British interests in the truth about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Gitmo etc.

The same day that the British press broke a story about the false creation of child pornography charges in England, the press also reported a book proposal on counter-terrorism that did not receive the prior approval of Scotland Yard authorities.

Now the British Guardian reports:


“Whistleblowing within the civil service needs to be encouraged if the government wants to stem leaks, a cross-party group of MPs recommends.”(1)

The recommendation came as the media is also discussing the British role at Gitmo and CIA renditions. It turns out that the British did turn over prisoners to the United $tates for rendition and there is talk about whether the British took part in U.$. torture.

Today, after the first edition of this article, a joint Parliamentary committee on humyn rights criticized laxness in British acceptance of war criminals on its territory: “‘The UK must not become a safe haven for evil,’ said Committee Chairman Andrew Dismore.”(2) People involved in torture and war crimes will not be accepted and victims will have the right to sue foreign governments from England.

MI5 and MI6 intelligence agencies in Britain have stressed their separation from Amerikkkan counterparts. This separation stabilizes imperialist interests by making it possible to carry out unified oppression of the Third World by undercutting the domestic politics in any one imperialist country.

It is bad enough that Amerikans, Afghans and people in Pakistan die in ongoing wars stemming from 9/11. Within that, Amerikans are dying in military service while politicians cover up their own dirt that prevents successful conclusion of many terror-related questions.

The British have no interest in dying in such wars, but July 2009 was the bloodiest month of fighting for the British in the whole Afghan war — 22 dead.(3) The question arises, why should British die just because the Amerikans can’t run an election without a lynching? Why should the British die just because the U.$. media was too gutless to vet out its potential candidates? Why should the British die just because the media was too partisan or inept to vet in a way to leave the new president unencumbered? Why should the British die, just because the Amerikans were too arrogant to accept a grander peace bargain?

Would the war have continued if the public had known about the partisan and career/family motivation dynamics of the “war on terror”? Did the Republicans and Democrats try to link each other to the terrorists? Was that any factor in which people ended up in Gitmo or why it did not matter who ended up in Gitmo? Did the interrogations of prisoners point toward any Amerikan citizens? Did the interrogations have any information that would have partisan implications? Why did the Gitmo administrators or the media reporting it try to make it look like Gitmo was using manuals from Mao’s China in handling their prisoners?(4) What information is Barack Obama afraid will come out in court if Gitmo prisoners have habeas corpus rights? Why did he campaign for those rights only to turn on them now? Why does it seem that some of these Gitmo prisoners were so arbitrarily selected — the child tortured by Amerikans and the man tortured by Al Qaeda for instance? Did the Bush and Obama Gitmo administrators even care what real dirt they had on their prisoners or were they trying to create an appearance for other corrupt political, campaign fund-raising, career and family reasons?

Notes:
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/10/whistleblowing-whitehall-commons-committe-report
2. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE57A2GP20090811?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/07/three-british-soldiers-killed-afghanistan
4. “China Inspired Interrogations at Guantánamo,” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html?pagewanted=all

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,


%d bloggers like this: