Latest Entries »

Chris Hedges has a thought provoking discussion with Norman Finkelstein, i might not agree with his views on BDS, but nonetheless there is alot to learn from him

Advertisements

Book Launch Event: Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, Manhattan, NYC, September, 2012. Deepa Kumar with special guest Moustafa Bayoumi.

Source

chomsky.info, December 1, 2012
An old man in Gaza held a placard that reads: “You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.” [1]

The old man’s message provides the proper context for the timelines on the latest episode in the savage punishment of Gaza. They are useful, but any effort to establish a “beginning” cannot help but be misleading. The crimes trace back to 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled in terror or were expelled to Gaza by conquering Israeli forces, who continued to truck them over the border for years after the official cease-fire. The persecution of Gazans took new forms when Israel conquered the Strip in 1967. From recent Israeli scholarship we learn that the goal of the government was to drive the refugees into the Sinai, and if feasible the rest of the population too.

Expulsions from Gaza were carried out under the direct orders of General Yeshayahu Gavish, commander of the Southern Command. Expulsions from the West Bank were far more extreme, and Israel resorted to devious means to prevent the return of those expelled, in direct violation of Security Council orders. The reasons were made clear in internal discussion immediately after the war. Golda Meir, later Prime Minister, informed her Labor colleagues that Israel should keep the Gaza Strip while “getting rid of its Arabs.” Defense Minister Dayan and others agreed. Prime Minister Eshkol explained that those expelled cannot be allowed to return because “We cannot increase the Arab population in Israel” — referring to the newly occupied territories, already tacitly considered part of Israel. In accord with this conception, all of Israel’s maps were changed, expunging the Green Line (the internationally recognized borders), though publication was delayed to permit UN Ambassador Abba Eban to attain what he called “favorable impasse” at the General Assembly, by concealing Israel’s intentions. [2]

The goals may remain alive, and might be a factor contributing to Egypt’s reluctance to open the border to free passage of people and goods barred by the US-backed Israeli siege.

The current upsurge of US-Israeli violence dates to January 2006, when Palestinians voted “the wrong way” in the first free election in the Arab world. Israel and the US reacted at once with harsh punishment of the miscreants, and preparation of a military coup to overthrow the elected government, routine procedure. The punishment was radically intensified in 2007, when the coup attempt was beaten back, and the elected Hamas government established full control over Gaza.

The standard version of these events is more anodyne, for example, in the New York Times, November 29: “Hamas entered politics by running in, and winning, elections in the Palestinian territories in 2006. But it was unable to govern in the face of Western opposition and in 2007 took power in the Gaza Strip by force, deepening the political split [with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority].” [3]

Ignoring immediate Hamas offers of a truce after the 2006 election, Israel launched attacks that killed 660 Palestinians in 2006, mostly civilians, one-third minors. The escalation of attacks in 2007 killed 816 Palestinians, 360 civilians and 152 minors. The UN reports that 2879 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire from April 2006 through July 2012, along with several dozen Israelis killed by fire from Gaza. [4]

A truce in 2008 was honored by Hamas until Israel broke it in November. Ignoring further truce offers, Israel launched the murderous Cast Lead operation in December. So matters have continued, while the US and Israel also continue to reject Hamas calls for a long-term truce and a political settlement in accord with the international consensus on a two-state settlement that the US has blocked since 1976, when the US vetoed a Security Council resolution to this effect, brought by the major Arab states.

In late 2012 the US devoted extensive efforts to block a General Assembly resolution upgrading Palestine’s status to that of a “non-member observer state.” The effort failed, leaving the US in its usual international isolation on November 29, when the resolution passed overwhelmingly on the anniversary of the 1947 General Assembly vote on partition. [5] The reasons Washington frankly offered for its opposition to the resolution were revealing: Palestine might approach the International Criminal Court on Israel’s U.S.-backed crimes, which cannot be permitted judicial review for reasons that are all too obvious. A second concern, the New York Times reported, was that “the Palestinians might use the vote to seek membership in specialized agencies of the United Nations,” which could lead Washington to defund these international organizations, as it cut off financing to UNESCO in 2011 when it dared to admit Palestine as a member. The Master does not tolerate disobedience. [6]

Israel had warned that it would “go crazy” (“yishtagea”) if the resolution passed, reviving warnings from the 1950s that it would “go crazy” if crossed — not very meaningful then, much more so now. [7] And indeed, hours after the UN vote Israel announced its decision to carry forward settlement in Area E1 that connects the vastly expanded Greater Jerusalem that it annexed illegally to the town of Ma’aleh Adumim, greatly expanded under Clinton after the Oslo Accords, with lands extending virtually to Jericho, effectively bisecting the West Bank if the Area E1 corridor is closed by settlement. [8] Before Obama, US presidents had barred Israel’s efforts to expand its illegal settlements into the E1 region, so it was compelled to resort to stealth measures, like establishing a police station in the zone. Obama has been more supportive of Israeli criminal actions than his predecessors, and it remains to be seen whether he will keep to a tap on the wrist with a wink, as before.

Israel and the US insist on “direct negotiations” as the only “path to peace.” They also insist on crucial preconditions. First, the negotiations must be under US leadership, which makes as much sense as asking Iran to mediate Sunni-Shiite conflicts in Iraq. Genuine negotiations would take place under the auspices of some neutral party with a claim to international respect, perhaps Brazil, and would have the US and Israel on one side of the table, and most of the rest of the world on the other. A second precondition, left tacit, is that expansion of Israel’s settlements must be allowed to continue in one or another form (as happened, for example, during the formal 10-month “suspension”), with Washington signaling its disapproval while continuing to provide the required support.

The call for “direct negotiations” without substance is an old Israeli tactic to prevent steps towards diplomatic settlement that would impede its expansionist projects. After the 1967 war, the respected diplomat Abba Eban, who was in charge of the effort, was highly praised by Golda Meir and other colleagues in the governing Labor Party for his success at the United Nations in carrying forward “Israel’s peacemaking strategy” of confusion and delay, which came to “take the shape of a consistent foreign policy of deception,” as it is described by Israeli scholar Avi Raz in a detailed review of internal records. [9] At that time the tactics angered US officials, who protested vigorously though to no effect. But much has changed since, particularly since Kissinger took control of policy and the US largely departed from the world on Israel-Palestine.

The practice of delay goes back to the earliest Zionist settlement, which sought to “create facts” on the ground while keeping goals obscure. Even the call for a “Jewish commonwealth” was not made officially by the Zionist organization until a May 1942 meeting at the Biltmore hotel in New York.

Returning to Gaza, one element of the unremitting torture of its people is Israel’s “buffer zone” within Gaza from which Gazans are barred entry, almost half of Gaza’s limited arable land according to Sara Roy, the leading academic scholar of Gaza. From September 2005, after Israel transferred its settlers to other parts of the occupied territories, to September 2012, Israeli security forces killed 213 Palestinians in the zone, including 154 who were not taking part in hostilities, 17 of them children. [10]

From January 2012 to the launching of Israel’s latest killing spree on November 14, Operation Pillar of Defense, one Israeli was reported to have been killed by fire from Gaza while 78 Palestinians were killed by Israel fire. [11]

The full story is naturally more complex, and considerably uglier.

The first act of Operation Pillar of Defense was to murder Ahmed Jabari. Aluf Benn, editor of Ha’aretz, describes him as Israel’s “subcontractor” and “border guard” in Gaza, who enforced relative quiet in Gaza for over five years. [12] The pretext for the assassination was that during these five years Jabari had been creating a Hamas military force, with missiles from Iran. [13] Plainly, if that is true it was not learned on November 14.

A more credible reason was provided by Israeli peace activist Gershon Baskin, who had been involved in direct negotiations with Jabari for years, including plans for the release of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Baskin reports that hours before Jabari was assassinated, “he received the draft of a permanent truce agreement with Israel, which included mechanisms for maintaining the ceasefire in the case of a flare-up between Israel and the factions in the Gaza Strip.” A truce was then in place, called by Hamas on November 12. Israel apparently exploited the truce, Reuters reports, directing attention to the Syrian border in the hope that Hamas leaders would relax their guard and be easier to assassinate. [14]

Throughout these years, Gaza has been kept on a level of bare survival, imprisoned by land, sea and air. On the eve of the latest attack, the UN reported that 40 percent of essential drugs and more than half of essential medical items were out of stock. [15] One of the first of the series of hideous photos that were sent from Gaza in November showed a doctor holding the charred corpse of a murdered child. That one had a personal resonance. The doctor is the director and head of surgery at Khan Yunis hospital, which I had visited a few weeks earlier. In writing about the trip I reported his passionate appeal for desperately needed simple drugs and surgical equipment. These are among the crimes of the US-Israeli siege, and Egyptian complicity.

