#Hillary2016: Stand By for More Dirt on US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton (Democrats)

WikiLeaks ARTICLE SOURCE:  Salon Friday, Jun 24, 2016 06:15 AM AEST Despite 4 years trapped in embassy, Assange says WikiLeaks has “very big year” ahead At NYC event, Assange said WikiLeaks has big new leaks, and warned a Hillary Clinton presidency "means endless war" Ben Norton June 19, 2016 marked the fourth year that Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief of whistleblowing journalism organization WikiLeaks, has been trapped in the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Several events were organized this week in cities throughout Europe, Latin America and the U.S. to commemorate this anniversary, and to bring attention to the escalating war on whistleblowers and journalists. Assange spoke via videostream at an event in New York City on Wednesday (video below). He stressed in his message that he has been effectively detained by the U.K. for five and a half years, even though he has never been charged with a crime. In February, the U.N. ruled that Assange is being arbitrarily and illegally detained, and is due compensation for the “different forms of deprivation of liberty.” Despite the hardship, nevertheless, Assange was excited about the months ahead. “It’s going to be a very big year for WikiLeaks,” he said. Assange implored the audience to “get ready to gather around” in order “to protect our ability to be publishing.” “It will be very necessary in the coming months,” the WikiLeaks editor stressed. Many of the upcoming releases, he said, concern Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. “I’ve come to know Hillary quite well,” Assange joked. WikiLeaks has released thousands of Clinton’s emails, and he has read many of them. “She is an extremely ambitious liberal interventionist hawk,” he explained. This is, of course, no surprise, he added, but the extreme degree of her belligerence is often not understood. Clinton “was the leading figure behind the destruction of Libya,” he said, echoing comments he said in an interview with Salon in February. “If Hillary Clinton gets into office, it means endless war,” Assange warned. “We are in fact already, under Obama, in endless war, but I think it will significantly ramp up under Hillary Clinton.” And “with a Democratic president in office, there is no strong Democratic opposition” to these policies, he noted. Assange added that, at the end of the day, the differences between Clinton and her opponent, presidential candidate Donald Trump, will not have a big impact on the U.S. empire. “I’m not sure it makes much difference which president” is in office, he said. Rather, the roughly 3,000 people appointed by the president are those who control how the U.S. empire operates. And the people whom Clinton chooses to surround herself with are hawkish liberal interventionists themselves. Of those who work under her, Assange said, Clinton demands “total sucking up” and constant flattery. She “surrounds herself with people who don’t really challenge her.” It’s “a liberal interventionist who surrounds herself with liberal interventionists,” he described it, citing figures like Anne-Marie Slaughter, another so-called humanitarian interventionist. The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton for president, pointed out that she is even more hawkish than her Republican rivals. The U.S. newspaper of record described her as “the last true hawk left in the race.” A digital Library of Alexandria Assange was joined at the event by a panel of renowned journalists and activists, including Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore, Democracy Now founder Amy Goodman, The Intercept co-founder Jeremy Scahill and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, among others. Amy Goodman, who moderated the discussion, said it is amazing that, despite the sanctions, assassination threats and effective imprisonment Assange has endured for years, WikiLeaks remains strong. “How have you kept WikiLeaks going?” she asked. “I don’t know,” Assange joked in reply. He said it has only been possible thanks to the help he has gotten from the WikiLeaks staff and from people throughout the world. Assange added that he has had many “false friends,” who have betrayed him or were cowardly and timid in time of need. But he also thanked those who have supported WikiLeaks’ work. Besides, if he weren’t doing it, someone would take his place and continue the work, Assange argued. Goodman followed up, asking him what he is proudest of. Assange said it is simply keeping Wikileaks alive. “We have built a grand project, in some ways a grand dream,” he said, likening it to a contemporary digital Library of Alexandria. WikiLeaks has actually now published more documents while Assange has been detained than it did before. “And we have not fired a single person,” he added. Assange also spoke highly of The Intercept, the publication co-founded by Jeremy Scahill and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, who worked with NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. “It’s use it or lose it,” Assange told Scahill, expressing support The Intercept’s work. The media Assange had pretty harsh words for the rest of the media. He noted that the Pentagon has 20,000 people involved in public relations. The defense department writes thousands of propaganda stories each year “that they give away for free to the press.” Meanwhile, WikiLeaks’ documents have largely been ignored by the English-language press, although they are much more frequently cited in the international media, Assange said. “We’re happy to accept the ‘bad boy’ label,” he joked. “We are completely beyond the pale as far as a lot of the mainstream” press goes, Assange continued. But “we perceive those outlets to be beyond the pale” too. “They destroy history; they contain it in themselves; they privatize it.” “History does not belong to journalists; history does not belong to a media organization,” he argued. Assange added, “history does also not belong to whistleblowers,” even though they can be “the most important part” in helping to create it. “History belongs to human civilization to understand