Swiss senator Dick Marty, carrying out an inquiry into claims the CIA has run illegal secret detention centres in Europe, has said he has no doubt they exist.

Dick Marty accused the US of violating human rights and attacked European nations for their "shocking" passivity in the face of such violations. He is due to give a preliminary report to the Council of Europe on 23 January.

The US has refused to confirm or deny the allegations over secret prisons. It has denied using or condoning torture.

Speaking to journalists in Switzerland, he said he was personally convinced the US had undertaken illegal activities in Europe in transporting and detaining prisoners. However, he acknowledged he had yet to produce concrete proof and said he expected his inquiry to last another 12 months.

"The question is: was the CIA really working in Europe? I believe we can say today, without a doubt, yes." Washington's policy "respects neither human rights nor the Geneva Conventions", Marty said.

He cited as evidence the case of Egyptian cleric and terror suspect Osama Mustafa Hassan, also known as Abu Omar, who was allegedly kidnapped by CIA agents from Milan in 2003 and flown to Egypt for interrogation.

Investigator believes CIA flouted law in Europe

WASHINGTON D.C. (National Review Online) Jan. 10 -- An accomplished career diplomat who had never been to Iraq and didn't know the language, Ambassador L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer III was tapped by President George W. Bush to serve as presidential envoy to Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004, heading the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad -- "eight thousand miles and at least a century removed from home." As Paul Bremer -- who would frequently be dubbed "American viceroy" -- notes in his new book on his time there, My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope (written with Malcolm McConnell), he flew into a liberated but burning Baghdad, where he "would be the only paramount authority figure -- other than dictator Saddam Hussein -- that most Iraqis had ever known."

A chronological behind-the-scenes portrait of his and his staff's year in Iraq, in My Year in Iraq, Bremer details the treacherous, sweltering days, the obstacles (including Pentagon "harassment"), and the historic achievements. In writing about dealing with Washington, he names names: who was a problem; who listened; who never responded. The controversy coming from the book will be over troop levels -- Bremer writes about repeated messages to principals in Washington about the "too few resources" he was working with in Iraq.

In addition to little things like the ABCs of democracy and economy building, Bremer recounts other big issues, ones more under the radar. Like the ABCs -- how increasing teachers' salaries was an early priority -- "from the equivalent $3 to $150 a month" while purging "textbooks and curricula of Baathist propaganda. This meant printing and distributing over five million books before schools reopened in October," Bremer writes.

###

Interesting interview in comparison with the NRC Handelsblad interview I translated earlier this week ::  

His book "My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope" a year as governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer disavows Minister of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. "We had important differences of opinion."

WASHINGTON (NRC Handelsblad) 9 January 2006 --

You work 18-20 hours a day in your first months as civilian administrator in a complete chaos. Rumsfeld makes a visit and tells you: "I think you don't realize how urgent your task is".
"I was indeed bewildered - although I kept my anger in check. He didn't realize how hard we had to work. I think he was frustrated. The moment of his visit was shortly after the second suicide attack. We felt the pressure, everyone did, because we could not bring security to Iraq."

Busk asks you: can Rumsfeld delegate?
"He is tough, and he intimidates people in his surroundings such, that it's difficult to get people at the ministry to make decisions. Only Rumsfeld decides. In his case it works."

Why did the president put forward the question?
"There were stories in the press - he was such a difficult boss."

You describe how Rumsfeld doesn't take the reports of looting after the fall of Baghdad seriously. What was the impact?
"Later we made a calculation the cost of looting was $12bn. One of my biggest mistakes. I didn't urge a firm position to stop looting. I was criticized for the suggestion a shoot to kill policy for looters - I still believe that would have been the right approach. I should have made a stronger case for this policy. The true problem was, of course, we gave the impression we lacked the ability to invoke order and authority."

At the time, education came to a standstill, when 10,000 teachers who lost their jobs through deba'athification. You consider that decision wise today?
"We wanted regime change, and this meant the Ba'ath party had to be removed from power: 'deba'athification'. I still believe it to be the right choice. Often it's forgotten, with our policy we wanted to eliminate the top 1% of Ba'ath-members in high position of government. I wanted the Iraqis to decide: Americans could not distinguish between an ideological Ba'ath-supporter and a teacher who was a Ba'ath member for the sole reason to hold a teaching job.
The mistake was I delegated the implementation to the CPA. It then became part of the muddy domestic-political relationships. We discovered a much larger number then the intended top 1% was removed from office."

What was the result?
"The biggest problem were the 10,000 teachers who had lost their job. And of course the impression by the Iraqis that deba'athification meant for all Ba'ath party members. This fact led to serious ramifications in the process for reconciliation with the Sunni."

Did this provoke the uprising of insurgency?
"I don't think so. Although, I don't know the answer. I believe the insurgency was to happen anyway. We found a secret document that mentioned Saddam had plans ready. But it is difficult. Our intelligence did not see the uprising coming. Equally they had no knowledge of the poor state of Iraq's economy."

Why did you not let the Iraqis administer a larger part of the government?
"I handed the Iraqis as much authority as they could handle. They were just not ready for it. They couldn't even set up an organization. They didn't have managers. They were in no position to manage - simply put - a budget."

Is it a fact the Pentagon was so angry you didn't want to transfer sovereignty, they developed a plan to hold you responsible for the post-war failure in Iraq?
"That's what Andy Card told me, chief of staff in the White House."

Nice city Washington.
"Well, you know how matters are solved here. I understood the danger."