The casualty rates from the November episode were about normal: over 160 Palestinian dead, including many children, and 6 Israelis. Among the dead were three journalists. The official Israeli justification was that “The targets are people who have relevance to terror activity.” Reporting the “execution” in the New York Times, David Carr observes that “it has come to this: killing members of the news media can be justified by a phrase as amorphous as ‘relevance to terror activity’.” [16]

The massive destruction was all in Gaza. Israel used advanced US military equipment for the slaughter and destruction, and relied on US diplomatic support, including the usual US intervention to block a Security Council call for a cease-fire. [17]

With each such exploit Israel’s global image erodes. The images of terror and destruction, and the character of the conflict, leave few remaining shreds of credibility to the self-declared “most moral army in the world,” at least among people with eyes open.

The pretexts for the assault were also the usual ones. We can put aside the predictable declarations of the perpetrators in Israel and Washington, but even decent people ask what Israel should do when attacked by a barrage of missiles. It’s a fair question, and there are straightforward answers.

One response would be to observe international law, which allows the use of force without Security Council authorization in exactly one case: in self-defense after informing the Security Council of an armed attack, until the Council acts (UN Charter, Article 51). Israel understands that well. That is the course it followed at the outbreak of the June 1967 war, but of course Israel’s appeal went nowhere when it was quickly ascertained that it was Israel that had launched the attack. Israel did not follow this course in November, knowing well what would be revealed in a Security Council debate.

Another narrow response would be to agree to a truce, as appeared quite possible before the operation was launched on November 14, as often before.

There are more far-reaching responses. By coincidence, one illustration is discussed in the current issue of the journal National Interest. The authors, Asia scholars Raffaello Pantucci and Alexandros Petersen, describe China’s reaction after rioting in western Xinjiang province “in which mobs of Uighurs marched around the city beating hapless Han [Chinese] to death.” Chinese president Hu Jintao quickly flew to the province to take charge, senior leaders in the security establishment were fired, and a wide range of development projects were undertaken to address underlying causes of the unrest. [18]

In Gaza too a civilized reaction is possible. The US and Israel could end the merciless unremitting assault and open the borders, and provide for reconstruction — and if it were imaginable, reparations for decades of violence and repression.

The cease-fire agreement stated that the measures to implement the end of the siege and the targeting of residents in border areas “shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.” There is no sign of steps in this direction. Nor is there any indication of US-Israeli willingness to rescind their policy of separating Gaza from the West Bank in violation of the Oslo Accords, to end the illegal settlement and development programs in the West Bank designed to undermine a political settlement, or in any other way to abandon the rejectionism of the past decades.

Some day, and it must be soon, the world will respond to the plea issued by the distinguished Gazan human rights lawyer Raji Sourani while the bombs were once again raining down on defenseless civilians in Gaza: “We demand justice and accountability. We dream of a normal life, in freedom and dignity.” [19]

George Galloway hosts RT Correspondent Max Keiser in Westminster talking about the Economy

The drop of a tear

*Dedicated to all those going through a hard time*

They say that God will help you through
And although
I dont doubt the fact that that’s true
I’m in a stage in life
where I don’t know who to turn to
I’m confused
As yesterday has left my spirit
Battered and bruised
Forcing me to take a step forward
In a path that’s unclear
With a heart trembling in fear
Far from being acquainted with people
I’m well acquainted with my tears
With each drop telling of a pain engulfed in darkness
Without having experienced the sunshine in a long time
As each opportunity missed
crosses out a lifeline
Leaving me to wonder if I’ll ever experience prosperity in my lifetime
That’s a question fuelled with fear
As I stare in to this path that’s unclear
And telling my story not through words
But at each drop of a tear.