in order to better itself,” he stressed. The U.S. government The WikiLeaks editor vociferously challenged the U.S. government’s claim that his organization’s work has harmed national security. “It’s all rubbish; it’s just all garbage,” Assange said. “The information that we have published has never led” to anyone facing violence. The government has tried “desperately” to find a single case of a U.S. official being harmed, he noted, but has come up with nothing. In a lighter moment, Assange also noted that, while he has major problems with the U.S. government, the U.S. “does have some good things going for it.” He said he quite likes U.S. culture, and applauded the country’s enormous diversity. “London is a city-state” on the other hand, he lamented; it’s an “inbred system.” When asked about the June 23 vote on Brexit, the referendum on whether the U.K. should leave the E.U., Assange said it might not be so bad to do so. He noted the E.U. frequently acts “in service of transnational capital.” He read from a 2008 cable released by Wikileaks in which William Hague, then shadow foreign secretary for the Conservative Party and later first secretary of state and foreign secretary, stressed that any prime minister inevitably “learns of the essential nature of the relationship with America.” “We want a pro-American regime. We need it. The world needs it,” Hague said. Assange also criticized Sweden, noting that, while it is sometimes applauded for its social democratic government, it is one of the world’s largest per capita exporter of arms, and the only country that does rendition on its own people.   Aaron Schwartz Someone in the audience asked about electronic activist Aaron Schwartz. Assange said he had empathized a lot with Schwartz, and understood the pain he went through. The government’s harsh crackdown on Schwartz, after he made millions of documents and scholarly articles freely available on the internet, ultimately led to his suicide. “Aaron Schwartz was largely the victim of the crackdown against WikiLeaks,” Assange said. Assange recalled being afraid of speaking with Schwartz during the government’s investigation, because “there was such intense focus on me,” and he didn’t want to bring it to Schwartz. Assange said he regrets that now. Civil rights activists have spoken of how the effect of COINTELPRO, grand juries and FBI investigations was to “atomize people,” Assange noted. “There can be terrible side effects of that.” “An unusual power” Assange remains optimistic, however. He even managed to find a silver lining in his unfortunate situation. “There are some consolations to being an accused person and detained unlawfully,” Assange said. People who are accused develop “an unusual power” — and, he added, “there is no more severe accusation than being accused by a superpower.” ARTICLE SOURCE:  Salon http://archive.is/5o7Xq [CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE] http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/04/two-swedes-renditioned-to-the-us-possibly-to-death-penalty-in-secrecy-and-without-lawyers-knowledge/ Two Swedes Renditioned To The US, Possibly To Death Penalty, In Secrecy And Without Lawyers’ Knowledge Process of Law – Henrik Alexandersson Mid-November, two Swedish citizens with Somali origins were renditioned from Djibouti to a prison in the United States of America. According to the US, they are hardened terrorists. According to other people, they tried to leave the terrorist-branded organization al-Shabaab. What’s true there is unclear. But that’s not the point that makes us interested in the story. An representative of United States Intelligence Services is reported to have told the two Swedes that “We’re waiting for permission from Swedish authorities to take you to the United States”. This is something that the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs first didn’t want to be associated with, and later declines any and all forms of comment. Here, we have a natural and special interest, as the two men are Swedish citizens. Are they suspected of committing an act which carries criminal penalties in Sweden – and if so, should they not be indicted and prosecuted in Sweden? Or has the Swedish government given the USA a carte blanche to “take care of” two Swedish citizens in the name of the war on terror – and if so, on what grounds? (Further, the suspicions concern acts committed in Somalia, where the US doesn’t have jurisdiction.) Suspicions of terror or not – the process of law must be respected, and international law followed. The government has no right to throw people into dark dungeons without a proper trial. We have a right to demand some form of damn order here. This affair has a distinct image of not having respected due process. This image is further strengthened by the fact that the two Swedes’ lawyers and relatives were kept in the dark for several weeks about what had already happened. If Sweden has agreed to rendition two people – Swedish citizens or not – to the United States of America within the context of what’s known as extraordinary renditions, this affair goes far beyond the questions about the formal due process. In such a case, it’s necessary to ask how much the Swedish governments’ promises are worth, when they promise to not extradite people to countries where they risk torture or death. This is a question that’s current and relevant in other cases, for example, regarding the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. This affair smells really bad… Read More: Washington Post [in English], Svenska Dagbladet [in Swedish]. UPDATE: The lawyer of the two Swedes was informed of the rendition on December 7, about three weeks after the fact. When the lawyer was informed, and only then, were relatives informed. This has eerie similarities with banana-republic “disappearances”. This article was originally published in Swedish on Hax’ blog. Translated into English by Rick Falkvinge. http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/04/two-swedes-renditioned-to-the-us-possibly-to-death-penalty-in-secrecy-and-without-lawyers-knowledge/ C  O  M  M  E  N  T Sweden isn't all 'feminist foreign policy', Abba, IKEA ... or otherwise all that it would seem.

