Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

UK Foreign Office threaten former Ambassador Murray over book on rendition and torture in Uzbekistan

by ghandi Thu Feb 16th, 2006 at 09:05:40 AM EST

from the front page. --Jérôme

Britain's outspoken former Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan, Craig Murray who helped expose vicious human rights abuses by the US-funded regime of Islam Karimov is now engaged in a battle with The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office who are determined to stop him from publishing his book, Murder in Samarkand.

The British Government has come out with fully armed and are threatening four grounds of legal action if he goes to press:

a) Libel
b) Crown Copyright
c) Breach of Confidence
d) Official Secrets Act

But he doesn't care, he’s going to press anyway.


So he needs our support.

Murray resigned in protest from his position due to the US/British policy of rendering prisoners caught elsewhere in the world to be tortured in Karimov's infamous prisons.

On the night prior to Christmas Eve in 2005, the UK Government threated Murray that he would face litigation if he went to press with his book - to which, in reaction, he promptly released several documents on the Internet that government officials told him would violate the British Secrecy Act if made public. Within hours, the documents ripped around the world, proving that in the new era of blogging and political networks that have reached out across the Atlantic and around the world - whistleblowers have some reprise in stating their case.

The documents unveiled last year included telegrams that Craig sent to the Foreign Office detailing disgust at the UK government’s use of intelligence passed on by the Uzbeki secret service. Also a copy of legal advice the Foreign Office sought, to see whether they were operating within the Law in accepting torture intelligence, and according to Michael Wood the FCO legal adviser; “it’s fine, as long as it is not used as evidence."

From Chris Floyd...

And evil is the word for it. Murray, while still serving as UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, dug up proof that the tortures condoned by Bush and Blair included boiling prisoners to death, in addition to the traditional methods of pulling out fingernails, beating, starving, and raping. Nor were these refinements limited to the prisoners themselves -- their family members were also tortured to produce "confessions." One chilling case unearthed by Murray, who witnessed the Stalinist show trials mounted by Karimov's judicial goons, featured a peasant farmer who was forced to confess to extensive family links to Osama Bin Laden -- after seeing his children tortured before his eyes. At the show trial, the old man renounced his confession and exposed the torture of children -- and was promptly hustled away.

All of this -- and much more -- Murray reported at the time to his superiors in London, and to his diplomatic colleagues from Europe and the United States. At every turn, he found either resigned complicity -- "What can we do? The US supports Karimov?" -- to outright embrace of torture from -- who else? -- Bush's own man in Tashkent, who told Murray that the "reduction of civil liberties" under Karimov was "no bad thing," since it was being done in the name of combatting Islamic extremism. Here we see the Bushist ethos in essence: Everything is permitted -- torture, murder, rape, kidnapping, aggression -- in the name of "fighting terrorism." Bush has of course brought this police state philosophy to America, as even the mainstream media is beginning to report.

Murray's release of these documents -- an end run around the Blair government's threat to censor his whistle-blowing book on his tenure in Uzbekistan -- is yet another of a whole battery of smoking guns proving the pervasive criminality of the oh-so-Christian Coalition of Bush and Blair.

Blairwatch is covering the latest story in-depth.

“Book Burning: Craig Murray to defy Foreign Office Threats, and publish ‘Murder in Samarkand’”

Display:

February 12, 2006
Declaration and Publication: The Stagg Letter and The Final Rejoinder

Threatening Letter from the Foreign Office to Murray

Click thumb for full image

Click thumb for full image

Murray

9 February 2006

Mr Richard Stagg
Director General Corporate Affairs
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
London

Dear Dickie,

Thank you for your letter of 8 February about my forthcoming book, Murder in Samarkand. Let me respond to the points which you have made.

Firstly, allow me to note that, over a period of many months, you have consulted exhaustively with all the FCO staff, past and present, named in the book.

Let me then relate that to the question of libel. In your letter you state that you are “Also advised that there are a number of passages in your book which could well ground actions for defamation.”

Let me be quite plain. I have no desire to libel or defame anybody. So I urge you now to disclose to me those passages in the book which you have been advised may be defamatory, so that I may consider if I believe there is that danger, and remove or amend any accidental defamation.

I make this offer in all good faith, that we may avoid the publication of defamation. If you choose not to take up this fair offer, and subsequently the FCO or its employees attempt to block publication through court actions for defamation, it will be evident that this is not an attempt to avoid defamation, but a ruse to block publication of the book as a whole through vexatious and unnecessary litigation.

I repeat I have the strongest desire not to defame anybody. I know the terrible mental anguish that unjust defamation can cause. You will recall that I was myself outrageously defamed and accused, quite groundlessly, of appalling things like being an alcoholic and offering visas in exchange for sex. Of course, in my case it was the FCO which was defaming me. The complete story of why and how this happened is in fact the substance of my book. Which is why you are so keen to identify and reserve possible legal avenues for the government to block publication.