Remembering Guantanamo

20121107-010942.jpg

As the majority of the western world glues itself to the television to get the latest updates on the US Presidential election, a group of British protesters gathered outside the US embassy today to remember those connected to an issue that the Obama administration long seems to have forgotten about.

Yesterday, The London Guantanamo Campaign hosted its event “Demo, Truth and Justice The American Way” which consisted of speakers and entertainers who highlighted the on going human rights abuses conducted by the US and UK governments in Guantanamo Bay.

The event was attended by people like Ilyas Townsend(Justice for Aafia Campaign) who talked about the history of colonialism and it’s contemporary manifestations, Chris Nineham(Stop the War Coalition) who talked about our need to oppose Guantanamo and the connection between Islamophobia and the war in terror and Joy Hurcombe(Save Shaker Aamer Campaign) who spoke of their fight to free Britains last remaining Guantanamo detainee.

But for me the most interesting speech was from Aviva Stahl(CagePrisoners) who highlighted the intrusive entrapment methods of the FBI responsible for radicalising Muslims. This was particularly relevant to my previous article which was an interview with documentary film maker Roshan Muhammad Salih and his investigations of MI5’s intelligence gathering operation of the Muslim community in the UK.

It was a very inspirational event to be involved in, seeing people stand up for the right of others but there is another thing that I learnt. Although it is important to resist the current war on terror, we have to understand that this is simply an evolution of the cold war. Therefore our response to the war on terror must also evolve if we are to take our activism to new powerful heights and ensure that our children and our children’s children have a fighting chance in stopping imperialism and racism in all of its forms.

Roshan Muhammad Salih Born and spent early years in Sri Lanka, of Sri Lankan/British heritage. Lived in north Wales until A levels. Went to University in Staffordshire and Exeter with a year’s break in France. Sort of fell into teaching for a couple of years in a rough inner city school. Then retrained as a journalist, moving into local newspapers, then TV with Granada, Aljazeera (in the Middle East), Islam Channel and most recently Press TV. Now working as an independent documentary-maker. Specialism in global Muslim affairs.

He is working on a documentary looking at the MI5 and spying in the UK Muslim Community which will be available on press tv very soon so check http://www.presstv.com for more information. People can search for him on Facebook for more information about exact broadcast date. He will also put the documentary on youtube. Roshan can be contacted on roshan@newsanew.tv for more information.

Can you tell us more information about the documentary that your working for, especially the issue of spying in the muslim community?

Ah yeh, ok so this documentary, I’m an independent documentary maker , I’ve sold this documentary to press tv so it will broadcast on press tv in the next weeks or months at the latest they haven’t put across a date but I’ll keep you in touch with that. The idea of the documentary in a nutshell is that huge resources is being thrown at the terrorism threat or the so-called terrorism threat by the government and the community that they’re monitoring more than any other is overwhelmingly the Muslim community. And they are doing this in the name of national security to catch so called terrorists. Now the tactics they are using is ultimately very direct, they’re placing bugs in mosques , placing bugs in restaurants, in offices, they are monitoring young people, they’re monitoring community leaders, they’re monitoring women especially, they’re monitoring Somali youth, people in schools, colleges, universities because they think that these are the guys that are most likely to turn in to terrorists so in the one hand they’re monitoring the community quite intensively they’re also trying to recruit people from the community to become spies because what they need is information and access and they haven’t got that so who’s got it? Muslims have got it so they are trying desperately to get muslims to spy on their behalf. And they’re doing this with some success I’d say aswell. Other tactics they’re using currently they’re employing undercover police officers in the community especially converts, you know people who pretend to convert to islam and then very soon afterwards they start asking questions about what do you think about jihad? What do you think about Afghanistan? Iraq and lets do something and kind of encourage people to maybe say things they shouldn’t say and all the while they’re wearing recording devices and they’re filming whats going on and so you have this element of entrapment aswell and the basic premise of the documentary is that I think the government is not going after terrorists, I think we would all support them if they were genuinely going after terrorists but they’re targeting the whole community.

Did you encounter any obstacles while filming your documentary and if so, can you give us any specific examples?

Ah yeah I mean the police and the MI5 are completely uncooperative you know they don’t want anyone making any documentaries on any of this serious stuff or ask any serious questions so they didn’t give me any interviews they didn’t give me any help and you know, infact, I wouldn’t say that they were obstructive because they know if they were that would probably give me more reason to publicise what they are doing because they know I’m the kind of guy who would just go public straight away. But you know they turned down all our interviews so in terms of the police and MI5 there was no luck from them no cooperation from them whatsoever. Muslims I think are scared aswell I mean a lot of people approached me personally and said “I’m really glad you’re doing this, no one’s doing it and heres a lead follow this up” but they wouldn’t do it on camera, they wouldn’t go on camera especially even though they supported what I was doing and were encouraging me and giving me leads off the record and I just think they are very scared of what the security services can do because the security services are complete, they can get away with whatever they want here they’re completely untouchable you cant make a complaints against them and they can destroy your life ultimately so you know muslims are scared. On the other hand a lot of muslims who have been subjected to MI5 surveillance themselves did go on camera and these were the brave ones who ultimately said something needs to be done about it so it was kind of a mixed reception from the community itself I think I got here

From your experience would you say that there is a difference between someone who is an informant and organisations who act as partners with the police so for example if I can just break it down you know the Muslim Contact Unit has partner organisations that it works with so would you say that there is a fundamental difference between that relationship and the relationship between that of an informant and informer?

I’m actually looking at the Muslim Contact unit now, are you referring to specific groups or….

Yeh they work with specific muslim youth groups, muslim organisations that want to integrate young muslims back in to society however they because of this relationship between them and the police they can be seen by people as informers

I mean the Muslim Contact Unit if I remember correctly Bob lambert founded it wasn’t it, do you know about Bob Lambert?

Yes I do know

So basically he was a former spy and he kind of preyed of environmental groups and he had relations with women in thoese groups and had children and abandoned them, you know an inherently untrustworthy character and yet he made his way in to the muslim community unfortunately muslims seem to have taken him to their heart aswell. I mean I’m generally I would say in an an answer to your question I think there is overt spying going on and covert spying. I think any muslim organisation which takes money from government and any muslim organisation which has close ties with government and police, atleast we have the right to be suspicious and I think that as I said the governments needs access in to the community and if these people are taking money from the government that means that they are beholden to the government to a certain extent because theres no such thing as a free lunch in this life I’m afraid. So theres an overt kind of kind of spying going on where they probably pass on information I’m sure they do. I think then theres covert spying where you don’t know who’s working for who so I think theres a two pronged strategy overt and covert and you people might think the covert is worse than the overt but I think they’re two peas in a pod to be honest it’s the same thing ultimately, ones overt and ones secretive. Personally I’m against any muslim organisation taking any money from the government whatsoever

Can you give us any examples of organisations and individuals that are engaged in spying because in your statuses you say that there are liberal and there are extreme muslims who are “working” for the intelligence services, so can you give us any examples?