Iraq's former US administrator, Paul Bremer, shakes hands with the country's interim president, Ghazi al-Yawar, during the handover ceremony as Bremer's deputy, David Richmond, applauds. The Guardian

When the insurgency is on the increase, you told Bush and Cheney at the end of 2003, the Pentagon has no strategy for victory. Was the White House vigilant?
"We didn't make gains on the ground in military terms. We entered a city, had a firefight, problems seemed solved, and our forces moved out. The same problems started all over. That's what I explained was going on."

Half a year later, you told Condoleezza Rice that "the worst" happened: the United States was an "incompetent occupation force".
"We were unable to secure the country. We had all the disadvantages that belong to, what is labeled, an occupier. When this becomes a fact, at least you have to provide security to the citizens."

The journalist Packer in his book The Assassins' Gate portrays you as an isolated man in the secure zone of Baghdad - a long distance from the demoralized population.
"To a certain extent, that is true. Because of safety precautions I wasn't free to walk the streets of Baghdad. It was frustrating. You are a diplomat and want to observe the country. The other side of this, I did travel throughout all of the country. I met thousands of Iraqis. But my freedom to move about was limited."

Is terrorism fostered by the war?
"It is clear they entered Iraq - in part likely, because we closed down Afghanistan. Otherwise they would still be there, I think. But ok - what else? Should we not have liberated Iraq? I don't understand the consequences of such an analysis. Should we have left Saddam in power?
The question illustrates that Europe still have difficulty understanding new terrorism. The Unites States were confronted with muslim extremists, who want to kill us by the thousands. That is totally different terror we experienced in the seventies and eighties. The conclusion is the U.S. cannot sit and wait. We have to preempt before we are attacked.
But Europe didn't move, and the U.S. refuses to be passive. I wouldn't call Europe a museum, like Thomas Friedman, that sounds too similar to `Old Europe' of Rumsfeld. But Europe has problems, no doubt about that. When you are threatened and you don't see this, then you are floating without any goal in sight."

NRC Handelsblad - January 9, 2006. Translation Oui.

● My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope
Paul Bremer III

≈ Cross-posted from Jérôme's diary @ Booman Tribune --
Bremer says he was 'fall guy', confirms lack of plan in Iraq ≈

KHANDAHAR (ABC/AP) Jan 15, 2006 -- A suicide car bomb hit a Canadian military convoy in the southern Afghan city, killing two civilians and wounding 13 people. The blast occurred as the convoy was driving near the Canadian base in Kandahar city, a former Taliban stronghold, said Interior Ministry spokesman Dad Mohammed Rasa. He said at least two civilians were killed and 10 were wounded. He said an unspecified number of Canadian troops were also hurt.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara said three soldiers were wounded in a bomb attack on a U.S.-led coalition convoy, but declined to identify their nationalities. Calls to a spokesman for the Canadian force in Kandahar went unanswered. Canada has about 650 troops in Afghanistan, nearly all in Kandahar.

Shopkeeper Rahim Gul said he saw a sedan vehicle blow up as it was passing the convoy. "The explosion was so big. It destroyed one jeep and blew it totally to the other side of the road," he said, adding that he saw at least three wounded soldiers.

The blast is the latest in a string of suicide attacks that represent a new and disturbing security threat in Afghanistan. Violence across southern and eastern Afghanistan spiked last year, leaving about 1,600 people dead, the most since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001 for hosting Osama bin Laden.

KABUL (The Scotsman) Jan. 13, 2006 -- HUNDREDS of foreign Islamic fighters are gathering in Afghanistan ahead of the deployment of 4,000 British troops to the country in the spring.

British intelligence sources have told The Scotsman Islamic radicals sympathetic to al-Qaeda see Afghanistan as their new frontline and are starting to shift the focus of their anti-western campaign from Iraq.

The fighters, including Jordanians, Yemenis, Egyptians and Gulf Arabs, stepped up their campaign two months ago with a series of suicide bombings against NATO peacekeepers, United States troops and Afghan government leaders.

"Attacks in Afghanistan are now running at more than 500 a month - it's getting as dangerous for westerners as Iraq in some places," said a British officer involved in planning the NATO peacekeeping mission in the south-west of the country.

DAMADOLA, Pakistan (ABC/AP) Jan 15, 2006 -- Pakistani officials on angrily condemned a purported CIA airstrike meant to target al-Qaida's No. 2 man, saying he wasn't there and innocent civilians were among at least 17 men, women and children killed in a village near the Afghan border.

Tribesmen stand by their home damaged
by Friday's air raid - Al Jazeera

Thousands of tribesmen staged protests and a mob set fire to the office of a U.S.-backed aid agency as Pakistan's people and government showed increasing frustration over a recent series of suspected U.S. attacks along the frontier that appear aimed at Islamic militants.

Pakistani Anger and Protests in Karachi  

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's government banned CNN journalists from working in the country after a "translation error" broadcast by CNN mistakenly quoted Iran's president as saying his nation has the right to build nuclear weapons, the state-run news agency said.

CNN was not informed directly by the Iranian government that it was banned from the country. The dispute arises from a moment of simultaneous translation Saturday.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
slams efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program.  

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking, an interpreter working for a translation company hired by CNN misquoted him as having said Iran has the right to build nuclear weapons.

In fact, he said Iran has the right to nuclear energy, and that "a nation that has civilization does not need nuclear weapons." He added, "Our nation does not need them."

The incorrect translation was aired on CNN later Saturday.

As soon as it was alerted to the error, CNN on Sunday corrected the translation and clarified Ahmadinejad's remarks. The network also apologized.

In a written statement, CNN said it "apologized on all its platforms which included the translation error, including CNN International, CNNUSA and CNN.com, and also expressed its regrets to the Iranian government and the Iranian ambassador to the U.N."