he was speaking in his personal capacity.

"On the departure of troops, frankly in the UK and US most of the time people are talking about solving the US/UK problem, not solving the Iraqi problem," he said. In the context of a national reconciliation programme, a temporary increase in troops may prove necessary, he said, but "part of that process will have to be a solemn, unequivocal, clear commitment to withdrawal and that there will be no more military bases in Iraq. Whether withdrawal takes place in six to eight months, or all at once, that would be part of the big negotiations."

He added that "what is very, very disturbing is that the militias killing Iraqis are actually in the government. In other words part of the government is part of the problem." He also warned that allowing Iraq to break up into three parts, as advocated by some politicians and commentators in the US and Britain, would produce "chaos, first inside Iraq, and then all over the region".

Mr Brahimi said the US and the UK should consult Iran and Syria on ending the violence in Iraq, but he warned that these two states alone do not hold a "miracle solution". All of Iraq's neighbours, including Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Arab League, should be involved in a negotiated solution, he said.

Asked whether the "window of opportunity" had already closed for Iraq, Mr Brahimi replied: "It's never totally closed. The thing is to know how to reopen it, but after how many thousands more are dead?"

Iraq needs a new government to begin a process of national reconciliation leading to the withdrawal of foreign troops, because the US, Britain and Iraqi leaders are in a "state of denial" about their failed policy, a former UN envoy to the country says.

"There is a refusal to accept that the so-called process is not working. It collapsed a long time ago. They should sit down and put something else up. What we need is a serious attempt at national reconciliation that has never taken place," said Lakhdar Brahimi, the Algerian diplomat who put together the first blueprint for the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Mr Brahimi, who has testified to the Iraq Study Group led by the former US secretary of state James Baker, emphasised that he was speaking in his personal capacity.

"On the departure of troops, frankly in the UK and US most of the time people are talking about solving the US/UK problem, not solving the Iraqi problem," he said. In the context of a national reconciliation programme, a temporary increase in troops may prove necessary, he said, but "part of that process will have to be a solemn, unequivocal, clear commitment to withdrawal and that there will be no more military bases in Iraq. Whether withdrawal takes place in six to eight months, or all at once, that would be part of the big negotiations."
He added that "what is very, very disturbing is that the militias killing Iraqis are actually in the government. In other words part of the government is part of the problem." He also warned that allowing Iraq to break up into three parts, as advocated by some politicians and commentators in the US and Britain, would produce "chaos, first inside Iraq, and then all over the region".

Mr Brahimi said the US and the UK should consult Iran and Syria on ending the violence in Iraq, but he warned that these two states alone do not hold a "miracle solution". All of Iraq's neighbours, including Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as the Arab League, should be involved in a negotiated solution, he said.

Asked whether the "window of opportunity" had already closed for Iraq, Mr Brahimi replied: "It's never totally closed. The thing is to know how to reopen it, but after how many thousands more are dead?"

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1998886.ece

Fury at American contempt for British war dead

By SIMON WALTERS, Mail on Sunday

Last updated at 21:31pm on 18th November 2006
A diplomatic row erupted between London and Washington ght over George Bush's bid to cover up the way bungling US soldiers killed British servicemen in Iraq.

The President's envoy in the UK has been summoned to a humiliating dressing down in Whitehall tomorrow because of a White House refusal to make American troops answer in British courts for their mistakes on the battlefield.

• Dramatic video of British soldiers on the front line shot by the troops themselves.


WARNING: The footage shot by British soldiers in Afghanistan is graphic and the soundtrack includes strong language that is unsuitable for minors

The unprecedented move by Justice Minister Harriet Harman marks one of the biggest public rifts between the allies since Mr Blair came to power.

She will tell Deputy US ambassador David Johnson, one of George Bush's closest diplomatic advisers, that she is no longer prepared to accept America's excuses for refusing to send its servicemen to UK inquests.

Ms Harman says that in return for backing him in the Iraq war, the President has a duty to tell the truth to the families of British soldiers killed by Americans in friendly fire tragedies.

"The families want to know how their loved ones were killed," she told The Mail on Sunday. "They have got that right. I am hoping the Americans will give us full co-operation in the inquests because our special relationship demands honesty and openness.

"They are our allies in Iraq and should respect the grief of the families and not hide from the court. If any of our soldiers had been involved in American friendly-fire deaths we would expect them to attend hearings."

So far not one American serviceman has attended a friendly-fire inquest.

Ms Harman's comments come weeks before the latest inquest into the death of a British soldier killed by US friendly fire.

Lance Corporal Matthew Hull died when an American pilot attacked a British convoy near Basra. The White House has rejected pleas for the airman to attend the inquest.

The inquests row could strain Mr Blair's close relations with Mr Bush - and it comes at a critical time for the PM.

He was forced to admit yesterday that the Iraq war has been a 'disaster'.

It also emerged that loyal Labour Minister Margaret Hodge had privately disowned the war and condemned Mr Blair's 'moral imperialism'.

While Ms Harman has strong backing from Defence Secretary Des Browne, she did not inform Mr Blair in advance of her plan to haul the Americans over the coals, providing fresh evidence of the crumbling authority of the PM as he prepares to step down next year. But her initiative was warmly welcomed by the family of Lance Corporal Hull.

His widow, Susan Hull, said the US authorities had given her a heavily censored version of what happened - and had kept the pilot's name secret.

"There's been a lot of cloak and dagger," said Mrs Hull, of Shaftesbury, Dorset. "The people who are left behind want answers.

"I want the pilot involved to be at the inquest. I don't see how the coroner can establish all the facts unless everyone who was there is present. If the coroner requests their presence, they should go."

Lance Corporal Hull's mother, Mandy, said: "The American pilot should be made to come.

"We haven't heard anything for three-and-a-half years. I always thought that at least we would hear the truth at the inquest, but what's the point of going ahead with it if the pilot's not there?"

The provocative action of Ms Harman, a candidate in the race to succeed John Prescott as Deputy Labour leader, is supported by Oxfordshire Coroner Andrew Walker, who has conducted most of the inquests into British soldiers killed in Iraq.

He has privately voiced his anger with the Americans, accusing them of making it hard to do his job properly.

Ms Harman has been in talks with the Americans for nearly six months in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute. They refused to change their stance even after she guaranteed no risk of criminal prosecution or compensation.

She decided to go public after they rejected demands to send US service personnel to two recent friendly-fire inquests conducted by Mr Walker.

Earlier this month he ruled the deaths of two RAF Tornado pilots, Flight Lieutenants Kevin Main and Dave Williams, were 'entirely avoidable'. The fliers were shot down by an American Patriot missile.

And last month he criticised US Marines blamed for the 'unlawful killing' of ITN reporter Terry Lloyd after the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Mr Walker conducts most of the inquests because bodies from Iraq and Afghanistan are flown home to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417236&in_page_id=1770