CIA - Rendition - Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr / Abu Omar - ex-CIA, Sabrina De Sousa Held Portugal

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/cia-agent-convicted-in-italy-for-kidnapping-detained-in-portugal-151012?news=857615 CIA Agent Convicted in Italy for Kidnapping Detained in Portugal Back to News submit to reddit Monday, October 12, 2015 A former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer who was convicted in absentia for the kidnapping of a terror suspect in Italy was prevented from leaving Portugal and may be sent to Italy to serve her sentence. Sabrina De Sousa was convicted, along with 22 other Americans, of participating in the abduction from a Milan street of Egyptian cleric Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, in 2003. He was taken to Egypt, where he was tortured, according to his wife and Italian prosecutors. He was freed in 2007. De Sousa says she wasn’t involved in the kidnapping, but did serve as an interpreter during its planning stages, according to The Washington Post. Since she and the other Americans—most of them CIA officials— were convicted by the Italian court in 2009, De Sousa has been outspoken in her criticism of the U.S. government’s seeming abandonment of those involved in the kidnapping. She told the Post that she knew that she could be detained by traveling to Portugal, but wanted to bring the matter to a head, either with the United States granting her diplomatic immunity or by Italy reinvestigating the kidnapping or granting her and those also convicted clemency. “This has gone on for 10 years,” De Sousa said. “It’s impacted my life. I’ve got relatives in Europe, and I don’t see any reason to give that up. The rendition should have never taken place, and we were all thrown under the bus for it.” De Sousa expressed surprise that it took Portuguese authorities as long as it did to detain her. “The interesting part of it is the timing,” De Sousa told the Post. “Why now? When I came into Portugal I did not get detained. I have been here for several months and the Italians never asked Portugal to surrender me to Italy. When was it put into their system at the airport? Someone in Italy seemed to know I was traveling.” She said she was prohibited last Monday from leaving the country, but after a court hearing only had to surrender her passport and was not jailed. De Sousa left the CIA in 2009 and sued to get diplomatic immunity to protect her from the Italian charges, but her case was dismissed. Only one other defendant in the case has come close to being extradited. Robert Seldon Lady, who was the CIA’s station chief in Milan at the time of the kidnapping, was detained in Panama two years ago at Italy’s request but was released. One of the defendants, Col. Joseph L. Romano III, a retired Air Force commander, was pardoned by the Italian court in 2013. SOURCE http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/cia-agent-convicted-in-italy-for-kidnapping-detained-in-portugal-151012?news=857615 The Rendition Project UK Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a.k.a. Abu Omar, was born in Egypt in 1963. Having been detained and tortured by the Egyptian regime for his involvement in Egypt’s militant Islamic Group, he was granted political asylum in Italy in 2001. In the lead up to the Iraq war of 2003, he campaigned against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This sparked surveillance by the Italian authorities of his activities, and investigations into the contacts he kept. The Italian authorities alleged that he was recruiting fighters to go to Iraq and resist the occupation. He denies this.   On 17 February 2003 Nasr was apprehended in Milan by a man in a police uniform. He was bundled into a van where men in balaclavas beat, blindfolded and restrained him. The journey lasted several hours, and on arrival at what is now known to be the US airbase at Aviano, Nasr was prepared for his rendition to Cairo, via the Ramstein airbase in Germany. Common with other rendition victims, his clothes were cut off, a suppository was forcibly inserted into his rectum, his head was taped leaving holes only for his mouth and nose, and he was forced onto a CIA-contracted Gulfstream IV jet with registration number N85VM, operated by Richmor Aviation.  EXTRACT - SOURCE http://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/prisoners/abu-omar.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT These people don't deserve immunity or clemency, but they'll get it because we live in a corrupt world in which corruption and might is right. Even if this guy had been organising a resistance to the 2003 US invasion, how does that make him a 'terrorist' when the US invasion of Iraq was illegal and on false pretexts? Robert Seldon Lady was released by Panama and Col. Joseph L. Romano III was pardoned by Italy, so I don't see Italy playing hard ball regarding De Sousa. Everybody's corrupt, but I get the impression that Italy and Latin America are that bit extra corrupt and somehow linked and closely linked to the US and CIA, so why are they even bothering to go through this farce of convicting the CIA? Found the torture and rape of this guy rather disturbing. ꕤ

"How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions & Framing of Assange" | Saley, Osewe & Goss

