uk: prohibitionist brown against scientific truth

.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091031/tuk-uk-britain-science-politics-fa6b408.html

British drugs sacking fuels science, politics row

8 hours 12 mins ago

Reuters

Kate Kelland

The government's sacking of its chief drugs adviser highlights the tense relationship between scientists who see evidence as objective data and politicians who want use it to woo voters.

Britain's scientific community reacted with dismay to Home Secretary Alan Johnson's decision to push David Nutt out of his job as head of the independent drugs advisory body, saying it undermined the integrity of science in policy.

Scientists said the decision to sack Nutt, who criticised Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government for ignoring scientific advice on cannabis and ecstasy, could devalue policy-making in areas including health, environment, education and defence.

Climate change, healthcare and tackling the H1N1 swine flu pandemic are all high on the political agenda as Brown -- whose Labour party trails way behind the Conservatives -- prepares for an election due by June next year

Nutt said Brown's was the first government in the history of Britain's 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act -- the main law covering illegal drugs and categorising them into risk groups -- to have gone against the advice of its scientific panel.

Analysts say playing politics with science may prove to be dangerous.

"Scientific data and their independent interpretation underpin evidence-based policy making -- and nobody rational could possibly want a government based on any other type of policy making," said Chris Higgins, chair of an advisory committee on spongiform encephalopathy, or "mad cow" disease.

The Labour government downgraded cannabis' legal status on the advisory body's advice in 2004 but Brown reversed that decision last year saying he wanted to send a strong message that use of the drug was unacceptable.

Nutt publicly criticised this decision, and was told by ministers Friday to quit his job.

"Some aspects of science...should not be subject to petty party politics," he told BBC radio Saturday. "There's no point in having drug laws that are meaningless or arbitrary just because politicians find it useful and expedient occasionally to come down so-called hard on drugs."

What angers scientists most is what they see as cherry-picking of evidence by politicians who use data when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't.

Nutt said that of the hundreds of recommendations made by his committee, the government has chosen to ignore just two. He accused ministers of misleading the public about the dangers of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy for purely political reasons.

Maurice Elphick, a professor of animal physiology and neuroscience at Queen Mary, University of London, said politicians should look elsewhere if they wanted data to back social policies and allow science to maintain objectivity.

"If, however, politicians really do want to have an objective assessment of the relative risks to health of different recreational drugs, then they should listen to what the medical scientist has to say, not sack him." he said.

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden, editing by Dominic Evans)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20091029/tpl-alcohol-cigarettes-more-harmful-than-5b839a9.html

Alcohol, cigarettes more harmful than LSD: scientist

Thursday, October 29

04:04 pm

AFP


Alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous than illegal drugs such as cannabis, LSD and ecstasy, the government's top drugs advisor said Thursday.

Professor David Nutt of Imperial College London called for a new system of classifying drugs to enable the public to better understand the relative harm of legal and illegal substances.

Alcohol would rank as the fifth most harmful drug after heroin, cocaine, barbiturates and methadone, he said in a briefing paper for the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London.

Tobacco would come ninth on the list and cannabis, LSD and ecstasy "while harmful, are ranked lower at 11, 14 and 18 respectively". The ranking is based on physical harm, dependence and social harm.

"No one is suggesting that drugs are not harmful. The critical question is one of scale and degree," said Nutt, the chairman of the government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

He added: "We have to accept young people like to experiment -- with drugs and other potentially harmful activities -- and what we should be doing in all of this is to protect them from harm at this stage of their lives.

"We therefore have to provide more accurate and credible information. If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you are probably wrong."

Nutt criticised ministers for their decision to upgrade the classification of cannabis in January from class C -- which includes tranquillisers and some painkillers -- to the higher class B alongside amphetamines.

The decision, which increases the penalties to a maximum 14 years in jail for dealing and five years for possession, was against scientific advice and came just five years after cannabis had been downgraded from class B to C.

Nutt said such policies "distort" and "devalue" research evidence and lead to mixed messages to the public.

While he acknowledged that cannabis was "harmful", he said its use does not lead to major health problems. Users faced a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness compared to the risks of smokers contracting lung cancer.

Nutt caused controversy earlier this year by saying that taking ecstasy was no more dangerous than horseriding, a claim he repeated in his paper.

obama ne peut pas fermer guantanamo

.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article162377.html

sourece: réseau Voltaire

Les USA, Empire de la barbarie

Le secret de Guantánamo

par Thierry Meyssan*

Vous pensez être informé sur ce qui s’est passé à Guantánamo et vous vous étonnez que le président Obama n’arrive pas à fermer ce centre de torture. Vous avez tort. Vous ignorez la véritable finalité de ce dispositif et ce qui le rend indispensable à l’administration actuelle.
Attention : si vous souhaitez continuer à penser que nous avons des valeurs communes avec les États-Unis et que nous devons être alliés avec eux, abstenez-vous de lire cet article.


28 octobre 2009

Depuis
Moscou (Russie)

Détenu sortant d’une séance de conditionnement à Guantánamo.

Chacun se souvient de ces photographies de tortures qui circulaient sur Internet. Elles étaient présentées comme les trophées de guerre de quelques GI’s. Néanmoins, les grands médias, ne pouvant en vérifier l’authenticité, n’osaient pas les reproduire. En 2004, la chaîne CBS y consacra un reportage. Ce fut le signal d’un grand mouvement de dénonciation des mauvais traitements infligés aux Irakiens. La prison d’Abu Ghraib montrait que la prétendue guerre contre la dictature de Saddam Hussein était en réalité une guerre d’occupation comme les autres, avec le même cortège de crimes. Sans surprise, Washington assura qu’il s’agissait d’exactions perpétrées à l’insu du commandement par quelques individus non-représentatifs, qualifiés de « pommes pourries ». Quelques soldats furent arrêtés et jugés pour l’exemple. Le dossier était clos jusqu’aux prochaines révélations.

Simultanément, la CIA et le Pentagone préparaient l’opinion publique aux États-Unis et dans les États alliés à changer de valeurs morales. L’Agence avait nommé un agent de liaison avec Hollywood, le colonel Chase Brandon (un cousin de Tommy Lee Jones) et engagé de célèbres écrivains (comme Tom Clancy) et scénaristes pour écrire de nouveaux films et séries télévisées. Le but : stigmatiser la culture musulmane et banaliser la torture dans la lutte contre le terrorisme.
À titre d’exemple, les aventures de l’agent Jack Bauer, dans la série 24H, ont été abondamment subventionnées par l’Agence pour que chaque saison repousse un peu plus loin les limites de l’acceptable. Dans les premiers épisodes, le héros intimide des suspects pour leur extorquer des renseignements. Dans les épisodes suivants, tous les personnages se soupçonnent les uns les autres, et se torturent à leur tour, avec de moins en moins d’états d’âme et de plus en plus de certitude du devoir à accomplir. Dans l’imaginaire collectif, des siècles d’humanisme furent balayés et une nouvelle barbarie s’imposa. Le chroniqueur du Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer (par ailleurs médecin psychiatre) pouvait présenter l’usage de la torture comme « un impératif moral » (sic) en ces temps troublés de guerre contre le terrorisme.

Vint la confirmation par l’enquête du sénateur suisse Dick Marty au Conseil de l’Europe que la CIA avait enlevé des milliers de personnes dans le monde, dont des dizaines, voire des centaines sur le territoire de l’Union européenne. Puis ce fut l’avalanche de témoignages sur les crimes perpétrés dans les prisons de Guantánamo (Caraïbes) et de Baghram (Afghanistan). Parfaitement conditionnée, l’opinion publique des États membres de l’OTAN accepta l’explication qu’on lui donna et qui cadrait si bien avec les intrigues romanesques dont elle était abreuvée : pour sauver des vies d’innocents, Washington avait recours à des pratiques clandestines ; on enlevait des suspects et on les faisait parler par des méthodes que la morale réprouve mais que l’efficacité commande.
C’est à partir de cette narration simpliste que le candidat Barack Obama s’est dressé contre l’administration Bush sortante. Il a érigé l’interdiction de la torture et la fermeture des prisons secrètes en mesures phares de son mandat. Dès son élection, durant la période de transition, il s’est entouré de juristes de très haut niveau qu’il a chargé d’élaborer une stratégie pour clore ce sinistre épisode. Une fois installé à la Maison-Blanche, il a consacré ses premiers décrets présidentiels à la mise en œuvre de ses engagements en la matière. Cet empressement a conquis l’opinion publique internationale, a suscité une immense sympathie pour le nouveau président et a rénové l’image des États-Unis dans le monde.

Seulement voilà : un an après l’élection de Barack Obama, si quelques centaines de cas individuels ont été réglés, rien n’a changé sur le fond. Guantánamo est là et ne sera pas fermé dans l’immédiat. Les associations de défense des droits de l’homme sont formelles : les violences contre les détenus ont empiré.
Interrogé à ce sujet, le vice-président Joe Biden a déclaré que plus il avançait dans ce dossier, plus il découvrait des aspects qu’il ignorait jusque là. Puis, énigmatique, il a mis en garde la presse, assurant qu’il ne fallait pas ouvrir la boîte de Pandore.
De son côté, Greg Craig, le conseiller juridique de la Maison-Blanche, a souhaité présenter sa démission, non qu’il considère avoir failli à sa mission de fermer le centre, mais parce qu’il estime désormais qu’on lui a confié une tache impossible.

Pourquoi donc le président des États-Unis ne parvient-il pas à se faire obéir ? Si l’on a déjà tout dit sur les exactions de l’ère Bush, pourquoi évoquer une boîte de Pandore et que craindre ?

C’est qu’en réalité, le système est plus vaste. Il ne se limite pas à quelques enlèvements et à une prison. Surtout, sa finalité est radicalement différente de ce que la CIA et le Pentagone ont fait croire.
Avant de commencer notre descente aux enfers, il convient de lever une confusion.

Le secrétaire à la défense Donald Rumsfeld a participé aux réunions du Groupe des Six chargé de choisir les tortures mises en œuvres par les forces US. Ici, il visite la prison d’Abu Graib (Irak).

Contre-insurrection

Ce qui a été fait par l’Army à Abu Ghraib, du moins au début, n’avait rien à voir avec ce qui est expérimenté par la Navy à Guantánamo et dans ses autres prisons secrètes. Il s’agissait simplement de ce que font toutes les armées du monde lorsqu’elles se transforment en police et affrontent une population hostile. Elles la dominent en la terrorisant. En l’occurrence, les Forces de la Coalition ont reproduit les crimes commis lors de la Bataille d’Alger par des Français contre des Algériens qu’ils appelaient encore leurs « compatriotes ». Le Pentagone a rappelé le général français à la retraite Paul Aussaresses, spécialiste de la « contre-insurrection », pour qu’il briefe les officiers supérieurs.

Durant sa longue carrière, Aussaresses a accompagné les États-Unis partout où ils ont livré des « guerres de basse intensité », principalement en Asie du Sud-Est et en Amérique latine.

À la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les États-Unis installent deux centres de formation à ces techniques, la Political Warfare Cadres Academy (Taiwan) et la School of Americas (Panama). Des cours de torture y furent dispensés aux responsables de la répression dans les dictatures asiatiques et latino-américaines. Dans les années 60-70, ce dispositif fut coordonné au sein de la World Anti-Communist League, où siégeaient les chefs d’État concernés [1]. Cette politique prit une ampleur considérable lors des opérations Phoenix au Vietnam (neutralisation de 80 000 individus soupçonnés d’appartenir au Viet Cong) [2]et Condor en Amérique latine (neutralisation des opposants politiques à l’échelle du continent) [3]. Le schéma articulant des opérations de nettoyage de zones insurgées à des escadrons de la mort a été appliqué à l’identique en Irak, notamment lors de l’opération Iron Hammer [4].
La seule nouveauté est la distribution aux GI’s d’un classique de la littérature coloniale, The Arab Mind, de l’anthropologue Raphael Patai, avec une préface du colonel Norvell B. De Atkine, patron de la John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School, nouvelle dénomination de la sinistre School of Americas depuis qu’elle a été déménagée à Fort Bragg (Caroline du Nord) [5]. Ce livre, qui présente sur un ton savant des préjugés stupides sur les « arabes » en général, comprend un célèbre chapitre sur les tabous sexuels qui a inspiré les mises en scène d’Abou Ghraib.

Les tortures commises en Irak ne sont pas des cas isolés, comme l’a feint l’administration Bush, mais s’intègrent dans une stratégie de contre-insurrection. Le seul moyen d’y mettre fin, ce n’est pas de les condamner moralement, c’est de résoudre la situation politique. Or Barack Obama repousse toujours à plus tard le retrait des forces étrangères d’Irak.

Auteur à succès, inventeur de la psychologie positive, professeur à l’université de Pennsylvanie et ancien président de l’American Psychological Association, Martin Seligman a supervisé les tortures expérimentées sur les prisonniers à Guantanamo.

Les expériences du professeur Biderman

C’est dans une toute autre perspective qu’un psychiatre de l’Armée de l’air, le professeur Albert D. Biderman, étudia pour la Rand Corporation le conditionnement des prisonniers de guerre US en Corée du Nord.
Bien avant Mao et le communisme, les Chinois avaient mis au point des méthodes raffinées pour briser la volonté d’un détenu et lui inculquer des aveux. Il les avaient utilisées durant la guerre de Corée et avaient obtenu quelques résultats : des prisonniers de guerre US avouant avec conviction devant la presse des crimes qu’ils n’avaient peut-être pas commis. Biderman présenta ses premières observations lors d’une audition au Sénat, le 19 juin 1956, puis à l’Académie de médecine de New York, l’année suivante (Voir documents téléchargeables ci-dessous). Il distingua cinq stades par lequel passent les « sujets ».

1. Tout d’abord le prisonnier refuse de coopérer et se mure dans le silence.
2. Par un mélange de brutalités et de gentillesse, on peut le faire passer à un second stade où il va être conduit à se défendre de ce dont on l’accuse.
3. Puis, le prisonnier commence à coopérer. Il continue à clamer son innocence, mais il cherche à satisfaire ses interrogateurs en reconnaissant qu’il a peut être commis une faute sans le vouloir, par accident ou par inadvertance.
4. Lorsqu’il traverse la quatrième phase, le prisonnier est complètement dévalorisé à ses propres yeux. Il persiste à nier ce dont on l’accuse, mais il confesse sa nature criminelle.
5. À la fin du processus, le prisonnier admet être l’auteur des faits qu’on lui reproche. Il invente même des détails supplémentaires pour s’accuser et réclame son châtiment.

Biderman examine également toutes les techniques utilisées par les tortionnaires chinois pour manipuler les prisonniers : isolation, monopolisation de la perception sensorielle, fatigue, menaces, gratifications, démonstrations de puissance des geôliers, dégradation des conditions de vie, contrainte. La violence physique est secondaire, la violence psychologique est totale et permanente.

Les travaux de Biderman sur le « lavage de cerveau » ont acquis une dimension mythique. Les militaires US ont craint que leurs hommes puissent être retournés par l’ennemi, conditionnés pour dire n’importe quoi et peut être pour faire n’importe quoi. Ils ont donc conçu un programme d’entrainement de leurs pilotes de chasse de sorte que ceux-ci deviennent réfractaires à cette forme de torture et ne puissent être retournés par l’ennemi s’ils étaient faits prisonniers. Cette formation est nommée SERE, acronyme de Survivre, s’Évader, Résister, s’Échapper (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). Si initialement le cours était donné à la School of Americas, il a été étendu aujourd’hui à d’autres catégories de personnel militaire et est dispensé sur plusieurs bases. En outre des formations de cette nature ont été instituées dans chaque armée membre de l’OTAN.

Ce que l’administration Bush a décidé, après l’invasion de l’Afghanistan, c’est d’utiliser ces techniques pour inculquer des aveux à des prisonniers qui justifieraient ainsi, a posteriori, l’implication de l’Afghanistan dans les attaques du 11-Septembre et validerait la version officielle des attentats.

De nouvelles installations ont été construites sur la base navale de Guantánamo et des expériences y ont été menées. La théorie d’Albert Biderman a été complétée par un psychologue civil, le professeur Martin Seligman. C’est une personnalité très en vue qui a été notamment président de l’American Psychological Association.

Seligman a montré une limite de la théorie des réflexes conditionnés d’Ivan Pavlov. On place un chien dans une cage dont le sol est divisé en deux parties. On électrifie aléatoirement un côté ou l’autre du sol. L’animal saute d’un endroit à l’autre pour se protéger — jusque là, rien de surprenant—. Puis, on accélère les choses et parfois on électrifie toute la cage. L’animal se rend compte qu’il ne peut pas s’échapper et que ses efforts sont vains. Bientôt, il renonce, s’allonge sur le sol et entre dans un état second qui lui permet de supporter passivement la souffrance. On ouvre alors la cage. Surprise : l’animal ne fuit pas. Dans l’état psychique où il s’est placé, il n’est plus en mesure de s’opposer. Il reste allongé à endurer la douleur.

La Navy a constitué une équipe médicale de choc. Elle a notamment fait venir à Guantánamo le professeur Seligman. Ce praticien est une star, connue pour ses travaux sur la dépression nerveuse. Ses ouvrages sur l’optimisme et la confiance en soi sont des best-sellers mondiaux.
C’est lui qui a supervisé des expériences sur cobayes humains. Certains prisonniers, soumis à de terribles tortures, finissent spontanément par se placer dans cet état psychique qui leur permet de supporter la douleur, mais les prive de toute capacité de résistance.
En les manipulant ainsi, on les amène rapidement au stade 3 du processus de Biderman.

S’appuyant toujours sur les travaux de Biderman, les tortionnaires états-uniens, guidés par le professeur Seligman, ont expérimenté et amélioré chaque technique coercitive.
Pour ce faire, un protocole scientifique a été élaboré qui se base sur la mesure des fluctuations hormonales. Un laboratoire médical a été installé à Guantánamo. Des prélèvement de salive et de sang sont opérés à intervalles réguliers sur les cobayes pour évaluer leurs réactions.
Les tortionnaires ont sophistiqué leurs crimes. Par exemple, dans le programme SERE, on monopolisait la perception sensorielle en empêchant le prisonnier de dormir avec une musique stressante. Ils ont obtenu des résultats bien supérieurs en diffusant des cris de bébés inconsolables durant des journées d’affilée. Ou encore, on manifestait la toute puissance des geôliers par des passages à tabac. À Guantánamo, ils ont créé l’Immediate Reaction Force. Il s’agit d’un groupe chargé de punir les prisonniers. Lorsque cette unité entre en action, ses membres sont revêtus de cuirasses de protection à la Robocop. Ils extraient le prisonnier de sa cage et le placent dans une pièce dont les murs ont été capitonnés et tapissés de contreplaqué. Ils projettent le cobaye contre les murs, comme pour le fracasser, mais le contreplaqué amortit partiellement les chocs de sorte qu’il soit hébété, mais que ses os ne soient pas brisés.
Le progrès principal a été réalisé pour le supplice de la baignoire. Jadis la Sainte Inquisition plongeait la tête d’un prisonnier dans une baignoire et l’en retirait juste avant qu’il ne meure noyé. La sensation de mort imminente provoque l’angoisse maximale. Mais le procédé était primitif et les accidents fréquents. Désormais le prisonnier n’est plus plongé dans une baignoire pleine, mais attaché allongé dans une baignoire vide. On le noie en lui versant de l’eau sur la tête avec la possibilité d’arrêter instantanément. Les accidents sont plus rares. Chaque séance a été codifiée pour déterminer les limites du supportable. Des assistants mesurent la quantité d’eau utilisée, le moment et la durée de la suffocation. Lorsque celle-ci intervient, ils récupèrent les vomissures, les pèsent et les analysent pour évaluer l’énergie dépensée et l’épuisement qui s’ensuit.
Ainsi que le résumait le directeur adjoint de la CIA devant une Commission parlementaire : « Cela n’a rien à voir avec ce que faisait l’Inquisition, à part l’eau » (sic).

Les expériences des médecins états-uniens n’ont pas été conduites en secret comme celles du docteur Josef Mengele à Auschwitz, mais sous le contrôle direct et exclusif de la Maison-Blanche.
Tout a été rapporté à un groupe décisionnaire composé de six personnes : Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft et George Tenet, qui a témoigné avoir participé à une douzaine de ces réunions de travail.

Le résultat de ces expériences est néanmoins décevant. Rares sont les cobayes qui se sont avérés réceptifs. Il a été possible de leur inculquer des aveux, mais leur état est resté instable et il n’a pas été possible de les produire en public face à des contradicteurs.
Le cas le plus connu est celui du pseudo-Khalil Sheikh Mohammed. Il s’agit d’un individu arrêté au Pakistan et accusé d’être un islamiste koweïtien, bien qu’il ne s’agisse manifestement pas de la même personne. Après avoir été longuement torturé et avoir notamment été soumis 183 fois au supplice de la baignoire durant le seul mois de mars 2003, l’individu a reconnu être Khalil Sheikh Mohammed et s’est accusé d’avoir organisé 31 attentats différents aux quatre coins du monde, de celui au WTC de New York en 1993, en passant par la destruction à la bombe d’une boîte de nuit à Bali et la décapitation du journaliste Daniel Pearl jusqu’aux attentats du 11 septembre 2001. Le pseudo-Sheikh Mohammed a maintenu ses confessions devant une commission militaire, mais il n’a pas été possible aux avocats et juges militaires de le questionner en public, tant on craignait que, hors de sa cage, il ne revienne sur ses aveux.

Pour masquer les activités secrètes des médecins de Guantánamo, la Navy a organisé des voyages de presse à l’attention de journalistes complaisants. Ainsi, l’essayiste français Bernard Henry Lévy a-t-il volontiers joué le témoin de moralité en visitant ce qu’on a bien voulu lui montrer. Dans son livre American Vertigo, il assure que cette prison ne diffère pas des autres pénitenciers états-uniens et que les témoignages de sévices qu’on y pratiquerait [« ont été plutôt gonflés » (sic) [6]

Une des prisons off shore de l’US NAvy. Ici l’USS Ashland. La cale à fond plat a été aménagée pour recevoir des cages de prisonniers sur plusieurs niveaux.

Les prisons off shore de la Navy

En définitive, l’administration Bush a estimé que fort peu d’individus étaient conditionnables au point de croire avoir commis les attentats du 11-Septembre. Elle en a conclu qu’il fallait tester un très grand nombre de prisonniers pour sélectionner les plus réceptifs.

Compte tenu de la polémique qui s’est développée autour de Guantánamo et afin d’être sûr de ne pas être poursuivable en justice, la Navy a créé d’autres prisons secrètes et les a placées hors de toute juridiction, dans les eaux internationales.

17 bateaux à fond plat, du type de ceux utilisés pour les débarquements de troupes, ont été aménagés en prisons flottantes avec des cages comme à Guantánamo. Trois ont été identifiés par l’association britannique Reprieve. Il s’agit de l’USS Ashland, l’USS Bataan et l’USS Peleliu.

Si l’on additionne la totalité des personnes qui ont été faites prisonnières en zone de conflit ou enlevées n’importe où dans le monde et transférées dans cet ensemble de prisons au cours des huit dernières années, ce sont au total 80 000 personnes qui auraient transité dans le système, dont moins d’un millier auraient été poussées vers les stades ultimes du processus de Biderman.

Dès lors le problème de l’administration Obama se résume ainsi : il ne sera pas possible de fermer Guantánamo sans révéler ce qui y a été fait. Et il ne sera pas possible de reconnaître ce qui y a été fait, sans admettre que tous les aveux recueillis sont faux et ont été délibérément inculqués sous la torture, avec les conséquences politiques que cela implique.

À la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, douze procès furent jugés par le tribunal militaire de Nüremberg. L’un fut consacré à 23 médecins nazis. 7 furent acquittés, 9 furent condamnés à des peines de prison et 7 furent condamnés à mort. Depuis, un Code éthique régit la médecine au plan international. Il interdit précisément ce que les médecins états-uniens ont fait à Guantánamo et dans les autres prisons secrètes.

Documents joints

		« Communist attempts to elicit false confessions from Air Force prisoners of war », par Albert D. Biderman Bulletin New York Academy of Medecine 1957 Sep ;33(9):616-25. (PDF - 964 ko)
		« The Manipulation of Human Behavior », sous la direction d’Albert D. Biderman et Herbert Zimmer John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1961). (PDF - 2.4 Mo)
		Documents déclassifiés par la Commission des forces armées du Sénat des États-Unis, attestant l’usage des tortures de conditionnement à Guantanamo. U. S. The Senate Armed Services Committee, 17 juin 2008. (PDF - 3 Mo)

Thierry Meyssan

Analyste politique français, président-fondateur du Réseau Voltaire et de la conférence Axis for Peace. Il publie chaque semaine des chroniques de politique étrangère dans la presse arabe et russe. Dernier ouvrage publié : L’Effroyable imposture 2, éd. JP Bertand (2007).

Cet article a été initialement publié dans l’édition de l’hebdomadaire russe Odnako datée du 19 octobre 2009.

---

[1] « La Ligue anti-communiste mondiale, une internationale du crime », par Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 12 mai 2004.

[2] « Opération Phénix », par Arthur Lepic, Réseau Voltaire, 16 novembre 2004.

[3] Lire l’ouvrage de référence Operación Cóndor, Pacto criminal de notre collaboratrice l’historienne Stella Calloni. « Stella Calloni presentó en Cuba su libro “Operación Cóndor, Pacto criminal” », 16 février 2006. Voir également sur la Red Voltaire : « Berríos y los turbios coletazos del Plan Cóndor », por Gustavo González, 26 avril 2006. « Los militares latinoamericanos no saben hacer otra cosa que espiar », por Noelia Leiva, 1er avril 2008. « El Plan Cóndor universitario », par Martin Almada, 11 mars 2008.

[4] « Opération "Marteau de fer" », par Paul Labarique, Réseau Voltaire, 11 septembre 2003.

[5] The Arab Mind, par Raphael Patai, préface de Norvell B. De Atkine, Hatherleigh Press, 2002.

[6] American vertigo, par Bernard-Henry Lévy, Grasset & Fasquelle 2006.

obama non può chiudere guantanamo

.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article162599.html

Il segreto di Guantanamo

di Thierry Meyssan*

Pensate di essere informati su ciò che è accaduto a Guantanamo e vi stupite che il presidente Obama non può chiudere questo centro di tortura. Vi sbagliate. Ignorate il vero scopo di questo centro e ciò che lo rende indispensabile all’attuale amministrazione. Attenzione: se desiderate continuare a pensare che abbiamo valori comuni con gli Stati Uniti e dobbiamo essere alleati con loro, non leggete quest’articolo.

28 ottobre 2009

Mosca (Russia)

Tutti ricordano le foto delle torture che circolano su Internet. Esse sono state presentate come trofei di guerra da qualche GI. Tuttavia, i media mainstream in grado di verificarne l’autenticità, non osava riprodurle. Nel 2004 la CBS dedicato vi ha consacrato una reportage. Questo è stato il segnale del movimento generale per esporre il maltrattamento degli iracheni. La prigione di Abu Ghraib dimostrava che la presunta guerra contro la dittatura di Saddam Hussein era in realtà una guerra di occupazione come le altre, con lo stesso corteo di crimini. Non sorprende che Washington abbia assicurato che gli abusi furono perpetrati all’insaputa dei comandi, da pochi individui insignificanti descritti come "mele marce".

Alcuni soldati sono stati arrestati e processati per esempio. Il caso è stato chiuso fino alla rivelazione successiva. Allo stesso tempo, la CIA e il Pentagono stavano preparando l’opinione pubblica, negli Stati Uniti e negli Stati alleati, a modificare i propri valori morali. L’Agenzia aveva nominato un agente di collegamento con Hollywood, il colonnello Brandon Chase (cugino di Tommy Lee Jones) e ingaggiato famosi scrittori (come Tom Clamcy) e sceneggiatori per scrivere nuovi film e serie televisive. L’obiettivo: stigmatizzare la cultura musulmana e banalizzare la tortura nella lotta contro il terrorismo.

Ad esempio, le avventure dell’agente Jack Bauer nella serie 24 sono state ampiamente sovvenzionate dall’agenzia, affinché in ogni stagione spingesse un po’ oltre i limiti dell’accettabilità. Nel primi episodi, l’eroe intimidisce gli indagati per estrarne le informazioni. Negli episodi successivi, tutti i personaggi si sospettano e si torturano a vicenda, con sempre meno stati d’animo e maggiore certezza nel dovere da svolgere. Nell’immaginario collettivo, secoli di umanesimo sono stati spazzati via e una nuova barbarie si imponeva. Il columnist del Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer (che è anche psichiatra) poteva fare dell’uso della tortura un "imperativo morale" (sic), in questi tempi difficili di guerra al terrorismo.

Poi è arrivata la conferma, da parte dell’inchiesta del senatore svizzero Dick Marty, al Consiglio d’Europa, che la CIA ha sequestrato migliaia di persone in tutto il mondo, di cui decine o persino centinaia, nel territorio dell’Unione europea. Poi è arrivata la valanga di prove sui crimini commessi nelle prigioni di Guantanamo Bay (Caraibi) e di Bagram (Afghanistan).

Perfettamente condizionata, l’opinione pubblica degli Stati membri della NATO ha accettato la spiegazione che gli si è data, e che era coerente con gli intrighi romantici da cui è stata sommersa: il risparmio di vite innocenti, il ricorso di Washington a pratiche illegali, il sequestro di sospetti, che poi si ha fatto parlare con modi che la morale riprova, ma che l’efficienza comanda.

È a partire da questa narrazione semplicistica, che il candidato Barack Obama si oppose all’amministrazione Bush uscente. Eresse a misure chiave del suo mandato la proibizione della tortura e la chiusura delle prigioni segrete. Dopo la sua elezione, durante il periodo di transizione, era circondato da avvocati di altissimo livello, per elaborare una strategia per chiudere questo sinistro episodio. Una volta installato alla Casa Bianca, ha consacrato i suoi primi decreti presidenziali nell’attuare gli impegni assunti in tal senso. Questo desiderio ha conquistato l’opinione pubblica internazionale, ha suscitato una simpatia immensa per il nuovo presidente e riabilitato l’immagine degli Stati Uniti nel mondo.

Tranne che, a un anno dall’elezione di Barack Obama, se centinaia di singoli casi sono stati risolti, non è cambiato nulla nel merito. Guantanamo è lì e non sarà chiusa immediatamente. Le associazioni di difesa dei diritti umani sono chiare: la violenza contro i detenuti sono peggiorate. Interrogato al riguardo, il vice-presidente Joe Biden ha detto che più si avanzava in questo dossier, più capiva che finora non era a conoscenza di molti aspetti. Poi, enigmatico, ha avvertito la stampa, assicurando che non si dovrebbe aprire il vaso di Pandora. Da parte sua, Greg Craig, consulente della Casa Bianca ha voluto dare le dimissioni, non perché crede di aver fallito nella sua missione di chiudere il centro, ma perché ora crede che gli sia stato affidato un compito impossibile.

Perché il Presidente degli Stati Uniti non riesce a farsi obbedire? Se uno ha già detto tutto ciò che riguarda gli abusi dell’era Bush, perché parlare di un vaso di Pandora e che se ne ha paura?

In realtà, il sistema è più vasto. Non si limita solo a pochi rapimenti e a una prigione. Soprattutto, il suo scopo è radicalmente diverso da quello che la CIA e il Pentagono fanno credere. Prima di iniziare la discesa agli inferi, si dovrebbe far piazza pulita della confusione.

Contro-insurrezione

Ciò che è stato fatto dall’esercito ad Abu Ghraib, almeno inizialmente, non aveva nulla a che fare con ciò che ha sperimentato la Marina a Guantanamo e nelle altre prigioni segrete. Si trattava semplicemente di ciò che fanno tutti gli eserciti del mondo, quando diventano una polizia e affrontano una popolazione ostile. Essi la dominano terrorizzandola. In questo caso, le forze della coalizione hanno riprodotto i crimini commessi durante la Battaglia di Algeri, da parte dei francesi, contro gli algerini, che ancora chiamavano loro "compatrioti". Il Pentagono, ha richiamato il generale francese in pensione Paul Aussaresses, specialista della “contro-insurrezione", per avere un briefing con gli ufficiali superiori. Nel corso della sua lunga carriera, Aussaresses ha accompagnato gli Stati Uniti ovunque essi hanno scatenato "guerre a bassa intensità”, soprattutto nel Sud-Est asiatico e in America Latina.

Alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale, gli Stati Uniti installarono due centri di formazione in queste tecniche, il Political Warfare Cadres Academy (Taiwan) e la Scuola delle Americhe (Panama). Dei corsi di tortura venivano insegnati ai responsabile della repressione nelle dittature asiatiche e Latinoamericane.

Negli anni ‘60-‘70, il dispositivo è stato coordinato all’interno della World Anti-Communist League, in cui partecipavano i capi di Stato in questione [1]. Questa politica prese un’ampiezza considerevole con le operazioni Phoenix in Vietnam (neutralizzazione di 80000 persone sospettate di appartenere ai Viet Cong) [2] e Condor, in America Latina (neutralizzare gli oppositori politici di tutto il continente) [3]. Il piano si articolava nella pulizia delle aree ribelli da parte degli squadroni della morte, cosa che è stata replicata anche in Iraq, con l’Operazione Iron Hammer [4].

L’unica novità è la distribuzione ai GI di un classico della letteratura coloniale, The Arab Mind, dell’antropologo Raphael Patai, con una prefazione del colonnello Norvell B. Atkins, direttore del John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School, nuova denominazione della sinistra School of Americas, quando fu trasferita a Fort Bragg (North Carolina) [5]. Questo libro, che si presenta con tono scientifico dei pregiudizi stupidi sugli “arabi" in generale, comprende un famoso capitolo sui tabù sessuali, che ha ispirato gli allestimenti di Abu Ghraib.

Le torture commesse in Iraq non sono casi isolati, come pretendeva l’amministrazione Bush, ma sono parte di una strategia di contro-insurrezione. L’unico modo per fermarla, non è condannarla moralmente, ma è quello di risolvere la situazione politica. Ora Barack Obama continua a ritardare il ritiro delle forze straniere dall’Iraq.

Gli esperimenti del professor Biderman

E’ in tutt’altra prospettiva che uno psichiatra dell’aviazione, il Dr. Albert D. Biderman, ha studiato il condizionamento dei prigionieri di guerra statunitensi in Corea del Nord.

Molto prima di Mao e del comunismo, i cinesi avevano sviluppato metodi sofisticati per spezzare la volontà di un detenuto e d’inculcare una confessione. Li avevano usati durante la guerra di Corea e ottennero alcuni risultati: prigionieri di guerra degli Stati Uniti confessavano con convinzione, alla stampa, dei crimini che forse non avevano commesso. Biderman ha presentato i primi risultati nel corso di un’audizione al Senato, il 19 giugno 1956, e presso l’Accademia di Medicina di New York, l’anno successivo (vedi documenti scaricabili qui di seguito). Egli distingue cinque fasi attraverso cui passano i "soggetti".

1. In primo luogo il detenuto rifiuta di cooperare e si barrica nel silenzio.

2. Attraverso una miscela di brutalità e di gentilezza, si può passare a una seconda fase, dove saranno spinti a difendersi dalle accuse.

3. Poi, il prigioniero comincia a collaborare. Egli continua a proclamare la sua innocenza, ma cerca di soddisfare i suoi interroganti, riconoscendo che egli può aver commesso un errore involontario, accidentalmente o inavvertitamente.

4. Quando attraversa la quarta fase, il prigioniero è completamente screditato ai suoi stessi occhi. Continua a negare ciò di cui è accusato, ma confessa la sua natura criminale.

5 . Alla fine del processo, l’imputato ammette di essere l’autore delle accuse che gli si rivolgono. Inventa anche ulteriori dettagli per incolparsi e richiede la sua punizione.

Biderman esaminò anche le tecniche utilizzate dagli aguzzini per gestire i prigionieri cinesi: l’isolamento, la monopolizzazione della percezione sensoriale, la fatica, le minacce, i premi, le dimostrazioni di potenza dei carcerieri, il peggioramento delle condizioni di vita, la costrizione. La violenza fisica è secondaria, la violenza psicologica è totale e permanente.

Il lavoro di Biderman sul "lavaggio del cervello" ha acquisito una dimensione mitica. I militari Usa temevano che i loro uomini potessero essere restituiti dal nemico, condizionati a non dire qualsiasi cosa e, forse, a fare qualsiasi cosa. Hanno progettato un programma di addestramento dei piloti da caccia, in modo che essi diventassero refrattari a questa forma di tortura e non potessero essere utilizzati dal nemico, se fossero stati catturati. Questo addestramento si chiamava SERE, che significa Sopravvivenza, Evasione, Resistenza, Fuga (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). Inizialmente il corso era dedicato alla Scuola delle Americhe, fu poi esteso ad altre categorie del personale militare e fu diffuso presso diverse basi. Inoltre, l’addestramento di questa natura fu stabilito in ogni esercito membro della NATO.

Quello che l’amministrazione Bush ha deciso, dopo l’invasione dell’Afghanistan, fu quello di utilizzare queste tecniche per ottenere le confessioni dai prigionieri che giustificassero, a posteriori, il coinvolgimento dell’Afghanistan negli attentati dell’11 settembre, convalidando la versione ufficiale degli attentati.

Nuove strutture furono costruite nella base navale di Guantanamo e degli esperimenti vi venivano condotti. La teoria di Albert Biderman fu completata da uno psicologo civile, il professor Martin Seligman. Si tratta di un volto noto, poiché è stato il Presidente della American Psychological Association.

Seligman ha mostrato un limite della teoria dei riflessi condizionati di Ivan Pavlov. Si mette un cane in una gabbia, il cui pavimento è diviso in due parti. Si elettrifica, in modo casuale, ora un settore, ora l’altro. L’animale salta da un posto all’altro per proteggersi - finora, niente di sorprendente. Poi si accelerano le cose e, a volte, si elettrifica l’intera gabbia. L’animale si rende conto che non può sfuggire e che i suoi sforzi sono inutili.

Ben presto si arrende, si sdraia a terra ed entra in un secondo stato, che gli permette di sopportare passivamente la sofferenza. Si apre quindi la gabbia. Sorpresa: l’animale non fugge. Nello stato mentale in cui è posto, non è più in grado di resistere. Si abitua a sopportare il dolore.

La US Navy ha istituito un gruppo medico d’assalto. Che fece venire a Guantanamo il professor Seligman. Questo professionista è una star, noto per il suo lavoro sulla depressione. I suoi libri sull’ottimismo e la fiducia sono dei best seller in tutto il mondo. E lui che ha supervisionato gli esperimenti su cavie umane.

Alcuni prigionieri, sottoposti a terribili torture, finivano spontaneamente per mettersi da soli in questo stato psicologico, permettendogli di sopportare il dolore, ma privandoli di ogni resistenza. Manipolandoli così, si arriva rapidamente alla fase 3 del processo Biderman. Sempre basandosi sul lavoro di Biderman, i torturatori americani, guidati dal professor Seligman, hanno fatto esperimenti ed hanno migliorato tutte le tecniche coercitive.

Per fare questo, è stato sviluppato un protocollo scientifico che si basa sulla misurazione delle fluttuazioni ormonali. Un laboratorio medico è stato installato a Guantanamo. Campioni di saliva e del sangue vengono prelevati a intervalli regolari dalle cavie per valutarne le reazioni.

I torturatori hanno reso più sofisticati i loro crimini. Ad esempio, nel programma SERE, hanno monopolizzato con la musica stressante la percezione sensoriale, per impedire al prigioniero di dormire. Hanno ottenuto risultati migliori trasmettendo grida di bambini inconsolabili per giorni e giorni. Oppure, hanno mostrato tutta la potenza dei rapitori con i pestaggi.

A Guantanamo, hanno creato la Forza di reazione immediata. Questo è un gruppo di punizione dei prigionieri. Quando questa unità entra in azione, i suoi membri sono rivestiti di un’armatura di protezione, tipo Robocop. Estraggono il prigioniero della sua gabbia e lo mettono in una stanza le cui pareti sono imbottite e rivestite in compensato. Gettano la cavia contro il muro, per fratturarli, ma il legno compensato smorza parzialmente lo shock, così da inebetirli, ma le sue ossa non vengono rotte.

I principali progressi sono stati compiuti con la punizione della vasca. Una volta, anche la Santa Inquisizione immergeva la testa del prigioniero in una vasca da bagno e, lo ritiravano poco prima della sua morte per annegamento. La sensazione di morte imminente cause la massima ansia. Ma il processo era primitivo e frequenti erano gli incidenti. Ora, il prigioniero non è più immerso in una vasca da bagno piena, ma viene fatto giacere in una vasca vuota. Lo si annega versandogli acqua sulla testa, con la possibilità di fermarsi istantaneamente.

Ogni sessione è stata codificata per determinare i limiti della sopportazione. Degli assistenti misurano la quantità di acqua utilizzata, i tempi e la durata del soffocamento. Quando ciò accade, recuperano il vomito, lo pesano e l’analizzano per valutare l’energia e la stanchezza prodotte.

Come riassumeva il vice-direttore aggiunto della CIA, davanti alla commissione parlamentare: "Non ha nulla a che fare con quello che era l’Inquisizione, tranne l’acqua" (sic). Gli esperimenti dei medici americani non sono stati condotti in segreto, come quelle del dottor Josef Mengele ad Auschwitz, ma sotto il controllo diretto ed esclusivo della Casa Bianca.

Tutto è stato riportato al processo decisionale del gruppo, composto da sei persone: Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft e George Tenet, che ha testimoniato di aver partecipato a una dozzina di questi incontri.

I risultati di questi esperimenti, tuttavia, sono deludenti. Poche sono le cavie che si sono dimostrate ricettive. E ’stato possibile inculcare una confessione, ma la loro condizione è rimasta instabile e non è stato possibile eseguire, in pubblico, incontri con contradditori.

Il caso più noto è quello del pseudo-Khalil Sheikh Mohammed. Questi è un individuo arrestato in Pakistan e accusato di essere un islamista del Kuwait, anche se non è chiaramente la stessa persona. Dopo essere stato torturato a lungo e, in particolare, esser stato sottoposto 183 volte al bagno mortale durante il solo mese di marzo del 2003, l’individuo ha riconosciuto di essere Mohammed Sheikh Khalil, e si è autoaccusato di 31 diversi attentati in tutto il mondo, dal WTC di New York nel 1993, alla distruzione di una discoteca di Bali e alla decapitazione del giornalista Daniel Pearl, fino a gli attentati dell’11 settembre 2001. Lo pseudo-Sheikh Mohammed ha continuato la sua confessione davanti ad una commissione militare, ma non è stato possibile, per gli avvocati e i giudici militari, interrogarlo in pubblico, poiché si temeva che, fuori dalla gabbia, si rimangiasse la confessione.

Per nascondere le attività segrete dei medici di Guantanamo, la Marina Militare ha organizzato viaggi-stampa dedicati ai giornalisti compiacenti. Così, il saggista francese Bernard Henry Levy, ha detto che ha giocato volentieri il ruolo del testimone della moralità, visitando quello che si voleva fargli vedere. Nel suo libro ‘American Vertigo’, ha assicurato che questo carcere non è diverso da altri penitenziari degli Stati Uniti, e che le prove di abusi praticati vi "erano piuttosto gonfiate." (sic) [6]

Le Prigioni offshore dell’US Navy

In definitiva, l’amministrazione Bush ha stimato che pochissimi individui sono stati condizionati a tal punto da confessare di aver commesso gli attentati dell’11 settembre. Essa ha concluso che era necessario testare un gran numero di prigionieri per selezionarne i più reattivi.

Tenuto conto della controversia che si sviluppò attorno a Guantanamo, e per essere sicura di non essere perseguita, la US Navy ha creato altre prigioni segrete, poste al di fuori di qualsiasi giurisdizione, in acque internazionali.

17 imbarcazioni a fondo piatto, del tipo usato per le truppe da sbarco, sono state trasformati in prigioni galleggianti, con gabbie come quelle di Guantanamo. Tre sono state identificate dall’associazione britannica Reprieve. Questa sono la USS Ashland, USS Bataan e USS Peleliu.

Se aggiungiamo tutte le persone che sono state fatte prigioniere in zone di guerra, o sequestrate in qualsiasi parte del mondo, e trasferite in questa serie di carceri, negli ultimi otto anni, un totale di 80000 persone sono transitate nel sistema, di cui meno di un migliaio sarebbe stato spinto alla fase finale del processo di Biderman.

Quindi il problema dell’amministrazione Obama è il seguente: non è possibile chiudere Guantanamo senza rivelare ciò che è stato fatto. E non è possibile riconoscere quanto è stato fatto, senza ammettere che tutte le confessioni ottenute sono false e sono state deliberatamente inculcate sotto tortura, con le conseguenze politiche che ciò implica.

Alla fine della seconda guerra mondiale, dodici processi furono istruiti dal tribunale militare di Norimberga. Uno era dedicato a 23 medici nazisti. 7 furono prosciolti, 9 furono condannati a pene detentive e 7 furono condannati a morte. Dal momento che esiste un codice etico che disciplina la medicina a livello internazionale. Esso vieta proprio ciò che i medici statunitensi hanno fatto a Guantanamo e in altre prigioni segrete.


Documenti allegati

« Communist attempts to elicit false confessions from Air Force prisoners of war », di Albert D. Biderman

Bulletin New York Academy of Medecine 1957 Sep;33(9):616-25.

(PDF - 964 Kb)

Thierry Meyssan

Giornalista e scrittore, presidente del Réseau Voltaire.

Traduzione di Alessandro Lattanzio

[1] «La Ligue anti-communiste mondiale, une internationale du crime», di Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 123 mai 2004.
[2] «Opération Phénix», di Arthur Lepic, Réseau Voltaire, 16 novembre 2004.
[3] Cfr. Operación Condor, Pacto penale, della nostra collaboratrice, la storica Stella Calloni. «Stella Calloni presentó en Cuba su libro “Operación Cóndor, Pacto criminal”», 16 février 2006. Si veda anche su Red Voltaire: «Berríos coletazos y los del Piano Condor», di Gustavo González, 26 Aprile 2006. «Los militares latinoamericanos no saben hacer otra cosa que espiar», di Noelia Leiva, 1 aprile 2008. «El Plan Cóndor universitario», di Martin Almada, 11 marzo 2008.
[4] «Opération "Marteau de fer"», Paul Labarique, Réseau Voltaire, 11 septembre 2003.
[5] The Arab Mind, di Raphael Patai, foreword di Norvell B. Atkins, Hatherleigh Press, 2002.
[6] American vertigo, di Bernard-Henry Lévy, Grasset & Fasquelle 2006.

washington's hand behind islamabad's ghq attack?

.
http://www.ahmedquraishi.com/article_detail.php?id=839

Some Question To Mrs. Clinton And Mr. Qureshi

The GHQ attack effectively derailed the parliamentary debate over Kerry-Lugar bill and gave a breathing space to the isolated pro-US government in Islamabad. It allowed Shah Mahmood Qureshi to do his Munich-style appeasement and sell out the Pakistani nation to Washington. Without the GHQ attack, the government could never have scuttled the expected Parliament resolution against the US aid conditions. The subsequent attacks on Pakistani military personnel were not the usual Taliban-style terrorism.

By DR. SHIREEN MAZARI

Wednesday, 28 October 2009.

The Nation

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—There are certain questions that are beginning to come to one’s mind the more one sees targeted attacks against the military in Islamabad.

While soldiers and officials have been targeted by the “Taliban” - which has now become such an all-encompassing category that it defies explanation and allows so many elements to exploit the label for their own ends - primarily in the areas of the ongoing military operations, there is a new pattern that needs to be identified and discerned.

To begin with, is it simply a coincidence that the GHQ was targeted in the immediate aftermath of the army’s press release expressing concerns over the then Kerry Lugar Bill (now Act)?

That attack effectively derailed the debate going on in Parliament and allowed Shah Mahmood Qureshi to do his Munich-style appeasement and sell out the Pakistani nation to Washington. The opposition got diverted and the formulation of a strong resolution got lost somewhere in the terrorism cloud. Soon after the GHQ attack, we saw Brigadier Moin’s targeted killing in Islamabad and on Tuesday (27th October) another Brigadier was targeted outside his home. Now both these attacks were not the usual Taliban-style terrorism and the young motorbike riders did not “look” like the typical Taliban either according to eye witnesses. Then there is the question of how they managed to disappear and remain hidden, even though the police managed to get their pen sketches made.

Linked to these questions is the claim made by the TTP that they had carried out the GHQ attack. This is interesting because the TTP is the only terrorist outfit that is not identified by name in the Kerry Lugar Act. We also know that the TTP’s weapons are coming from Afghanistan and to top it all off, the Pakistani nation and military have been shocked at the US/NATO withdrawal from their check posts along the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan immediately when the Pakistan army began its full-scale action in South Waziristan. Given how the US had been pressuring Pakistan into commencing this action, why would they then decide to vacate their check posts and thereby create an enabling environment for arms flows to the TTP? These are questions that when linked up pinpoint to a questionable US design vis a vis the Pakistan military. The reasons behind this have been elaborated in earlier columns.

However, there is also anther link that needs to be highlighted. That is the shenanigans, in Islamabad, of US diplomats and covert operatives - be they linked to Blackwater, Dyncorps or Inter-Risk. On Tuesday, early morning, four US diplomats were caught with weapons in the vicinity of Margalla police station in sector F-8 - but as always the police were helpless in the face of US pressure and had to let the men go. This is the sixth known case in recent times of US diplomats and undercover operatives being caught with weapons and/or harassing local citizens. One such incident also involved Dutch diplomats. But the question is: what are these diplomats doing carrying weapons to and from their embassy? Whom are they delivering these weapons to and who are they taking these weapons from? When linked to the illicit weapons caches’ of Inter Risk and arms licenses being given to the US embassy without following proper procedures, there is a very real issue about US involvement in questionable covert actions in the Capital and beyond.

This becomes even more tenable when one goes back to the Inter Risk company’s training of at least 200 ex-servicemen for the US, whom the US refused to hand over for questioning to the Pakistani authorities and instead tucked them away in “safe houses. These trained guards were also supposed to have been given some of the illicit weapons.

