Irlandinitiative Heidelberg - International News 2004

When deciding the first Court of Appeal hearing of the case against the six `Birmingham Bombers' Master of the Rolls Lord Denning faced a truly unpleasant choice.

Either he accepted the case presented by the massed ranks of crown prosecutors and the cream of the British CID in front of him, or he accepted that the six men were innocent.

And if that were the case, then they had been beaten to a pulp and forced (four of them) to sign false confessions, and would be wrongly convicted of Britain's greatest ever case of mass murder.

It was not an easy choice, because to accept the case of innocence, he had to accept that the six men had been deliberately framed by some of the most distinguished police officers in the country.

Here was a clear case where the good lord was being expected by the defendants to admit that the establishment forces of law and order, the very people charged with administering the Queen's justice, were liars and perjurers, and had behaved in a totally criminal fashion.

Denning looked at what was looming in front of him, and in dismissing the appeal made a remark that to this day has overshadowed his considerable legal legacy.

He said that he could not allow this ``appalling vista'' to be contemplated.

The men were returned to their cells for another six years before they were finally proved innocent and released.

I had to think of Lord Denning this week as Lord Butler prepared to deliver his verdict on the intelligence that created the case by which Tony Blair took his country to war in Iraq.

Once again a truly ``appalling vista'' faced another establishment scion. Butler was faced with a strange quandary.

Having been given full access to the very same intelligence sources that convinced Tony Blair that war was the only reasonable option, he was then presumably required to come to the same judgement, or otherwise.

Quite simply, ``if it was good enough for Mr Blair would it be good enough for Lord Butler?'' was the essence of his task.

With considerable forensic skill and with immense dedication, Lord Butler examined, weighed and parsed the intelligence.

And he came to the only conclusion that one could reasonably come to, given the nature of the material he had before him: he found it flawed, inconsistent and contradictory.

Even worse, there was nothing in it that pointed undeniably to the possession of any weapons of mass destruction by the Iraqi regime, or even evidence that they had current and ongoing programmes to acquire them.

Of course Butler could not but come to that conclusion, because now that there was an inquiry under way, that intelligence was out in the open and would almost certainly come into public view had he tried to disguise its fragility.

So here was Lord Butler's ``appalling vista'' - essentially, to follow through on the paucity of the evidence and to conclude that inevitably the case for war was correspondingly poor. But to do so would almost certainly have brought the prime ministerial career of Tony Blair to an end.

But of even greater significance than the political career of a prime minister would have been the wider legal fallout of such a declaration.

In fact, the advice of the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to the effect that the invasion of Iraq was legal would have actually been the most significant casualty of the whole affair.

If Butler had concluded that there was not enough intelligence to justify the invasion, the attorney general's declaration about the legality of the war would have fallen.

And in that case all of those involved in that decision and the troops who killed or captured Iraqis would have been liable to prosecution for war crimes. If Blair was wrong, then so too was Goldsmith.

So Lord Butler's ``appalling vista'' was not just about the political careers involved; it could have had the most extraordinary legal implications for the entire British government.

In the face of such a quandary, and in the spirit of the late and lamented Lord Denning, Butler produced a verdict that flew in the face of both logic and law.

He concluded that despite the fact that the evidence did not confirm a threat that could justify going to war, the subsequent decision to go to war was nevertheless not the fault of those who took it.

The report is a model of the truly tortuous road Lord Butler had to travel to reach the point where he was safely escaping the inescapable.

He did it with no little skill, and with the sublime tautological arts of the very model of a model civil servant. His premise was as brilliant as it was barefaced.

Since there was no evidence anywhere that the British government had added anything to the original intelligence, and since it has passed through the Joint Intelligence Committee, which of course was composed of both senior intelligence officials and politicians, nothing untoward could have occurred.

Of course, what he didn't comment on was what was removed or ignored from the intelligence reports: the question marks, the troubled commentary, the implicit warnings - above all the field and analytic intelligence officers' assessments.

It was, all in all, a brilliant stitch-up, a piece of paper that could allow Tony Blair to go to the dispatch box and declare not only his innocence but also his moral rectitude.