How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions and Framing of Assange By Feature Article    NEWS JUNKIE POST Dec 19, 2012 at 5:54 pm By Rafik Saley, Okoth Osewe, and John Goss By his own admission, Sweden’s Ambassador to Australia Mr. Sven-Olof Petersson had advance knowledge of the CIA rendition flight that took place on December 18, 2001 from Stockholm to Egypt. This flight ended in Egyptian nationals Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery being illegally rendered and tortured. Mr. Petersson’s admission comes from a statement to the Swedish Parliament’s Constitutional Committee, confirming that he attended a briefing on December 17, 2001 at which the rendition process was finalized. Moreover, the Constitutional Committee’s report shows that he knew about the renditions at the end of November and probably even in mid-November. In fact, it was he who kept Minister of Foreign Affairs Anna Lindh updated on the progress of deportation arrangements with the CIA in November 2001.[i] Petersson was then Sweden’s Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[ii] Illegal and unconstitutional decisions of this sort, made behind closed doors, show contempt for the Swedish legal system, which has been further denigrated by attempts to get Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flown to Sweden on flimsy allegations of a sexual nature, from where, concerned parties believe the CIA would pick him up and put him on trial in the United States. Ironically, it was through Wikileaks that the world learned about the diplomatic tiff between the US and Sweden that brought an end to Swedish rendition in 2006.[iii] As the Director General for Political Affairs, Mr. Petersson was in regular contact with the US Embassy in Stockholm and was aware of the US request that two Egyptian nationals be illegally rendered.[iv] The rendition went ahead without protest or representation on behalf of the victims, and no one in the Swedish government has been made accountable for this flagrant breach of the law. An admission of Sweden’s culpability can be found in the SEK 3 million (about $458,000) compensation paid to each of the two men after their eventual release.[v] This “hush money” appears to have paid for the non-disclosure of the identities of the Swedish representatives who sought assurances from Cairo prior to the men’s rendition.[vi] Not only Petersson, but also Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström and then Foreign Minister Anna Lindh knew about the renditions.[vii] Thomas Bodström spent a year in the US between 2010 – 2011, purportedly for rehabilitation in connection with alcohol and substance abuse, while he was a partner in the legal firm Borgström & Bodström. It would be lax not to point out to readers that Claes Borgström is the lawyer who was called upon to prosecute Julian Assange over allegations that had previously been dismissed. Further, Borgström is known to be friendly with Irmeli Krans, the police interrogator who took SW’s original statement against Assange. Irmeli Krans, in turn, is friendly with the other complainant, AA, who, it is said, illegally sat in on Irmeli Krans’ interview of SW. [viii] The rendered Egyptians, both of whom were asylum seekers, were returned to Egypt despite Sweden’s Aliens Act (1989) that forbids repatriation to a country where nationals are likely to be tortured. It was well known even then that Egypt uses torture against political prisoners.[ix] The torture of both men on the flight to Egypt, included them being hooded, handcuffed and strapped down. The brutality of the torture in Egypt was captured in a comment by Mr. Agiza who noted that the interrogators routinely beat him, strapped him to a wet mattress and subjected him to electric shock through electrodes attached to his ear lobes, nipples, and genitals.[x] Mr. Petersson´s statements to the Australian media on the impartiality of the Swedish legal system ring hollow when judged against his prior personal involvement in renditions. Even more disturbing is the fact that they have been echoed by Australian Foreign minister Bob Carr. The adoption of the statements shows a lack of judgment on Carr’s part and brings the Australian government’s foreign policy under scrutiny. Carr has urged Assange to travel to Sweden and claimed that it was unlikely that he would be extradited.[xi] Recent statements by EU Home Affairs Minister Cecilia Malmström, urging Mr. Assange to “just go to Sweden” have the same hollow ring.