Finally, returning to the attack on GHQ, the attackers were not random militants but well-trained men also adept in deception, especially their leader, Aqeel alias Dr Usman, who almost got away by mingling with the crowd after the siege had ended - but for a guard who recognised him and hit him from behind.

Given the serious concerns that are only growing over what exactly the US is up to, especially with some journalists like S. F. A. Shah from Peshawar facing life threats from US operatives in that city, it is time the state sought to re-examine the multidimensional terrorist threats emanating from different sources. Only when we are clear about whom we are contending with on different fronts, can we formulate effective policies to fight the threats. It is a dangerous reductionism to simply lay every act of violence and terror at the doorstep of the “Taliban” and Al-Qaeda. Even here, which Taliban group are we talking about? The US has mesmerized the Pakistani state into simplifying everything and thereby glossing over the American game plan in this region, especially vis a vis Pakistan. For this naiveté we are continuing to pay a heavy price, not only in lives lost but in institutions undermined.

Dr. Mazari is the Resident Editor of daily The Nation. She can be reached at callstr@hotmail.com

© 2007-2009. All rights reserved. AhmedQuraishi.com & PakNationalists. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

sovereign bond yields will explode when qe ends

.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/27e90dea-c23b-11de-be3a-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1

Why sovereign bond yields will explode

By David Roche

October 26 2009 14:53

For nearly two decades, every credit crisis has been palliated with a further wave of leverage, kicking off a new economic cycle. Can this work again? I think not. In this post-credit crisis world, some things will be permanently different.

It will not be business as usual for government bond prices. That is because current bond yields and the increasing insolvency of our rulers are the biggest disconnect in financial markets today. This comes from two factors: quantitative easing by central banks and the collapse of credit demand by the private sector. Neither are permanent features of the economic landscape.

Some will note that, when Japan’s bubble economy collapsed, it was able to run huge budget deficits and raise outstanding government debt from 60 per cent to 140 per cent of gross domestic product, while still experiencing a fall in bond yields from 8 per cent to 1 per cent.

But this “miracle” was only possible because Japan’s household savings were huge and invested at home. Japan did not need foreigners to fund its government deficits. Even today, foreign ownership of Japanese debt is only 6 per cent compared with 50 per cent for US government paper.

But Japan’s household savings rate has collapsed due to an ageing population who no longer save. This low saving rate is something death must undo, not the politicians or monetary policy. So, if Japan is now running budget deficits at double- digit percentage rates of GDP, it can no longer use low-cost excess domestic savings to do so.

The Japanese “miracle” of the 1990s cannot be repeated in the US, the UK or even in Japan this time. The US and the UK will still have very low domestic savings rates with government debt heading towards 100 per cent of GDP. Neither is likely to suffer from prolonged deflation as Japan did. And both the US and the UK are heavily dependent on foreigners for financing that debt. So Treasury and gilt yields will rise sharply and the dollar and the pound will slide.

Moreover, for the first time in postwar history, Japan will be feeding at the same trough of global savings as the US and the UK. An unprecedented 25 per cent of current global savings will be sucked up by government debt financing for nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That will crowd out productive investment and bodes ill for inflation down the road.

As the US, UK and Japan will be trying to borrow the same buck in international markets, bond yields will rise when QE stops and there is an even modest recovery in credit demand from the private sector. That alone is enough to prevent the development of a new credit bubble similar to those that have been economic drivers for nearly two decades. All credit bubbles rely on underpriced capital being in oversupply relative to the fundamental needs of an economy. Given the huge demand for capital by increasingly insolvent governments, those conditions won’t exist.

When will the bond bubble burst? During the current risk rally, central banks have been pumping liquidity into banks to the tune of 6-8 per cent of GDP. Instead of lending this money onto the real economy, banks have either hoarded it in excess reserves or invested it in government bonds. Risk-averse individuals have also been piling into government bonds. That keeps everyone happy: the politicians get cheap money, the commercial banks make money and the central banks keep the system liquid.

But quantitative easing programmes will have to end sooner or later; and eventually the private sector will start to borrow again. Then yields on government debt will start to rise, back towards at least the average level of the 1990s and perhaps even higher as inflation expectations gain hold. That will end today’s bubble in bond markets and very probably in equity markets too, as these feed on the same source of liquidity and are priced off bond markets by the addition of a risk premium.

This necessary repricing of capital will prevent the recurrence of a bubble economy. The danger for the real economy is not that the return to a normalised monetary policy takes place but that it does so too late. Too late would mean that the fall in asset prices has to be so large that it skittles economic recovery.

The writer is is president of Independent Strategy, a global investment consultancy

uk : radioactive waste may be landfilled

.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/nuclear-waste-landfill-threat

Landfill sites may be used to dump radioactive waste

Government poised to allow nuclear power generators to put atomic waste in ordinary sites to cut cost of decommissioning old reactors

Terry Macalister
Monday 19 October 2009 20.33 BST

High-level radioactive nuclear waste at Sellafield. The government is considering allowing the industry to dump low-level waste in ordinary landfill sites

The government is poised to allow nuclear power generators to use ordinary landfill sites for dumping "hundreds of thousands of tons" of waste in an attempt to reduce the £73bn cost of decommissioning old reactors.

The move has triggered a swath of applications around the country from big corporations trying to cash in on this potential new business, but infuriated local councils and campaign groups.

The issue of waste is critical to the government as the stockpile is potentially much greater than previously thought and ministers are keen to encourage the power industry to build a new generation of reactors. Actions being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and its Nuclear Decommissioning Authority include:

• Allowing the nuclear industry to use ordinary landfill sites for disposing of radio​active waste in a more extensive way.

• Allowing the main independent nuclear waste dump at Drigg in Cumbria to reduce its costs by scaling back the level of containment.

• Building a £1.5bn radioactive liquid-waste processing plant at Sellafield, Britain's biggest atomic site, despite a history of project cost overruns and wider safety concerns there.

• Extending a blueprint for dealing with existing high-level waste to cover that created by future nuclear stations – an "unjustifiable" step, according to the chair of the committee that created the blueprint.

Cumbria county council, regarded as the most pro-nuclear authority in the country, is among those trying to stop at least two landfill sites from being used for dumping radioactive waste.

The council's frustration threatens to undermine the government's attempts to persuade it to host the country's first high-level radioactive waste repository.

Tim Knowles, cabinet member for the environment on the council, said: "A tiny amount of nuclear waste went into the Lillyhall landfill site in the past but now they are trying to vastly expand that and use a former open-cast mine at Keekle Head.

"We are talking about moving from a few tons to hundreds of thousands of tons," he said.

The cost of dealing with existing waste has risen to £73bn and been made worse by the discovery that there is 13m cubic metres of "potentially contaminated land" around sites such as Sellafield. This is as well as the existing 3.2m cubic metres of low-level waste and a smaller amount of more radioactive, high-level waste.

A report seen by the Guardian, dated October 2008, from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), says: "In a worst-case scenario, this supplementary volume could increase the volume of land as waste to the point that it dwarfs the current baseline for UK low-level waste. This uncertainty presents significant challenges to the development of a national low-level waste strategy."

The NDA recently completed a 14-week consultation on low-level waste and said it was close to finalising a new strategy. Extending landfill is clearly part of that.

Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to a Nuclear Environment, said he was "appalled" by moves to spread the waste around the county. "This is all being done because the Treasury wants to cut the cost, while the one proper licensed waste site at Drigg is almost full up. People seem willing to bend over backwards to help nuclear in a way they don't for anyone else."

Waste management firms have moved swiftly to apply for permission to dispose of nuclear material. A French-owned company, Sita (through its Endecom subsidiary), is applying to the Environment Agency for authorisation for a Radioactive Substances Act disposal unit for its Clifton Marsh landfill site near Preston.

Sita has also presented local councillors and industry professionals with plans to convert a former open-cast mine at Keekle Head, near Whitehaven, Cumbria.

A rival waste company, Augean, is trying to convince locals it should be allowed to dump nuclear waste at the East Northants Management Facility at Kings Cliffe village, near Peterborough. And EnergySolutions, a firm with deep roots in the nuclear industry, wants to extend the use of a landfill site at Lillyhall in Cumbria.

Rob Scott, from Sita's nuclear consultants, Nuvia, said: "Planned decommissioning of nuclear installations will generate significant quantities of low-level waste and very low-level waste, such as building rubble and soil.

"It is now clear that the continued disposal of this low-level waste to the highly engineered national Low-Level Waste Repository, near Drigg in west Cumbria, is not sustainable and is very expensive for the taxpayer. This means alternative solutions have to be found."

The energy department said last night it expected a decision on low-level waste from the NDA within "months" but said this would not affect the timing of its wider nuclear programme. It said a policy dating back to 2007 allowed landfill to be used for the disposal of very low-level waste "subject to appropriate regulatory authorisations" though it is unclear if any waste has been disposed of in this way.

But Melanie McCall, one of the campaigners opposing the Augean move near Peterborough, said: "People don't want to be guinea pigs. The dump is completely inappropriate for this waste."

Augean said it was satisfied there would be no "harm to our employees, the public or the environment".

Low-level waste is made up of a wide range of materials used in the atomic industry, including plastic and clothing as well as metal and building rubble. It makes up approximately 90% of the total volume of the UK's radioactive waste but, the NDA argues, it contains "less than 0.0003%" of the total radioactivity.

The government expects high-level waste to be buried in a deep repository and two local councils in Cumbria have made "expressions of interest" about housing the dump, although discussions remain at a very early stage. The waste from future reactors will be lower in volume but highly radioactive.

assassinat de cools: l'ex president happart complice

.

source: PERE UBU #784, 13 avril 2006 p.1 et 3

A quand les noms des commanditaires?

ASSASSINAT DE COOLS: HAPPART ETAIT PRESENT

BIS REPETITAT

Un nouveau proces Cools est an­noncé et il est donc important de revenir sur certains faits que la presse subsidiée a cachés et con­tinue à cacher. Ubu a, en effet, clairement prouvé que le nommé Happart, José était sur place au moment de I'assassi­nat. Nous ne savons pas s'il se trou­vait la par curiosité ou comme com­manditaire, mais ce qui est certain, c'est qu'il était au courant et que donc il est complice d'assassinat, ne l'ayant pas denoncé.

