Behind the Downing Street Memos

Behind the Downing Street Memos Lurks the specter of treason

by Justin Raimondo

Everyone is talking about the Downing Street memos, and they are important – although not for the reasons generally assumed. Naturally, we covered these on Antiwar.com when they were first published, but now that the "mainstream" media is finally paying attention it behooves us to go over them with a fine-tooth comb, in an attempt to tease some meaning out of the daily slaughter on the evening news. The key paragraph in the first memo, and the one most cited, is this: "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." The mysterious "C" is none other than Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, Britain's intelligence service, no doubt conferring with his American equivalent, then-CIA director George Tenet. The date – July 23, 2002 – is significant: if you'll remember, at that time our lying president was telling us that war with Iraq would be a "last resort." Yeah, sure. Not that anybody really believed him, but it's significant that he still felt it necessary to make the effort to deceive. Meanwhile, the War Party was plotting to pull a fast one, using every trick in the book to gin up a war with Iraq – a constant stream of wild stories presented in the guise of "intelligence" and planted in a compliant media, all positing "weapons of mass destruction" poised to hit American cities. Bob Woodward revealed that the decision to go to war had already been made in his book, Plan of Attack, but the media doesn't cover books. Leaked memos, however, are another matter: especially ones with "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL – UK EYES ONLY" emblazoned at the top, along with a further notation: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents." Well, yes, we genuinely do need to know why our young people are dying by the dozens every week, until now it's over 1,700 and rising. And it isn't sensitive anymore, now that the horse is out of the barn, so it's OK for the public to see these previously secret documents: that's why we're reading them today and why they're being covered in the "mainstream" media.[Full Story] Copyright 2005 Antiwar.com

U.S. House votes to curb Patriot Act, defies Bush

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday defied President Bush by approving a measure making it harder for federal agents to secretly gather information on people's library reading habits and bookstore purchases.

The House voted 238-187 to scale back the government's powers to conduct secret investigations that were authorized by the Patriot Act, a post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism law.

"We can fight terrorism without undermining basic constitutional rights. That's what the message of today is about," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who pushed the measure through the House with the support of 38 Republicans.

The White House has warned Congress that any weakening of the Patriot Act would prompt senior advisers to recommend that Bush veto the $57.5 billion bill to fund activities next year for the Justice Department and other federal agencies, which now contains Sanders' amendment. [Full Story]

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

Debate deepens over Guantánamo

Wednesday's hearing in Congress highlights the rift between the Bush administration and critics over the role of detention.

By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In Washington, debate over conditions at the US detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is escalating into a larger argument: What role should detention properly play in a conflict with stateless, extremist enemies?

To top US officials, the war against terrorism is unexplored territory. Thus traditional doctrines covering criminals and military prisoners do not apply.

To critics, the continued fuzzy legal status of Guantánamo detainees undermines US values - not to mention the nation's image abroad. Shutting the camp, they claim, is now the administration's best option. [Full Story]

Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor.

Relatives of Gujarat riot victims seek damages from state

AHMEDABAD, India (AFP) - Survivors of one of the worst massacres during the 2002 sectarian riots in Gujarat filed a compensation claim against the western Indian state's ruling Hindu nationalist BJP party.

Over 120 people from the minority Muslim community were burnt or hacked to death by Hindu mobs in February 2002 in two separate residential colonies.

A former member of parliament, Ehsan Jaffri, from the opposition Congress Party, was among those killed in the riots.

"Today, I have filed a civil suit for compensation along with 24 other families of the Gulbarg Society who lost all in a single day of communal hatred," said his son Tanvir Jaffri.

He said the victims were seeking total damages of seven million rupees (162,800 dollars) from the BJP state government as well as Hindu right wing groups.

Representatives of the families whose kin were killed said the process of filing the compensation claim was delayed because of red tape.

The Gujarati government was accused of turning a blind eye to the riots in which about 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, died.

The riots were triggered after claims that a Muslim mob torched a train carrying Hindus at Godhra, killing 59 people. A subsequent official report said the train fire was an accident.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050614/wl_sthasia_afp/indiagujaratunrest_050614045545
Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse.