Seymour Hersh writing in The New Yorker provides his always fascinating and informative comments about the current Iran situation. Today the UK government announced an increase in troops in Afghanistan by 1,400. A few days ago it announced troop cuts in Iraq by 1,600. Anyway this is sliced it's a move of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan where the first invasion occurred. Had there been a concentration of effort on Afghanistan while avoiding Iraq, everything wold be completely different now. Instead, it's a catastrophe with terrorism boosted in an extraordinary manner. I wonder when conscription will be re-instated? I wonder if the British Army is out trying to recruit in the gang and gun culture in the UK? If these guys are that keen on fighting with guns, they should make splendid soldiers in these wars.
The New Yorker Issue of 2007-03-05; Posted 2007-02-25
The Redirection: A Strategic Shift
by Seymour M. Hersh
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070305fa_fact_hersh
BBC News Monday, 26 February 2007, 16:22 GMT
UK to boost Afghan force by 1,400
 There have been fierce clashes in Helmand involving UK troops |
The UK is to deploy 1,400 more troops to Afghanistan, bringing numbers up to 7,700, Des Browne has told MPs.
The majority will be deployed over summer and will be mainly based in the volatile province of Helmand, where UK forces have been fighting the Taleban.
The defence secretary said the move was being made with the agreement of the chiefs of staff and was "manageable".
He denied that the need for more forces in Afghanistan had forced the recent decision to reduce troops in Iraq.
And, in a Commons statement, he said it would be an "error" to believe that the need to increase troop numbers was the result of poor planning.
. . .
The announcement of the extra UK deployment comes days after Prime Minister Tony Blair said the country's military presence in Iraq was being reduced by 1,600 personnel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6396001.stm
2. Here are one comment about last night's BBC Two Dr David Kelly Conspiracy Files and a couple Emails I sent following the programme to those interviewed and its producer. I believe that understanding the nature of the surveillance technology which has been used against me for the past six years 24/7 lends weight to the balance that such a death as Dr David Kelly's leans toward the side of murder. All of the evidence must be closely examined, and that is what has been absent with regard to his death leaving open many unanswered questions.
The Guardian Unlimited Organ Grinder Blog Monday, 26th February 2007
Conspiracy Files: was Dr Kelly murdered?
By Chris Tryhorn / Television 10:03am
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2007/02/conspiracy_files_was_dr_kelly.html#more
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Dr David Kelly BBC Two Conspiracy Programme
Date: Sunday 25 February 2007 23:04
From: Gary D Chance
To: bakern@parliament.uk, RowenaThursby@onetel.com
Dear Mr Baker and Ms Thursby
I was very impressed with this programme tonight on BBC Two and your interview comments. I have had a bit of communication with Ms Thursby about this means for carrying out such a murder in the past and comment again because the kind of surveillance to which I am subjected continues.
From the point of view of an active MP addressing this problem of Dr David Kelly's death, you need to be aware of this means of assassination. I am always amused that there is a great reluctance to recognise this means as in existence which to me reveals that they are very effective in keeping its existence silent.
In the early 1960s I used to work in USAFSS (communications intelligence) for three years with my reports from HQ USAFSS going to NSA and GCHQ. At that time this worldwide activity was totally unknown generally and would never have been accepted as real had anyone tried to make this known publicly. Anyone who tried would have been silenced fast.
This was not revealed until Admiral Bobby Inman, DIRNSA, went public with the NSA in the US Congress c 1977 to the chagrin of many in the intelligence community. Even the mention of "GCHQ" in the late 1970s was an offence under the Official Secrets Act in this country.
My points are two:
1) this surveillance methodology has been carried out in the UK against me in London now for six years and is not acknowledged as existing; and
2) it is a means for carrying out assassination as well as total surveillance.
As an MP, I would suggest that Mr Baker take into consideration the fact that this surveillance technology (see http://garydchance.tripod.com/surveillance/id31.html) is being used on an indefinite basis in the UK against targets such as myself completely outside the law. It is so totally invasive and can be used by means of satellite that it makes possible totall surveillance of any individual in the UK or the world for that matter.
I believe that your and others description about motives are sufficient with respect to Dr David Kelly's "murder." This surveillance technology makes opportunity and method quite easy. It could be handled by one or two people with the added bits to make it look like a suicide attempt.
Given Michael Shrimpton's statements that he is fully convinced Dr David Kelly was murdered due to his sources inside the intelligence community, I believe that there is little doubt about this assertion.
However, if his sources are so good, I wonder why he is not familiar with this surveillance technology and relies on a chemical theory with the ulnar artery cut a cover up of the needle marks. This theory omits how Dr Kelly was tracked and how he was known to be where he was in the countryside(opportunity).
The use of this surveillance technology to which I've been subjected 24/7 for the past six years provides for that tracking and locating the target at all times with the ability to be present quickly without any detection whatsoever by the target. I am aware of the activity against me because of the personalities of those involved and the abuse to which I am being subjected.