Well this is the thing, the short answer is no I’m not going to give you examples because the whole, this is all inherently underground activity there is no paper trail. MI5 do not leave a paper trail, that is what they are experts in doing and yet we know that they are spying on muslims because they basically admit it you know in the PREVENT papers which are published in the home office website and even in the meetings I have attended you know they’ve said to community members you’d be naïve to think if it wasn’t going on. I mean I cant name names because in order to name names you have to be 100% sure even as a muslim you know you cant finger people unless your 100% sure I just don’t believe in doing that I do think that any organisation, any muslim organisation which takes money from government is inherently suspicious and you know I think we have a right to suspect them. We don’t have a right to say we think you are definitely spies but we have a right to have doubts because we know that these are the type of organisations which are doing spying and I think any organisation which calls itself a womens empowerment organisation is inherently suspicious aswell, not that I’m against womens empowerment but it is also obviously so called government strategy to empower socalled muslim women who are being oppressed in their community and often these groups get government money so I think we have a right to have doubts about that. Also organisations that work with the young because the youth are the governments real target, that’s what they want information about so any youth community groups that are working with muslim youth I think, I would personally have doubts about them without saying they’re guilty, they’re innocent whatever so generally I would say in terms of organisations anyone that has close ties to the government and the police we should be suspicious about and we shouldn’t be naïve about it aswell because I mean I know somebody who I cant mention but I know he is an MI5 spy and I know that he’s a head of a huge muslim organisation in this country but I cant name him and he isn’t the kind of person you’d expect if I said his name to you now you’d be shocked OK you’d be absolutely shocked if I said it out loud they would demonise me they would come after me and say why are you going after this good man and that’s why I say we shouldn’t be naïve because the people that we least expect to be the spies are probably the spies and the ones that we do expect to be spies, maybe they’re not spies. So in terms of individuals, I think general islamist groups, I should say first of all I consider myself an islamist. I’m a practicing muslim who believes in political islam but I don’t believe in having contact with MI5 or police and this is why I think that my brothers my islamist brothers fall down because they will justify their contact with the MI5 and the police in the kind of it’s the greater good and I think that’s very cynical and that’s very hypocritical I don’t think you get in bed with your enemy one day and then you know fight him the next I think that’s completely cynical and hypocritical. I ultimately believe that your not in charge aswell because these guys, they control you, you don’t control them and these guys are masters of this game and you become pawns of the game. So you mentioned Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed who have had contact with MI5, I know they have because I know their lawyers who sat in on these meetings they in themselves have had contact with MI5, whether they’re MI5 pawns or not is a different matter but we know that MI5 is infioltrating muslim organisations like al muhajiroun but I would say that every single major muslim organisation in this country would be infiltrated if you look at it from MI5’s point of view that just stands to reason. Basically in terms of individuals, I think that anyone, the fact is a lot of islamists have contact with the MI5 and a lot of them because they sought refuge in this country and as soon as you do that the MI5 and the police are all over you but that doesn’t mean that they are tools for MI5 but it does mean that some contact has gone on, I mean you never know whats actually happened, are they blackmailing them? Have they threatened their families? Are they working under duress? You know these are legitimate questions asked and also I mean the fact is if you look at Libya and Syria, these are two areas where islamists and the MI5 and I’ll say the MI6 are working in hand in hand because the islamists will justify it in terms of the greater good they’ll say that we have to overthrow despots like ghaddafi in Libya and bashar in Syria but the fact is that, I mean that I’ll give you an example I know a guy who’s on a control order and he met the same guy who was harassing him for 10 years on the Turkish and suria border and that guy was ultimately from MI5 who said to him “whatever you want I’ll give you” so you know they’re working on the same side so theres a marriage of convenience going on between some islamists and individuals and groups and MI5 and I think that personally my recommendation would be no contact with them whatsoever because your just asking for trouble.

Do you see the industry of spying in the muslim community getting more problematic or something that will die down in the future?

No its going to get bigger, mizan because ultimately the terror industry is big business and ultimately everything in this world comes down to money. And everyone has its price. Ultimately its in the interest of the security services to heighten the terror threat and they do that because as long as the terror threat is high they can go for huge government resources to finance the work they are doing and etc etc so everyones after these contracts and therefore they’re likely to keep on planting stories in the newspapers, they’re going to keep on using the daily mail, the daily telegraph, the daily express and all those right wing papers to heighten the terror threat, to make people scared because as long as they can keep people scared then they can get more money and the police and the MI5 have their own agenda which is often separate from people in government. There might be people in government who want to eradicate terrorism and they might actually feel that way and maybe there are people in the police and MI5 who feel the same way aswell but there are also other people who are generally are just in this to make money and terrorism equals money.

What advice would you give to the muslim community regarding how it should interact with the government? I know that you know, you said that basically a no no to the intelligence but you know the government and the police how should we interact with the authority because you know, we are citizens and we are a community living in the UK?