No wonder he was smiling as he headed down to the Commons on Wednesday.

If he ever had any doubts about his youthful ambitions to change the British establishment, with its ancient lineage and continuous determination to ring fence the levers of power, he will always know better than to try in the future.

Here was a salutary lesson for an older Tony of why those establishment forces exist and how, in the hour of need, they can effortlessly circle the wagons to protect their own.

How well New Labour has learned old lessons. Now Tony understands why they call it the Mother of Parliaments.

Tuesday, 22 June, 2004

Security firm's $293m deal under scrutiny

By Charles M. Sennott

LONDON -- A private British firm that won a $293 million contract from the Pentagon for coordinating security in Iraq is headed by a retired British commando with a reputation for illicit arms deals in Africa and for commanding a murderous military unit in Northern Ireland, human rights activists and security analysts said yesterday.

The contract -- the largest single piece of the private-security pie in Iraq so far handed out by Washington -- was awarded to the London-based Aegis Defense Services.

The CEO of the company, Lieutenant Colonel Tim Spicer, a former commando turned warrior-for-hire, has been linked to an arms sale to Sierra Leone that violated a 1998 United Nations embargo, and he served as commanding officer over two British soldiers convicted of murdering an unarmed Catholic teenager in North Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1992.

The contract, which was awarded last month but made public only last week, comes amid heated debates in Washington over the role of private security companies and their involvement in recent scandals over physical abuse of detainees and financial corruption in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Spicer is known for his role in the 1998 Sandline Affair in which a company he founded violated a UN-imposed arms embargo by shipping 30 tons of arms to Sierra Leone. When the scandal erupted in the British media, Spicer told the press that the British government had encouraged the operation, touching off a storm that for weeks involved the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Spicer also figured prominently in a 1997 military coup in Papua New Guinea. When that country's army learned that he had received a $36 million contract from the government to brutally suppress a rebellion, the army toppled the sitting government and arrested Spicer, later releasing him.

In 1992, two soldiers in the Scots Guard unit commanded by Spicer were convicted of murdering an 18-year-old Catholic named Peter McBride in North Belfast.

For years, even after leaving military service, Spicer has defied court rulings and defended the actions of his soldiers. He has led a campaign to free them and reportedly worked toward their promotion in the military upon their release.

The first pretrial hearings on prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which began yesterday, are likely to highlight the role of private contractors in the alleged systematic abuse of inmates during interrogations there.

Last week, a private contractor hired by the CIA was indicted by a federal grand jury in North Carolina for the two-day beating of a prisoner who had surrendered in Afghanistan. The prisoner subsequently died.

Human rights activists and security specialists in London and Washington are questioning the wisdom of awarding such a large security contract to a controversial figure like Spicer.

''This contract is a case study in what not to do," said Peter Singer, a national security analyst for The Brookings Institution who has researched the Aegis deal.

''The Army never even bothered to Google this guy to find out that he was involved in political scandal, that he was the source of parliamentary investigations and the owner of failed businesses," said Singer.

Singer said the US Army's apparent ignorance of the firm's history and of Spicer occurred in the context of a chaotic and often skewed methodology for rewarding such contracts. And this systemic failure, he said, was one of the core issues surrounding the privately contracted interrogators linked to the abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

He noted that the Aegis deal was awarded by the Army transportation command in Fort Eustis, Va., which he said has no apparent experience in dealing with private security firms.

The public affairs office at Fort Eustis said the decision to award the contract was made by the Northeast Region Contracting Command, and referred calls to the Pentagon.

Under the terms of the three-year ''cost-plus" contract, Aegis is responsible for serving as the coordinator of 50 other private security companies and providing up to 75 ''close protection teams" to guard employees of the US Project Management Office in Iraq. The cost-plus formula, which guarantees profits for a firm even if costs escalate, has been sharply criticized by government watchdog groups as wasteful and prone to corruption, particularly in relation to the larger multibillion dollar contracts held by firms such as Halliburton.

An Army spokeswoman in Washington said Aegis and Spicer submitted all the information required under federal rules. When asked specifically about Spicer's controversial past, she said the company's disclosure ''gave no further details."