The phrase "dark actors playing games" takes on an ominous meaning from my perspective and experience as a target. Those carrying out the surveillance are engaged in a perpetual performance, yet they try to smokescreen this by false calling me an "actor." There is no doubt that they are playing games in the sense of dishonest, manipulative behaviour. The fact that this comes from the dark side of the human character needs no explanation. I noted this phrase when it was revealed years ago, but now that it is used again it takes on a special meaning as this activity against me continuous unabated.
Finally, your suspicions of being monitored are entirely justified, but you will never be able to avoid this surveillance technology unless you go deep underground out of range of electromagnetic radiation. Also, the monitoring of computer technology and the human being are done in the same way. Expect that any computer or electromagnetic device that you use is subject to monitoring. This basic intercept technology has been in existence since the 1950s. It's just been applied more and more widely until it now is successfully used against human beings.
My objective is to motivate others especially MPs to find out the facts of this surveillance technology and bring it into the public's awareness and consciousness so that it can be properly controlled.
Currently, it is being used in the most malignant manner possible which completely undermines democracy and civilisation as we know it.
I am amazed that it is not being recognised as a possible means of assassination in the case of Dr Kelly.
Keep up the outstanding work. You are both doing a superb job.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: BBC Two Dr David Kelly Conspiracy Files
Date: Monday 26 February 2007 12:04
From: Gary D Chance
To:
Mike Rudin
Producer
BBC Two Conspiracy Files
BBC Television Centre
Wood Lane
London W10
Dear Mr Rudin
I thought you and your people did a superb job with the Dr David Kelly documentary last night.
I have one problem, however, with the omission of the current state-of-the-art of surveillance technology which not only provides total tracking and completely invasive surveillance but is also a weapon which can kill, e.g., heart attack by stopping the heart muscle, among other physically damaging attributes.
This surveillance technology has been used against me 24/7 for six years since February 2001. At this time former US Marines Colonel Vine and Lt Harry Bird joined the surveillance abuse to which I had already been subjected for two and one-half years since August 1998 bringing along their own surveillance technology. For more information see my web site and web journal whose URLs are below.
While conspiracy theories are a fascinating study (on Dr David Kelly I lean toward the assassination theory because of the opportunity and means which you omitted) and worth exploring as you have done, these concern the past. The use of this surveillance technology being used near the BBC 24/7 for six years is quite real whose abuse and implications for the present and future concern us all.
I would suggest that you consider doing a documentary exploration of the use of this state-of-the-art surveillance technology.
Just for a bit more additional information I've attached a copy of an Email to two or your interviewees in last night's programme. I've posted this since you do not make an Email address available.
*****End of the Emails*****
3. Gun crime again: the proposals noted below are marvellous except for the fact that it is the police themselves who have introduced violence and guns into this environment in my direct experience by arming the "thugs" and allowing them to possess firearms. How are the police going to have this people evicted and moved to a new area when the police themselves are the source of the crime? As I've described before, Paul Winston (Metropolitan Police Special Branch) provided a gun to BS who was reported for criminal activity by me and has made threats of violence and death against me. She has also has been using the surveillance technology against me for years 24/7 as a lethal weapon.
The mother of BS has admitted to Paul Winston that she possessed a gun. She too has threatened to kill me quite explicitly stating "I'll get a gun and shoot him." Paul Winston did nothing about her gun possession. He was encouraging her to have a weapon for "protection." My question at present nearly nine years on after I reported the child abuse by these people in the flat below is whether they have given a gun or weapon to the Son of BS who was abused by them and now is almost nine years older? He has grown up participating in the surveillance violence against me while being trained to become a bully like the adults around him which has manifested itself recently in public verbal abuse. How much further will his antisocial and criminal "education" go as this surveillance technology abuse continues to be carried out against me?
The police will never break down the "wall of silence" when it is the police themselves who carry out violence while supporting the same violent conduct by those whom I reported for their child abuse against me. It is these police who have been extensively involved in this activity against me whom I call "thugs." When the people in this environment who understand exactly what has occurred see that the police themselves and others in positions of authority carry out extremely violent abuse continuously 24/7 for many years against the one who reported and continues to report the problems, they will never break their silence and dare to speak the truth in the face of the threat if not a very real likelihood that they will be treated like me which they have all witnessed directly or heard about.
These people who are so disposed will continue to participate in this continuous violence carried out against me with the use of surveillance technology while acting as a vigilante mob, and those who do not will never say a word out of fear of the police and others in authority. The information the police do obtain is so much rubbish, and they know it. Scapegoat psychology not only fails but produces a far worse problem by allowing the antisocial and criminal behaviour to flourish. Despite all the invaluable technology, the police have not exactly moved forward along with its objective and beneficial use.
BBC News Monday, 26 February 2007, 08:07 GMT
'Evict gun thugs' families' call
 Bernard Hogan-Howe was writing in the Daily Telegraph |
Families that shield gun criminals from the police should be evicted from their homes, a senior police chief has said.
Bernard Hogan-Howe, Chief Constable of Merseyside Police, believes the tough measure would make communities feel safer and help tackle gun crime.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, he also calls for tougher action on teenagers caught with guns and the power to force witnesses to give evidence.