Yeh I mean of course we’re a minority in this country and we should be good citizens, we should obey the law, we shouldn’t do anything wrong, we shouldn’t I mean I’m against terrorism, I am 100% against terrorism, we live in this country and if we choose to live in this country we accept the rules of this country and we accept the fact that we’re a minority here we don’t run the place and so therefore muslims should be good citixzens here we should interact with our neighbours with non-muslims and you know I’m all for that but at the same time I think that the governments agenda when it comes to terrorism is so compromised and so ideological that I I think any muslim organisation which takes money from the government is asking for trouble really because we’re just going to become pawns in a game that we don’t understand so I would say what one law is is no money from government, muslim organisations should not be taking any money from government, ummm individuals we should not have any contact with MI5, if MI5 approach you then you should know your rights you should not have conversation with them off the record for example because they are experts at getting information out of you and make you incriminate yourself and they can blackmail you. You should ask for lawyer straight away and you should talk to them in the presence of a lawyer otherwise don’t talk to them at all. What else yeh I mean as also as a community we need to unite and the thing is we are a very divided community, we’re divided on sectarian lines you know we’re either salafis or Sufis or shia, we’re divided on ethnic lines such as Pakistanis or whatever and we’re just you know a complete joke in terms of unity and if we don’t unify then they will be able to pick us off very easy and I think the muslim community should come together and form a coordinated response to whats happening. They are basically being targeted, they are basically under attack and they have no answer about it and even if they do know they’re like passive victims but they don’t have to be passive victims they should tell the authorities that this is unacceptable, they wont stand for it, I don’t personally have all the answers, I don’t know what to do for A to Z but I fo know that we need to come together and sort this out as a community and decide on some kind of cohesive response otherwise we’re just going to picked off and we’re going to be victims and I personally don’t want to be a victim and mizan theres onwe other thing that I wanted to say that you haven’t aswked me but I remember it was in one of the questions that you wrote down that I had a look at and that is how I came to this documentary in the first place? I basically came to it in the case of Munir Farooqi in Manchester, ummm which I hope you can highlight because if you go to http://www.savethefamilyhome.com you’ll find the website there it gives you the complete information about this guys case and he was basically subject to under cover surveillance by two cops over the period of a year and they pretended to convert to islam and after they converted they started asking quesions about Jihad, politics and Afghanistan and they filmed this guy and secretly recorded what he saif for over a year and because of the few words that he said about “perhaps noe day we’ll go to Afghanistan and we might do something” he was convicted for 18 years and it smacked me when I visited the family the case smacked me of entrapment you know there was no plan of going to Afghanistan, there was no plot but just because of the few words that he said off the cuff or angry or whatever he was banged up and he is in prison now for 18 years so to me that is not catching terrorists that is entrapping people. So I hope that on your blog you can highlight this case of Munir Farooqi because its probably the most shocking case of entrapment that’s happened in this country perhaps ever you know and they are appealing the judgment at this moment in time aswell.

20121028-011141.jpg

Source

Mahdi Hashi is thought to be in prison in the African state of Djibouti

While he was visiting Somalia, Theresa May deprived him of all his rights as a British national

He was accused of extremist activities but his parents say this is wrong

After landing at Heathrow, he was approached by MI5 who said his ‘suspect status’ would be cleared if he ‘co-operated’ with them

A British citizen whose family believe he is being tortured by American secret agents has suddenly had all his rights as a UK national removed by the Home Secretary.

Mahdi Hashi – who MI5 once tried to recruit as a spy – has been deprived of his British passport, denied access to consular assistance and may never return to Britain. He is thought to be being held in an African prison.

Mohamed and Kaltun Hashi, the parents of the 23-year-old care worker from Camden, North London, became concerned for his safety after being tipped off that in the summer he had been taken to a prison in the African state of Djibouti while visiting neighbouring Somalia.

The information was passed on by another prisoner who said Mr Hashi claimed he had been ‘mistreated’ and was being interrogated by men working for America.

The Mail on Sunday has established that while Mr Hashi was out of Britain, Home Secretary Theresa May used a little-known power – which does not require a court order – to deprive him of all his rights as a British national.

It can also be revealed that Mrs May has issued at least another nine orders against British nationals. The majority have been served on Muslim men, although the most public case is that of Russian spy Anna Chapman, who had been married to a UK national.

Mr Hashi and his family moved to the UK from Somalia when he was five. In late 2009 he returned to the capital Mogadishu where he had met his wife, whom he married last year and with whom he has a child.

His parents found out about his detention only after the other prisoner had been released and returned to Somalia where he made contact with Mr Hashi’s relatives.

In a desperate attempt to find Mr Hashi, his mother-in-law travelled from Mogadishu to Djibouti, but despite repeated requests prison staff refused to say if he was there. The family has also approached the Djibouti and US authorities but have been given no information about Mr Hashi.

