UK

It is fundamental to our civil liberties that no one should be held arbitrarily for an unspecified period. After detailed consultation with the police, and examination of recent trends in terrorist cases, we propose the upper limit of 42 days...

That is why I will stick to the principles I have set out and do the right thing: protecting the security of all and the liberties of each; and safeguarding the British people by a careful and proportionate strengthening of powers in response to the radically new terrorist threats we now face.

Gordon Brown, Supreme Leader, writing in The Times

Gordon Brown has put up some revealing archive films on the Downing Street website. If we had any illusions that we currently had a Labour Party prime minister ensconced in Downing Street, possessing even an inkling of labour sympathies, a brief look at his selection of noteworthy films should disillusion us:

First on the list (most recently posted) is Anthony Eden (Con.) trying to put a noble gloss on British involvement in Suez:

We have stepped in because the United Nations couldn't do so in time. If the United Nations will take over this police action, we shall welcome them... [but] until there are United Nations forces there, ready to take over, we and the French must go on with the job, until the job is done.

The European Court of Human Rights condemned the so-called “five techniques” used by UK military and security forces during that period. It ruled that the techniques - hooding, wall-standing, noise, deprivation of food and drink, and sleep deprivation - were cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, banned under the European Convention on Human Rights. The British government gave “a solemn undertaking” to the court that the techniques would never again be used on British soil."

Human Rights Watch - Dangerous Ambivalence: UK Policy on Torture since 9/11

Never again on British soil, but we can solemnly undertake that you can ship it overseas and we shall turn a blind eye - especially if there are others who will do the actual dirty business...

... and other idiotic sayings.

'You can look back at this time and you can be very, very proud of what you have done',

Tony Bliar, flying into Basra to tell the troops they can be proud. (Dec. 2005)

'It's not that they're welcoming us because they're welcoming foreign troops, They're welcoming the fact of their liberation.'

Tony Bliar in April 2003

And what do the Iraqis say?

I went out to Russia in 1991 - still just the Soviet Union - certain that anyone who had not fought against, or stood up in some way against the regime was a collaborator. I went out partly to understand how a society of collaborators, collaborators on a mass scale, a scale of many millions - how it could exist. What was the mind of a collaborator like? How did they square their personal principles with what was happening around them? How did they excuse their failure to condemn the evil acts of the regime and their continuing participation in the structures set up by that regime - all essential to its continuing existence?

I earn £41 (about €59) a day for coaxing along 30 underprivileged and often damaged 7-year old children. I can earn £241 a day (€350) if I continue to work as a ‘consultant’ internationally, teaching groups of 15 to 20 young Georgians what the text books written in the west tell us about human rights and advocacy, playing games with them and lapping up the Georgian culture.

Of course €350 is not a particularly well paid consultant, as any consultant will tell you. Many charge up to €1,000 for teaching those whose rights are being violated that their rights are being violated. Some will charge even more. If you are a lawyer talking about human rights, I dread to think how many euros you can manage to squeeze out of the international coffers. Ask Cherie Blair.

"I think it is one of the great tragedies of our time that so many people have died, so many people have been displaced and so many people face famine as a result of the events of Darfur."

It is, most certainly. According to (that well-known trusted source) the BBC, 'Some 200,000 people have been killed and 2m displaced in Darfur since 2003.' The BBC devotes video, audio and textual reports accompanied by photos to the protests being held today, with the message 'don't look away'. Gordon Brown is played over and over again on the World Service, sounding sober and sympathetic, in control.

What a tragic contrast with the total lack of attention given last week to a new poll by ORB, a respected polling company used and normally quoted by the BBC. A google search for 'bbc iraq poll orb' brings up just 2 polls quoted by the BBC: one asked British parents whether they would be happy for their son to join the army, and the second asked whether British troops were winning or losing the war. But the ORB poll that asked Iraqi citizens how many of their household had died since the invasion as a result of the violence has been almost totally ignored, as far as I can see.

That poll, conducted in August of this year, suggests that there have been 1,220,580 Iraqi deaths since the invasion in 2003. That is over a million deaths since the already sanctions-crushed Iraqis were invaded by the world's greatest military power (and its poodle).