[xii] Malmström has worked closely with US interests in Sweden and elsewhere in adopting harsh measures to stifle free speech in Europe. She purports to know nothing about the Assange case. On the other hand, her partiality and close affinity to the United States are demonstrated by her recent joint briefing with US attorney general Eric Holder.[xiii] She has also co-authored an article with him.[xiv] The question on every reasonable person’s lips is: why can’t the Swedish government “just give Mr. Assange the diplomatic guarantees that he has asked for?” In light of Sweden´s complicity in illegal rendition right up to 2006, a diplomatic guarantee to Assange that he won’t be extradited to the US is of integral importance. After all, the Swedish government has the final say in the matter and, if its past history in illegal renditions is anything to go by, Assange’s fears about extradition or rendition to the United States are justifiable. The Swedish Ambassador accuses Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly of having no knowledge of Sweden.[xv] It is imperative that the columnist learns about Sweden and its foreign policy of the past 20 years, so she might pass on the sinister dealings to her readership. Until recent years, Sweden had a peace policy of which to be proud. For 150 years, the country abstained from war and, in 1966, to celebrate this highly-enviable record, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) was established. After Sweden started cooperating with NATO, the situation began to change.[xvi] Not long afterwards, the Swedish military became involved in world conflicts, and more recently it has looked poised for greater involvement.[xvii] This is not the old Sweden but a new country that demonstrates an unparalleled hypocrisy in its international relations. This trend continues in the refusal by authorities to grant Assange the reasonable assurances that he seeks. Prominent international supporters of Mr. Assange, like Baltasar Garzon, John Pilger, Michael Moore, and Jemima Khan are ridiculed in Sweden today. In addition to the recent changes in foreign and domestic policy, the third largest political party in the country, called Sweden Democrats (SD), has made massive gains during the last elections, despite openly calling for the repatriation of immigrants from Sweden. The SD party enjoyed a 10%  parliamentary share of the vote, which translated into 20 Parliamentary seats. The Swedish government seems to be following the direction of the SD party, especially in its foreign policy positions, which are increasingly pro-American and anti-democratic. Because of Sweden’s pro-American stance on key political issues, a legal system has developed with multiple loopholes that could easily be exploited to Assange’s disadvantage. This legal framework is constitutionally racist against foreigners, especially when they contest ethnic Swedish nationals of the cherished blond-haired, blue-eyed Nordic model. Most worrying of all, Sweden’s history of hypocrisy, lopsidedness and double-speak in dealings with the international community highlights the risk that Julian Assange would be in physical danger if extradited to Sweden from the UK. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable for him to seek unequivocal diplomatic assurances that he would not be extradited to the US if he agrees to go to Sweden for questioning. Despite the pressures from the United States and other pro-western governments, the Republic of Ecuador has granted political asylum to Mr. Assange. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has hindered the free movement of Mr. Assange even though the same government blocked the extradition to Spain of the late Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet. Mr. Pinochet was wanted for the murder of 94 Spanish citizens and many other charges of torture and rape against his own people. Although Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, the Australian government has refused to protect him and has instead accommodated Swedish Ambassador Sven-Olof Petersson, who supports rendition and torture. This is unacceptable in a free, democratic and transparent society. Editor’s Notes: Rafik Saley is general secretary of the African Committee for Development in Stockholm, Sweden; Okoth Osewe writes for Kenya Stockholm Blog; John Goss is a writer and researcher, United Kingdom. SOURCE (WITH CITATIONS & LINKS) http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how-sweden-collaborated-with-cia-on-renditions-and-framing-of-assange/#sthash.VTKJNK95.dpuf  ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  COMMENT  This article totally blows me away.  ꕤ

US & UK - RENDITION - YANUS RAHMATULLAH

UK government attempts to conceal its involvement in rendition and torture By Robert Stevens 9 August 2014 The British government is seeking to cover up its role in the illegal “extraordinary rendition”—kidnappings and torture—programme run by the United States. Ahead of the delayed release of a US Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture system ... [...] The war crimes carried out by British troops during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in which the UK was the main partner of the US, continue to come to light. Last week Reprieve cited the case of Yunus Rahmatullah, a Pakistani citizen who was captured by British forces in Iraq in February 2004 and subsequent rendered to Afghanistan later that year. He was held at the US-run prison at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan for ten years without charge, trial, or access to a lawyer. He was initially seized despite having no involvement with any of the fighting in Iraq and was only in the country in order to find work on real estate projects after the initial US invasion, resulting in the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, had ended. According to Reprieve, UK troops raided a house where he was staying with friends, “blindfolded Yunus, punched and kicked him, and hit him with the butt of their rifles. He was thrown in the back of a military vehicle and driven to a camp. On the way, the vehicle stopped and Yunus was taken out. UK forces again violently assaulted him.” Reprieve adds, “He was detained in Iraq at the now-notorious Camp Nama, where UK forces were also present, and possibly also in Abu Ghraib prison.” The US-run Abu Ghraib was the site of horrifying and systematic torture, abuse and murder of prisoners by US military personnel in Iraq. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/09/rend-a09.html

This is the tail end of the British trying to hide their collusion story (in WSWS above).

I thought this guy might deserve his own post.

Never having paid attention to what's going on beyond my own narrow range of interests, this stuff is new and mind-boggling to me.

How can someone be kidnapped and basically gaoled for a DECADE -- without charge -- or lawyer or trial?