The chief said it was vital that police broke the "wall of silence" they face.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6396229.stm
The Daily Telegraph Monday, 26th February 2007
Families targeted to break power of gun gangs
By John Steele, Crime Correspondent
Families who harbour young men with guns face eviction from their homes and being moved out of their communities under a pioneering police crackdown.
The idea is to be tested in Merseyside as statistics obtained by The Daily Telegraph show that at least 550 teenagers were murdered or unlawfully killed in England and Wales in the past 10 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/26/nguns26.xml
The Daily Telegraph Monday, 26th February 2007
Why we need to break the wall of silence on gun crime
This week's gun crime summit has again sparked a debate about how we get guns off the streets and out of the hands of teenagers.
All Chief Constables are acutely aware that there's no easy answer to this. While gun crime continues to fall, the threat still remains, as recent events in London show.
But there is more we can do to turn the tide of teenage gun crime victims and offenders. There are three priorities: tightening the criminal justice system to compel witnesses and victims to give evidence; excluding those involved in gun crime from their communities; gripping the importation and supply of weapons.
4. All of this hoopla about a "flagrant denial of justice" in sending a perceived security risk back to Jordan where he will likely face a military trial based upon evidence obtained by torture seems misplaced to me. Everyone is screaming about human rights abuses when imprisonment and torture completely outside the law goes on in this country 24/7 and has been carried out against me for many years starting way before 9/11. All of this time, effort and resources have been spent including an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with Jordan that it will not torture someone deported from this country back to it while years of torture interrogation under penalty of death have been carried out in North Kensington without anyone so much as lifting a little finger.
I think all this razzle dazzle has been a government smokescreen behind which the US and UK governments hide to carry out the kind of imprisonment and torture that I've been experiencing. These governments seek to distract attention away from the abuses that they are really carrying out. These arguments and activity would be meaningful if they were not taking place against a background of extensive in-country UK torture. As it currently exists, however, I wonder how these organisations and people think they are actually supporting human rights in any meaningful way?
Gareth Peirce claims this decision "undermines completely the British responsibility to eradicate torture worldwide," yet she and others ignore the fact that the UK and US governments have been carrying out years of torture right here in London under everyone's nose which has been witnessed by scores if not hundreds of participants. These organisations and people who pretend to support human rights are most certainly not very well informed, or they deliberately disregard the most serious problems to remain in the spotlight created by the government for their own self serving objectives. Win or lose they get paid and obtain publicity they could never achieve except in this spotlight. Human rights are not being served all around as it turns out.
The UK is a torture state. Should anybody be surprised that the UK seeks paper agreements with other torture states to placate any opposition against doing what it wants to do anyway and carries out itself? Thus the legal basis is established which is recognised by the "court," Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), in this situation who decides to deport. Meanwhile, the UK and US agents carry out years of 24/7 torture in the UK blatantly and publicly for all to see with impunity beyond comprehension by a so-called civilised nation. When I complain about it, I am attacked personally in a most vicious manner with extensive abuse and false allegations.
There is no democratic rule of law in this country let alone human rights. Gareth Peirce should know that from her extensive experience. She and others like her should be addressing the real source of the problem. What happens is that the government pays legal aid for the legal representation of such "prisoners" and fundamentally controls the activity of the legal profession by controlling their means of income in a very expensive legal world. Decisions are taken on the basis of being able to earn money not on the basis of a priority of needs. While earning a living is a necessity, it creates a situation where the real problems are ignored, and the government gets on with its abuse unchallenged legally.
BBC News Monday, 26 February 2007, 15:56 GMT
Cleric loses deportation appeal
 Abu Qatada appealed against his deportation to Jordan |
Radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada has lost his appeal against a Home Office move to deport him to Jordan.
The home secretary welcomed the ruling, seen as the first test of a policy that seeks assurances deportees in terror cases will not be abused on return.
The alleged al-Qaeda figure's lawyers said he could face torture at home but the UK said he was a security threat.
Qatada, who has been convicted in Jordan for terror attacks, is to seek leave to appeal the deportation ruling.
Human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce said it was a "profoundly important appeal" that could have ramifications across the world.
Qatada, 45, has spent most of the past five years in prison in the UK under anti-terrorism and immigration laws.
. . .
Ms Peirce said the ruling would mean sending Qatada to a "flagrant denial of justice", with the prospect of trial by a military court using evidence obtained from torture.
"We say it would be so grotesquely unreconcilable with the concept of justice that it would constitute a complete denial of our responsibilities - to deport on that basis with that known prospect."
She added: "We understand that this decision is being monitored and watched by a number of other countries who are considering deporting individuals to regimes where they know they will be tortured."
Amnesty International UK campaigns director Tim Hancock said the group was "profoundly concerned" Siac had discounted evidence showing the risk of torture if Qatada was returned to Jordan.
This included material documenting the "routine infliction of torture on 'security suspects' in Jordan...a practice which continues with impunity".