The figure of a million roughly tallies with an estimate from Just Foreign Policy, based on the Lancet study (last October) and 'a rate of increase derived from Iraq Body Count'. Just Foreign Policy also reckon the death count is just over a million: 1,044,607 (to date). And the figure also tallies roughly with an estimate by Gideon Polya, a scientist and writer, in February of this year. He too used the Lancet study as a basis, and estimated that by February 2006, there had been over a million victims as a result of the invasion. 600,000 of those needless deaths, he estimates, were children under 5.

If 200,000 deaths and 2 million displaced is one of the great tragedies, what is a million deaths (or more) and 4 million displaced? What is it when those deaths have come about as a result of a pre-planned invasion, built on fabricated reasons and a deliberate policy of false propaganda? What is it when the invading poodle, the British Ministry of Defence states publicly that it "does not maintain records that would enable a definitive number of [Iraqi] civilian fatalities to be recorded."? And what is it when the British media keeps silent about 1 million deaths, pointedly ignores them, and presents the man who wrote the cheques for war as sober, sympathetic, in control?

Well - what would it be, if it had been Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China or Iran who had invaded, unprovoked, through deceit, and for selfish gain, causing a million needless deaths?

"How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought."

Just for the sake of balance...

"A potential U.S.-led military action against Iraq would likely have profound humanitarian consequences for the Iraqi civilian population. Consistent with our established policy, Human Rights Watch takes no position on the legality or appropriateness of such a war. Yet we have concerns with regard to the manner in which it may be conducted."

Extraordinary. We take no position on a war that no international lawyer, with the exception of those hired by the occupying powers, regards as legal under international law. We are a renowned human rights organisation, but we have an established policy which is not to take a position on an unprovoked war of aggression by the world's greatest military power. Except to say that we have concerns with regard to the manner in which it may be conducted.

So, Human Rights Watch: can you conceive of a 'manner' in which the world's greatest military power might conduct this war of aggression peacefully? Can you conceive of an unprovoked war of aggression by the world's greatest military power which manages to avoid profound humanitarian consequences for the civilian population?

If so, you should tell the world. If not, why do you shy away from telling the world?

'The UK government has played a key role in developing the oil law, alongside the US government. There are serious questions regarding the appropriateness of the UK, as an occupation power, participating in policy discussions on the future of Iraq’s natural resources. While attempts have been made to describe the British role as “advice”, it is highly unlikely that Iraqi officials would treat it as neutral advice, to be taken or left, given the UK’s military position'

See this post for some of the details of the oil law, still being forced down the the Iraqi's throats. British citizens can - and should - urge their MP to sign EDM 1180, which 'calls on the Government to disclose to the House all representations it has made in relation to the oil law'. It appears they have been many.

Here are some of the more brazen attempts by the oil companies and the British government to bludgeon the Iraqis into submission:

• Passage of the law was made a condition of relief of the foreign debts accumulated by the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, during his wars, and through his personal enrichment. In November 2004, the Paris Club of wealthy creditor nations agreed to conditionally cancel 80% of Iraq’s debts to them in three stages: 30% immediately, 30% when Iraq entered into an International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme, and 20% following a satisfactory review by the IMF after three years of the programme. Iraq entered an agreement with the IMF in December 2005. The conditions included the passage of a law opening Iraqi oil to foreign investment, by the end of 2006.
• Future Iraqi oil policy was further developed under the Coalition Provisional Authority. During that time, former executives of multinational oil companies were appointed as senior oil advisers. Two of these advisers were paid by the UK taxpayer, and reported to the UK authorities in Iraq.
• Six oil companies collectively appointed lobbyists, the International Tax & Investment Centre (ITIC), to push for Iraq to offer long-term oil production contracts known as production sharing agreements. ITIC was advised by officials of the FCO and HM Treasury on their strategy for influencing Iraqi decision-makers.
• ITIC’s primary lobbying document, entitled Petroleum and Iraq’s Future, was sent to the Iraqi Minister of Finance in late 2004 by the British Ambassador to Iraq. According to ITIC, he “formally” submitted it to the Minister, implying UK endorsement of its contents...
• Since the completion of the first draft of the oil law in July 2006, British officials in both Whitehall and Baghdad have actively worked on the law. It was first seen by British officials in July, eight months before it was seen by members of the Iraqi parliament, who first saw it in March 2007.

(emphasis mine)