Wikipedia on Rahmatullah - here.

Check this out:

... because he was captured in Iraq by British Forces the UK justice system had standing to rule on his detention

"a substantial case for saying that the UK government is under an international legal obligation to demand the return of the applicant, and the US government is bound to accede to such an request."

The Court of Appeal agreed Rahmatullah's detention was "unlawful" and ordered Britain to pursue his release until January 18, 2012. [wikipedia]

UK & US - UK DIEGO GARCIA BASE - US-UK COLLUSION - RENDITION, TORTURE - UK COVER-UP

UK government attempts to conceal its involvement in rendition and torture By Robert Stevens 9 August 2014 The British government is seeking to cover up its role in the illegal “extraordinary rendition”—kidnappings and torture—programme run by the United States. Ahead of the delayed release of a US Senate report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) torture system, in place under the previous George W. Bush administration, the Observer revealed that the UK government has approached its US counterparts to censor information regarding Britain’s involvement in rendition and torture through the use of the Indian Ocean air base of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia, a tiny atoll, is a British Overseas Territory that has been leased to the US for decades. It became a strategic base for the US military during the Cold War and was used to supply its forces in the Red Sea and Vietnam. It was also the only base used for air strikes against Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991. It was used again by the US military for the “shock and awe” bombardment of Iraq in 2003 as well as the heavy bombardment of Afghanistan in 2001. The Observer cites a letter from former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague to the human rights organisation Reprieve. Hague was Foreign Secretary for four years in the government of Prime Minister David Cameron until last month’s cabinet reshuffle. Hague informed Reprieve that, “We have made representations to seek assurances that ordinary procedures for clearance of UK material will be followed in the event that UK material provide[d] to the Senate committee were to be disclosed.” The meaning is clear: the UK government is insistent that details of its active participation in an illegal global kidnapping and torture network, in close collaboration with the US, remain under lock and key. The censoring being demanded by the British is just part of an overall mass of redactions being put in place by the US military-intelligence apparatus prior to the report’s release. Last Friday, Senator Dianne Feinstein said the Senate Intelligence Committee would delay the release of the declassified summary of its voluminous report on the CIA torture system, due to the scale of redactions being made. Successive UK governments have denied accusations that Diego Garcia was used as a “black site” prison and that rendition flights landed there. As far back as 2002, the Washington Post reported that Diego Garcia was “one of a number of secret detention centers overseas.” In 2008 then British Home Secretary David Miliband told parliament that two US flights each containing a prisoner did refuel on the island in 2002, but claimed those detained remained on board and that the “US Government has assured us that no US detainees have ever been held on Diego Garcia.” Andrew Tyrie, a Conservative MP, is the founder and chairman of Parliaments all-party group on rendition. [...] Tyrie has called for an inquiry in Britain’s involvement in rendition and torture on the basis that without this happening, the UK’s ability to portray itself as an upholder of democracy on the international stage is vastly undermined. “With the truth established, Britain can draw a line under these allegations and demonstrate that we abide by the values that we expect of others.” The lies that Diego Garcia has played no role in rendition and torture continue to unravel. An account by freelance investigative journalist Andy Worthington, published on Al-Jazeera last month noted, “In October 2003, Time reported that ‘a regional intelligence official’ had stated that Hambali, a ‘high-value detainee’ seized in Thailand two months earlier, was being held and interrogated on Diego Garcia, and in the years that followed, other claims were made, both by journalists and by retired US general Barry McCaffrey, who, in May 2004 and December 2006, referred to prisoners being held on Diego Garcia.” [...] continued @ source link http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/08/09/rend-a09.html

Feinstein's report's been delayed because they're whiting out the British, huh?

Wasn't democracy supposed to be transparent?

Kidnapping and torture ... lawlessness ... even terrorism  ... isn't that what the powers that be supposedly stand 'against'.  LOL

Hypocrisy, inscrutability and lawlessness is how you maintain an empire.