The deprivation of citizenship order signed by Mrs May says Mr Hashi has lost his rights to live in the UK because of the ‘public good’.

A letter adds: ‘The Security Service assess that you have been involved in Islamicist extremism and present a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom due to your extremist activities.’

Mr Hashi has not been told of what he is accused, nor is it clear whether he knows he is no longer a British citizen.

Human rights lawyers said he may be the victim of a new Government policy in which Britain is denying British nationals citizenship when they find themselves in serious trouble in foreign countries.

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, prominent human rights barrister, said: ‘The increase in orders under this Government of depriving British people of their citizenship on non-conducive grounds is a matter of concern because it is always very difficult to challenge fairly. It means people are being deprived of their rights as a British citizen on the say-so of security officials who can’t be challenged in court.’

Cageprisoners, the human rights group that campaigns against secret detentions, believes Mr Hashi may be the victim of an American rendition programme in which suspects are unlawfully taken to third-party states where they are illegally detained and tortured.

The order issued by Mrs May can be used only against a UK national who has dual citizenship. It is not clear if Mr Hashi can still claim Somali nationality because he left Somalia for the UK when he was so young.

In 2009, Mr Hashi complained to his MP Frank Dobson (pictured)

Human rights group are concerned that he may now be held at Camp Lemmonier in Djibouti where the Americans have built a large base to combat terrorist groups across the continent. It is also where many of the US drone attacks in Africa are co-ordinated.

But in a legal Catch 22 the US Ambassador in London has written to the family, denying any involvement in Mr Hashi’s detention, stating that if Mr Hashi is a British citizen then he must contact the Foreign Office.

Last night his mother said: ‘We are very worried about him and just want to know what has happened.’

The only justification Mrs May has given for removing Mr Hashi’s citizenship is his alleged involvement in Islamic extremism. But his family say he has never been interested in any kind of extremist behaviour.

In 2009 Mr Hashi complained to his MP Frank Dobson and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the body which oversees MI5, that he was being harassed by security officers because he had refused to work as a spy in his North London Muslim community.

In April that year, when he was working as a care worker for a very ill man in North London, Mr Hashi had gone to Gatwick to take a plane to visit his sick grandmother in Djibouti.

But as he was checking in he was stopped by two plainclothes officers. One identified himself as ‘Richard’ and said he was working for MI5, Mr Hashi said in his complaint to the tribunal.

Mr Hashi said: ‘He warned me not to get on the flight. He said, “Whatever happens to you outside the UK is not our responsibility.” I was shocked.’

Mr Hashi continued with his flight but at Djibouti airport he was stopped at passport control, held for 16 hours and then deported back to the UK. He claims Djibouti security officers told him their orders came from London.

After landing at Heathrow he was detained again and visited by ‘Richard’. ‘He said it was them who sent me back because I was a terror suspect.’

Mr Hashi alleged the officer made it clear his ‘suspect’ status and travel restrictions would be lifted only if he agreed to co-operate with MI5. ‘He said, “By co-operating with us we know you’re not guilty”’

Mr Hashi refused and complained to the tribunal and Mr Dobson.

His lawyers, solicitor Saghir Hussain and barrister Faisal Saifee, say Mr Hashi left for Somalia in December 2009 to visit his family and intended to return to the UK in the near future to study engineering.

Mr Hussain said: ‘It seems his imprisonment in Djibouti is the execution of a threat made in 2009 by MI5. What sort of country is this when you are spirited away to another state and your own Government’s response is to take away your citizenship?’

In a letter to the Home Office the Hashi family lawyers have asked for information that will help them provide legal representation to Mr Hashi during his detention.

The Home Office responded: ‘It has been the policy of successive governments neither to confirm or deny speculation, allegations or assertion in respect of intelligence matters.

This policy is maintained, and accordingly the Secretary of State can neither confirm nor deny the allegations made on behalf of your client.’

In 2006, a new convert showed up at a mosque in Orange County, California, eager to study the Koran and make new friends. But when he started acting odd and saying strange things, those friends got suspicious. To them, he was Farouk al-Aziz. But his real name was Craig Monteilh, and he was working undercover for the FBI (Read the update of his story here)