Les faits

Andre Cools est tué sur le parking du domicile de sa compagne, sur la colline de Cointe. Mais en fait, le building ou elle ha­bite est tout en bas d'un lotisse­ment, face a la Gare des Guille­mins.

Des l'annonce du crime, la police liégeoise fait boucler tout le quartier. Et qui trouve-t-on dans la Gare? José Happart. L'homme a de la boue sur ses chaussures [à 8 heures du matin] et affirme avoir été sur le Quai 14 pour aller à Strasbourg, au Parle­ment dont il est membre. La police fera plus tard analyser cette boue et constatera qu'il s'agit de la meme que celle de la colline de Cointe où Cools a ete assas­siné. De plus, son explication du quai 14 ne tient pas la route. Ce grand amateur de voitures sait très bien qu'il faut six heures pour joindre Liege a Strasbourg: il faut d'abord aller a... Namur, puis pren­dre un autre train vers Metz-Nancy et ensuite un troisième train pour Strasbourg!

Qu'irait-il faire à 16 heures de l'après-midi à Strasbourg, au mo­ment ou tout le monde s'en va? Il changera d'avis par la suite et affirmera qu'il voulait aller... au par­lement de Bruxelles.Mais Ubu a verifié et nul ne trouve sa trace rue de la Loi ce jour-la. José Happart declarera aux journalistes «qu'il se trouvait à 1 ,5 ki­lometres du lieu du crime». C'est vrai et c'est faux, mais per­sonne n'insistera tant cette mafia pseudo-socialiste est puissante. Si l'on veut en effet aller en voi­ture du quai 14 au domicile de la compagne du maitre de Flemalle, il faut en effet contourner les ins­tallations ferroviaires et cela fait quasiment ce qu'il indique. Mais sur le quai 14, on est à... soixante mètres du lieu de I'as­sassinat à vol d'oiseau. De plus, une passerelle aujourd'hui disparue, pour cause de TGV per­mettait de passer directement du lieu du crime à la Gare! Et José Happart d'affirmer qu'il n'a pas - alors qu'il est braconnier et chasseur - entendu les coups de feu, ni les dizaines de sirènes de vehicules de secours qui se diri­geaient vers les lieux! Ubu sait qu'Elio Di Rupo nous donne raison, et qu'il avait decidé de ne plus confier de poste de mi­nistre à José Happart. Mais ce dernier lui a alors rendu visite et expliqué «qu'il ne tombe­rait pas seul». Ce qui a amené Elio à lui donner le hochet de la présidence du Par­lement wallon, ce qui lui permet de continuer à toucher et de voyager [il vient d'aller en Inde pour tuer un tigre].

C'est done bien là le probleme: si Happart tombe, il parle. Et s'il parle, tout le systeme mafieux du PS wallon s'effondre. On comprend mieux ainsi pourquoi le couple Onkelinx-Uyttendaele fait tout pour tuer votre hebdomadaire satirique preferé.

DAN UBU

dollar run confirmed

.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article162548.html

ALBA drops the dollar and envisions a military alliance against the US

The Heads of State and Government of countries belonging to the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, ALBA, met in Cochabamba (Bolivia) where they signed a treaty creating a new virtual currency, dubbed the Sucre.

The currency - named after General Antonio José de Sucre, Simón Bolivar’s companion and hero of the Latin American liberation struggle against Spanish imperialism - is slated to replaced the dollar in all commercial exchanges between ALBA countries.

Indeed, as explained by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, due to the artificial value of the greenback Washington has been able to hoard the wealth of other countries.

For the next ALBA objective, the Venezuelan president envisions the creation of a defence military alliance against the United States. Hugo Chávez emphasized that only in such a way would the countries be shielded from the belligerence of the U.S. All the more reason when considering that "Nobel Peace Prize Laureate" Obama has recently organized a military coup in Honduras and has installed military bases in Colombia. Chávez also said that such an alliance could possibly be extended to other Southern countries outside Latin America, echoing the idea submitted by Lybian leader Muammar al-Gaddafi during the recent Africa-Latin American Summit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20091014/156468599.html

Russia ready to abandon dollar in oil, gas trade with China

BEIJING, October 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is ready to consider using the Russian and Chinese national currencies instead of the dollar in bilateral oil and gas dealings, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

The premier, currently on a visit to Beijing, said a final decision on the issue can only be made after a thorough expert analysis.

"Yesterday, energy companies, in particular Gazprom, raised the question of using the national currency. We are ready to examine the possibility of selling energy resources for rubles, but our Chinese partners need rubles for that. We are also ready to sell for yuans," Putin said.

He stressed that "there should be a balance here."

On Tuesday, Russia and China agreed terms for Russian gas deliveries at a level of up to 70 billion cubic meters a year. China also imports oil from Russia.

The Russian prime minister said the issue would be addressed among others at a meeting of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) finance ministers, who are to convene before the end of the year in Kazakhstan.

Britain's Independent newspaper reported last Tuesday that Russian officials had held "secret meetings" with Arab states, China and France on ending the use of the U.S. dollar in international oil trade.

The countries are reportedly seeking to switch from the dollar to a basket of currencies including the euro, Japanese yen, Chinese yuan, gold, and a new unified currency of leading Arab oil producing countries.

The Independent said the meetings have been confirmed by Chinese and Arab banking sources.

belgique: dictature feutree

.

http://probruxsel.blogspot.com/2009/10/medium-is-message_05.html

05/10/2009

The medium is the message

ou comment les médias et les instituts de sondage peuvent mettre en exergue ou au contraire bâillonner un parti politique...

Je ne suis pas naïf. Je ne m’attendais pas à ce que les grands médias nationaux suivent de près l’initiative politique prise par des citoyens bruxellois dépités face à la méconnaissance de la réalité bruxelloise et au sous-financement structurel de notre Région.

Pour les médias, il était bien plus porteur de s’étendre sur, par exemple, l’initiative de Rudy Aernoudt et ses rebondissements subséquents ; ou sur l’initiative (politique) récente de maître Modrikamen (celui du dossier Fortis) qui s’adressait aux médias en des termes qui fleuraient le poujadisme. Mais bon, c’est ainsi.

Du côté flamand, les journaux dits de qualité – de Standard et De Morgen – ont réussi à passer Pro Bruxsel sous silence pendant plus de 18 mois, malgré les dizaines de communiqués de presse qui leur furent envoyés, ainsi qu’une étude très complète sur les possibilités envisagées par Pro Bruxsel en matière de financement de la Région bruxelloise.

Les médias francophones ne firent guère mieux: dans Le Soir, pas une ligne sur le nouveau parti bilingue. A croire que les deux communautés belges ne s’intéressent nullement aux « échanges régionaux », cécité soulignée entre-temps à juste titre par Dave Snardet dans ces mêmes journaux.

En route vers une dictature feutrée ?

Certes, je ne sais pas précisément les aides accordées par le pouvoir à la presse, mais ce sont certainement des millions d’euros. Un soutien qui vient, en dernier ressort, de la poche du contribuable et qui est « redistribué » par le politique.
Faut-il y voir un lien de cause à effet ? Peut-être pas un lien direct, mais les directions et rédactions ne savent que trop bien ce que les « grands » partis communautaires attendent d’eux, et elles s’y tiennent docilement.

Lorsque les médias et d’autres services publics n’osent plus la critique objective, lorsqu’ils occultent les visions contradictoires, on glisse lentement vers une « dictature feutrée » à la Orwell, où l’histoire se « réécrit » au jour le jour en fonction de la volonté d’une classe dominante.

A quel jeu glauque jouent les instituts de sondage?

A côté des medias, on trouve encore les instituts de sondage, qui font eux aussi la pluie et le beau temps et qui donnent aux citoyens le sentiment de participer, par l’analyse de leur opinion, au bon fonctionnement de notre démocratie. Rien n’est moins vrai !
Les sondages « impromptus » sont rares : cela n’intéresse pas grand monde et ne se vend pas bien. Tout comme les journaux, ces instituts veillent d’abord aux intérêts de leurs actionnaires. Ils n’interviennent donc que si les grands médias ou les grands partis – communautaires – le demandent.

Force est aujourd’hui de constater que le sondage du 25 septembre dernier a réussi une fois encore à escamoter Pro Bruxsel, alors que l’électeur bruxellois lui a accordé plus de voix qu’à au moins trois partis qui eux étaient pourtant repris dans l’enquête.

L’excuse des instituts de sondage, avant les élections était que « nous ne citons pas Pro Bruxsel parce que vous ne vous êtes encore présentés à aucune élection »… Et alors ? Aujourd’hui nous sommes en lice avec plus de 8.000 voix rien que pour Bruxelles, mais « on » persiste à nous occulter. Il sera intéressant de lire l’excuse (bidon) qu’ils vont trouver cette fois-ci.

De vrais analystes, indépendants, je pense à des auteurs de « La Revue Nouvelle » (Bowie & Dye), à Vincent de Coorbyter du CRISP ou encore Jan de Troyer de TV Brussel, ont bien analysé la situation et étaient d’avis que le résultat de Pro Bruxsel était tout à fait présentable. Ils ont posé la question – justifiée – de la consolidation de notre parti pour l’avenir.
Mais bon, ce ne sont là que quelques notes dissonantes dans le concert médiatique. Et cet orchestre joue assez fort pour couvrir toute dissonance.

Nous verrons bien ce que donnera le prochain sondage !

Thierry Vanhecke, vice-président Pro Bruxsel
(traduction Max De Brouwer)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The medium is the message

of hoe media en opiniepeilingsbureaus een partij kunnen groot maken of doodzwijgen...

Naïef ben ik niet. Nooit heb ik verwacht dat onze grote nationale media veel aandacht zouden schenken aan het politiek initiatief Pro Bruxsel dat door een aantal Brusselse burgers werd genomen uit ongenoegen voor de miskenning van de Brusselse realiteit en de structurele onderfinanciering van ons Gewest.

Voor de media was het uiteraard veel lonender om in het lang en breed uit te wijden over het intiatief en de daarop volgendede perikelen van bijvoorbeeld Rudy Aernoudt; of nog het recente (politieke) initiatief van meester Modrikamen (gekend via het Fortis-dossier) om met 'naar poujadisme ruikende' verklaringen naar de media te stappen. Goed. Het weze zo.