It is not falsehood which scares you, but truth.

It is plain from your letter that you object to the whole concept of my publishing this account. Nowhere in the months of negotiation between us to date did you propose any such fundamental objections as now surface in your letter. Rather you asked for a series of specific amendments, the vast majority of which I made. I am sadly reinforced in my view that this lengthy process was an effort on your part to stall publication, rather than a discussion in good faith.

On the specific points you raise, you claim that the publication on my website of material in September caused operational damage to Research Analysts. There has been numerous and frequent correspondence and personal contact between us since September. I am puzzled as to why you mention this now and have not done so before. The material in question featured on my website for 24 hours and has not done so since.

You requested me to remove material from the book which you believed was misleading on the role of Research Analysts and could cause operational difficulty. I immediately removed that passage from the text in its entirety. The only point still at dispute, is that I have in the text that a member of Research Analysts told me that people in that Department were in tears over pressure put on them to go along with claims of Iraqi WMD. You tell me that the officer, still in your employ, now denies telling me this. I have noted in the book that I say he told me this, and he apparently says he did not tell me this. People can draw their own conclusions. I cannot see why this is such a huge problem for you, or would lead you to want to ban a book.

Similarly, I formed a strong impression that the British Embassy in Tashkent was pretty inactive before my arrival. You say that is not your impression. Well, fine. That seems to me well within the range of views that should be able freely to be published in a democracy without political suppression.

I note your point on Crown Copyright. Again, I am genuinely concerned to act in a legal fashin and I should be most grateful if you would explain to me how my book differs from Christopher Meyer’s in this regard.

You told me that you had personally played a major role within the FCO in supervising the preparation of the “Dirty Dossier” on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. I am afraid that one consequence is, that when you try to lecture me on truth, I am sorely tempted to laugh at you. I have lost my livelihood through all this. You have lost something infinitely more precious.

Finally, you threaten me with the Official Secrets Act. I am confident I am not breaking it. And if you really want to ask a jury of twelve honest citizens to send me to prison for campaigning against torture, good luck to you.

Yours Sincerely,

Craig J Murray



Atlantic Free Press
by ghandi (expatforums@gmail.com) on Mon Feb 13th, 2006 at 04:05:47 PM EST
the very best of luck. If only there were more people with guts...

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Feb 13th, 2006 at 04:37:40 PM EST
Well, I would not get in a small Wellstonian plane if I were him. Or take a stroll in the country a la David Kelly.

The only point still at dispute, is that I have in the text that a member of Research Analysts told me that people in that Department were in tears over pressure put on them to go along with claims of Iraqi WMD.

The Downing Street memos confirmed an intention to "fix" the evidence. The forty five minute saga was pathetic. And Murry points out how hard they were all pushed.

Atlantic Free Press

by ghandi (expatforums@gmail.com) on Mon Feb 13th, 2006 at 05:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And thanks to you ghandi for posting a diary about this. It's important to keep up to date. It's truly sad how little traction this gets in the mainstream media, an indication of how "establishment" they tend to be...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Mon Feb 13th, 2006 at 05:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. I'll front page it tomorrow.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 13th, 2006 at 06:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...done...

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 09:35:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't this going to be fun? They can't seriously expect to take him to court because if there's any evidence at all - and it's hard to see how there couldn't be - it would have to be presented to the jury.

If they don't take him to court it will be presented in the book instead.

The expedient thing to do would be to sit tight and ignore the whole thing. But the Mandarins seem to have a habit of making asses out of themselves, so it's likely this could turn into another humiliating court defeat in the style of Spycatcher, and the rest.

In an ideal world there would be some serious political fall-out too. That's perhaps a lot to ask for, given the UK's current state of terminal voter apathy. But there's always hope.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 10:17:40 AM EST
This is from the very right-wing webzine "Newsmax." Considering that, one can tell that the rats are leaving the sinking ship that is the Bush Administration:

Rove to Senators: Clear Bush or Else

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.

Being blacklisted would mean an end to any White House political or financial support for Senators running for re-election this year, sources told Insight magazine.

"It's hardball all the way," one GOP congressional aide declared.

The administration is worried that the defection of a handful of Republican committee members could lead to a finding that Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - and possible impeachment hearings.

During the last few weeks, Rove has been meeting with GOP committee members to deliver the message: A vote against Bush would ravage Republican prospects in this year's congressional elections, Insight reports.

But while Rove is threatening the stick - the blacklist - he is also holding out a carrot: White House offers to help loyal candidates with money and publicity, such as photo-ops with the president.

 For the past five years Newsmax has worshipped the Bush administration.

by messy on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 10:19:56 AM EST
As if an incumbent Senator couldn't win reelection precisely on making the right decision in this case and exposing Rove for the thug he is... They could even use biblican images in their campaigning, you know, the road to Damascus and all that.

What these Republican Senators need is some spine. They should retort "I dare you to push me out of the Republican Party".