Langs Vlaamse kant zijn de « kwaliteitskranten » de Standaard en De Morgen erin geslaagd om Pro Bruxsel meer dan 18 maanden lang dood te zwijgen, ondanks de tientallen persberichten die deze kranten ontvingen, met inbegrip van een zeer volledige studie over de herfinancieringsmogelijkheden van het Brussels Gewest, zoals Pro Bruxsel dit voorstelde.

Langs Franstalige kant was het niet minder slecht: ook in le Soir was er geen zinsnede terug te vinden over het tweetalige Pro Bruxsel. Beide gemeenschappen hebben dus helemaal geen boodschap aan 'regionale wiselwerkingen', wat inmiddels heel terecht door Dave Sinardet nog in dezelfde kranten fel in het licht werd gezet.

Op weg naar een zachte dictatuur ?

Nu, ik ken de juiste cijfers niet van de overheidshulp aan de pers, maar het gaat alleszins om miljoenen euro. En dat gaat om geld dat in laatste instantie toch nog altijd uit de zak van de burger komt. Geld dat echter door politici uitgedeeld wordt.
Bestaat er een oorzakelijk verband? Wellicht niet rechtstreeks, maar de directies en redacties weten maar al te goed wat de 'grote' communautaire partijen van hen verwachten en houden daar slaafs rekening mee.

Wanneer media en andere openbare diensten zich niet meer objectief en kritisch durven opstellen en geeen andere visies meer aan bod laten komen, zijn we stilaan op weg naar een vorm van 'zachte dictatuur', à la Orwell, waar de geschiedenis elke dag herschreven wordt in functie van de wil van de dominerende klasse.

Welke onfrisse spelletjes spelen de opiniepeilingsbureau's ?

Naast de media heb je dan nog de opiniepeilingsbureaus, die eveneens stemming maken en de burgers het gevoel geven dat ze, via het ventileren van hun mening, voor een stukje meedoen aan de goede werking van onze democratie. Niets is minder waar.
Raadplegingen "out of the blue" vinden haast nooit plaats, dat interesseert bitter weinig en verkoopt nog minder. Evenaals de kranten zijn opiniepeilingsagentschappen organisaties die in eerste instantie voor "winst voor de aandeelhouder" moeten zorgen, en dus zal men peilen indien de grote media of de politieke -communautaire- machtspartijen daarom vragen.

Zo moeten we vandaag vaststellen dat de opiniepeiling van 25 september jongstleden er weer in slaagde om Pro Bruxsel weg te moffelen, daar waar onze partij meer stemmen haalde dan ten minste 3 partijen die WEL in de aangeboden lijst werden voorgesteld.

Voor de verkiezingen was de uitleg van enkele peilingsbureaus: "We citeren Pro Bruxsel niet, omdat jullie nog aan geen enkele verkiezing hebben deelgenomen."... So what?
Nu staan we op de kaart met onze meer dan 8.000 kiezers enkel en alleen al in Brussel, maar toch lukt «men» er nog steeds in ons uit beeld te houden. We wachten af welke nieuwe (drog)reden hiervoor nu zal aangehaald worden.

Echte, onafhankelijke analysten -ik denk aan auteurs van La Revue Nouvelle (Bowie & Dye), aan Vincent de Coorbyter van het CRISP of nog Jan de Troyer van TV Brussel- hebben wel de situatie geanalyserd en waren van oordeel dat het resultaat van Pro Bruxsel helemaal niet min was. Ze stelden de -terechte- vraag naar de consolidatie van de partij voor de toekomst.

Maar goed, het gaat om enkele dissononte geluiden. Het philarmonisch media-orkest speelt luid genoeg om die dissonanties niet te laten doordringen...

En nu uitkijken naar de volgende peiling!

Thierry Vanhecke
Ondervoorzitter Pro Bruxsel

uk: journalists belong to westminster conspiracy

.
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/091008_the_westminster_conspiracy.php

october 8, 2009

The Westminster Conspiracy

Former BBC Director General, Greg Dyke, On The Media-Political Opposition To Radical Change

Last month, Greg Dyke, who was the BBC's director general from 2000-2004, described the BBC as part of a "conspiracy" preventing the "radical changes" needed to UK democracy. Speaking at the Liberal Democrat party's conference, Dyke said:

"The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system - the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties, including this one - are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy." (Brian Wheeler, 'Dyke in BBC "conspiracy" claim,' BBC website, September 20, 2009; http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8265628.stm)

Dyke argued there had never been a greater separation between the "political class" and the public:

"I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors, one of whom [Baroness Sarah Hogg] was married to the man who claimed for cleaning his moat, the cabinet interestingly - the Labour cabinet - who decided to have a meeting, only about what we were trying to discuss, and the political journalists at the BBC.

"Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don't want anything to change. It's not in their interests."

Dyke said the MPs' expenses scandal had been "British democracy's Berlin Wall moment" but the opportunity to change the system was fading. He added:

"It's time to be radical. Our current model was designed for the 18th Century. It doesn't fit 21st Century Britain."

Dyke was also candid about political interference with the BBC. He discussed an internal review of the BBC's political coverage carried out at the beginning of the decade, to which all political parties were asked to contribute. He said: "there was a lot of pressure from the government of the day not to change anything... A lot of the governors were what I call semi-politicians and they liked the present system and.... maybe they were right - it's not the job of the BBC to change the political system and to start questioning the political system. I happen to not agree with that but, you know, we didn't get anywhere."

If these comments were extraordinary, the media response to them was predictable - close to zero coverage in the national UK press. Dyke's speech was covered in three sentences in the Belfast Telegraph on September 21. A longer piece appeared in the Herald (Glasgow) on the same day. In response to our prompting, the website Journalism.co.uk covered the story on September 22. They then contacted Roy Greenslade, who covered the story on his Guardian website blog a day later - the sole national mainstream mention. Greenslade wrote of the story:

"... the national press appears to have ignored it, or missed it altogether. Yet the claim should have generated widespread interest. If true, it requires more probing. If false, it should severely dent Dyke's credibility". (Greenslade, 'Dyke's BBC conspiracy theory,' Greenslade Blog, September 23, 2009;
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/sep/23/bbc-greg-dyke)

On September 28, one week after the speech was reported by the BBC, Media Guardian published an article by Maggie Brown titled: 'When trust breaks down: The BBC Trust is under siege from politicians of all parties, rival broadcasters, corporation staff and the viewing public. But is it fulfilling its remit - and, if not, what is the alternative?' Greg Dyke was mentioned, but there was no reference to his whistleblowing comments.

Dyke's comments were important, providing a rare moment of honesty from such a senior insider. They were of clear public interest and doubtless chimed with the concerns of many people outraged by the scandal of MPs' expenses. As discussed, the story was broken on the BBC's own website - a high-profile source familiar to mainstream journalists. So what could explain the lack of interest from all mainstream national newspapers?

The answer is found in the story itself: the national media are indeed part of an elite system which is not interested in discussing, much less effecting, radical political change. Dissident outsiders attempting to challenge the status quo are dismissed as marginal figures. But even high-profile insiders - celebrity managers, journalists, writers, dramatists and diplomats - are ignored.

On September 23, we wrote to the BBC's Brian Wheeler, the journalist who broke the story.

Dear Brian

Hope you're well. I was impressed and amazed by your story, 'Dyke in BBC "conspiracy" claim.'

I would have thought it was important news of great interest to the public that a former BBC director general had described the BBC as part of a "conspiracy" preventing the "radical changes" needed to UK democracy. Isn't it extraordinary that not a single UK national newspaper has reported your story? What do you make of it?

Best wishes

David Edwards

Wheeler replied the same day:

Hi David

Thanks for your comments. I'm afraid I have no idea why the story wasn't picked up by the nationals, although I think Media Guardian may have done something on it. It's sometimes hard to predict which stories will get followed up.

Brian

Wheeler was of course reluctant to speculate (and to reply to our second email) because BBC journalists are not allowed to express their personal opinions - or so we are to believe.

Last month, Milton Coleman, senior editor at The Washington Post, sent a memo to staff on the issue of use of "individual accounts on online social networks, when used for reporting and for personal use". The memo warned staff to "remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists". It added:

"All Washington Post journalists relinquish some of the personal privileges of private citizens... Post journalists must refrain from writing, tweeting or posting anything-including photographs or video-that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility. This same caution should be used when joining, following or friending any person or organization online." (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-wapos-social-media-guidelines-paint-staff-into-virtual-corner/)

These rules echo BBC editorial guidelines. In 2005, we asked the BBC's World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, if he thought George Bush hoped to create a genuine democracy in Iraq. Reynolds replied:

"I cannot get into a direct argument about his policies myself! Sorry." (Email to Media Lens, September 5, 2005)

Reynolds explained to one of our readers:

"You are asking for my opinion about the war in Iraq yet BBC correspondents are not allowed to have opinions!" (Forwarded to Media Lens, October 22, 2005)

As these comments suggest, media guidelines require that journalists relinquish, not just "personal privileges", but also moral responsibility. Journalists are not free to declare their "bias" even in abhorring mass murder, war crimes and climate chaos, if doing so "could be used to tarnish" their employers' "journalistic credibility". The problem is that the people with the power to do the tarnishing are overwhelmingly of the right - big business and political centres of power dominated by big business.

In reality, the demand for 'balance' means that journalists can say pretty much what they like in favouring powerful interests, but they will be severely castigated for losing 'balance' when they criticise the wrong people. Thus we find that it is not 'biased' to suggest that Britain and America are committed to spreading democracy around the world, but it +is+ 'biased' to suggest that they are responsible for crimes in the Third World. In short, the demand for 'balance' is a weapon of thought control - it is a way of policing and enforcing bias in media performance.

As Greg Dyke made clear, the truth hidden behind the sham of 'balance' is that political journalism works hard to protect an elite system of which it is very much a part.

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to the BBC's director general, Mark Thompson. Ask him to respond to Greg Dyke's claim that the BBC is part of a "Westminster conspiracy" to obstruct radical change to the political system:

Email: mark.thompson@bbc.co.uk

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medialens