Remember Jim Jeffords?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 10:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The FCO vs Craig Murray

Britain’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has been trying for a while now to publish a book about his time as head of the mission, against the wishes of the Foreign Office.

Mr Murray is not an uncontroversial figure - opinions differe about his reliability and motives. But it is interesting to note what he says he has already taken out of his book, Murder in Samarkand, the contents of which the FCO is still not happy with:

*I have removed two accusations that Colin Powell was lying
*I have edited out those parts of my conversation with the US Ambassador which had the quality of confidence, were indiscreet, or differed from public US policy on Uzbekistan
*I have removed the detail of two SIS intelligence reports
*I have removed the reference to GCHQ telephone intercepts
*I have removed completely references to the role of Research Analysts in intelligence analysis
*I have made plain that Duncan does not support my recollection that he said Research Analysts were in tears over pressure brought over claims of Iraqi WMD
*I have changed the attributions of several comments made by Uzbek LE staff
*I have given false names to several Uzbek LE staff
*I have removed several references to my contention that the Embassy did not function well before my arrival
*I have removed the reference to an early hiccough in Andrew Patrick’s career
*I have changed statements made by Matthew Kydd and Linda Duffield (frankly, I believe my original account was more accurate)
*I have reduced the gruesome detail of the aircraft crash body identification, and particularly taken out physical detail personal to Richard Conroy
*I have removed or toned down a number of personal observations on FCO staff
*I have taken out the reference to Frank Berman being appointed over David Anderson



Atlantic Free Press
by ghandi (expatforums@gmail.com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 10:53:14 AM EST
The ironic thing is that now, even if people never read the book, they can read this list.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 10:57:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
True.

I love this little tidbit too.

You told me that you had personally played a major role within the FCO in supervising the preparation of the "Dirty Dossier" on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. I am afraid that one consequence is, that when you try to lecture me on truth, I am sorely tempted to laugh at you. I have lost my livelihood through all this. You have lost something infinitely more precious.

It seems Dickie was a major propagandist and spinner behind the Downing Street Memos.

Atlantic Free Press

by ghandi (expatforums@gmail.com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 11:41:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Honestly, I admire this man.

This situation reminds me of the book that I have just finished reading. It was called "A Problem From Hell" (by Samantha Power).

In her book, Power writes about the multiple failures of the American government to influence somehow or even intervene in the genocidal policies of various political regimes throughout the twentieth century (Nazi Germany, the Khmer Rouge, etc.).

Her account starts with the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire. At that time the American Ambassador in Constantinople was Henry Morgenthau, who, like Craig Murray here, quit his position, disgusted by the US government's inactivity and frustrated by his personal impotence in the face of the greatest crime of the century.

What's more, he even wrote a book about his tenure as the US official representative in Turkey. You can find it here.

A great read, by the way.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government -- Edward Abbey

by serik berik (serik[dot]berik on Gmail) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 04:04:48 PM EST
Let's see: The Armeinian genocide was in 1915. The US wasn't in the war until two years later. Besides we didn'at have much of an army in 1915. After all, Mexico had just invaded Arizona and we were trying to get Pancho Villa. (I'm not kidding)

In 1975, when the communists in vietnam started a third vietnam war, you know, the one which the few American soldiers in left in Saigon had to triage the thousands and thousands of innocent Vietnamese trying to escape the conquerers, the Khmer Rouge was an ally.

Most of the world, until they discovered the body count, thought that the US was the bad guy and the KM was the good guy. The US congress, which wanted NOTHING to do with Vietnam, and Jimmy Carter, who felt kinship with the KM, was President during most of the genocide.

Remember, the US wasn't a military superpower until after world war two. Prior to that it wasn't even in the top ten.

by messy on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 08:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are correct in pointing out that the USA was not a major world power in 1915 for her to achieve much in addressing the Armenian genocide. However, the country could have at least officially expressed its concern about the issue, or resorted to diplomatic actions of some sort in order to stop the atrocities. The US government did not produce any form of response, as the author writes in the book, and that is what bothers her most: the political indifference of the state which claims to have respect for human rights and freedoms at its very heart.

And in the Khmer Rouge case, the US collaboration with the genocidal regime of Pol Pot in the war against Communist Vietnam is exactly proving the point Power is trying to make. How could the US President and the Congress ally with Cambodia, and even lobby for giving its new government a seat at the UN, when there were (and there really were) numerous reports, however well supported, of mass killings and state-sponsored terror in that country?

The book does raise interesting topics. I almost urge you to read it. :) It's worth the time (the book might seem somewhat too thick).

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government -- Edward Abbey

by serik berik (serik[dot]berik on Gmail) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 06:14:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't wait to buy the book and help Mr. Murray with his new livelihood.  Funny how much more comes out and how much more pressure it has behind it, when you try to bottle up the story.

Good luck and thank you

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson

by NearlyNormal on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 06:22:06 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]