Observers insist the Pentagon should have conducted a more thorough background check on Spicer and the company for such an important contract.

''This is an embarrassment for the military. . . . We ended up hiring one of the most notorious individuals in the industry with a record not for success, but failure and controversy," added Singer, author of ''Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry."

Among his fellow Britons, Spicer's reputation is that of a well-known soldier and former expert in covert operations with a knack for finding trouble and the attention that comes with being at the center of political scandal.

At the Aegis office in London, an employee who did not identify himself said Spicer was ''out of the country." Citing ''security reasons," he declined to say whether Spicer was in Iraq. The employee declined further comment.

Paul O'Connor, a spokesman for the Belfast-based Pat Finucane Center for Human Rights and Social Change, said Spicer remains a controversial figure in Northern Ireland. ''He has refused to accept the court's ruling that two soldiers under his command committed murder of an unarmed civilian," O'Connor said. ''Someone like that should never be given any kind of command responsibility."

Tuesday, 22 June, 2004

PFC - McBride Campaign Action Alert

By Pat Finucane Centre

See Boston Globe article above on Lt Col Tim Spicer, the murder of Peter McBride and Iraq Contract. To all PFC readers in the US, human rights NGOs and Irish American organisations Stop the US security contract to Aegis Defence Services! Please email/phone the office of your local elected representative and demand that this contract be withdrawn. Contact the media. See www.serve.com/pfc for further background on the murder of Peter McBride, Spicer’s role and the private security contract in Iraq. “I am appealing directly to supporters in the US to call for this shameful contract to be withdrawn. When soldiers under his command murdered my son Lt Col Spicer lied through his teeth and dragged Peter’s name through the mud in his biography. He compared shooting Peter to ‘falling off a horse’ and wanted to send the soldiers straight back out on patrol. God knows what will happen if he is put in charge of private security in Iraq.” Jean McBride

“We apply First World standards to all our military work, including respect for human rights” Extract from Spicer’s autobiography.

“There was no question that these soldiers had concocted some story to cover their actions.” Spicer’s affidavit in relation to Guardsmen Wright and Fisher-June 1998.

“Not only did he not accept the verdict, he has continued to purvey the story that the judge described in court as a "concoction of lies." Roy Greenslade on Spicer The Guardian Nov 19 1999

“There was no reasonable possibility that either Wright or Fisher honestly held the belief that he [McBride] was armed.” LJ Kelly in judgement.

“Suddenly McBride stopped running and ducked down between two cars.” Extract from Spicer autobiography.

“It is a well known fact that if you take cover behind a car, whether you be a terrorist or a member of the security forces, the place to be is behind the engine block because that would give you the cover from fire that you need.” Spicer’s affidavit-June 1998

Peter McBride did not take cover or duck down between two cars. He was shot in the back and fell wounded over a car. As he slid to the ground he was shot again. PFC

See the PFC response to Spicer’s claims at www.serve.com under menu item Peter McBride in an article entitled ‘An Open Letter to Tim Spicer’ Oct 1999

For information contact pfc@iol.ie

Tuesday, 15 June, 2004

Getting Away With Murder - From the Bogside to Basra

By Pat Finucane Centre

Approximately 150 people gathered today in Guildhall Square, Derry in a show of solidarity with Iraqi victims of British military violence. The crowd gathered around a large black cloth map of Iraq as they listened to families read accounts of how their own relatives were killed by the British military in Derry and Belfast. The families’ testimonials also included references to particular Iraqi victims of British state violence. The event was covered by local radio and news media who photographed and interviewed families.

Derry 1971, Kathleen Thompson

On 6 November 1971, my mother, Kathleen Thompson, was shot and killed while standing in her back garden by soldier ‘D’ from the 2nd Battalion Royal Green Jackets. My mother left behind six children.

The British army claimed that two shots were fired at them, however there was no evidence of this.

No proper investigation was ever carried out by the RUC. The soldiers’ version of events went unchallenged because their statements were taken by the Royal Military Police.

The inquest into her death delivered an open verdict.

No soldiers were ever prosecuted with her killing. In 1980 my father received a cheque for £84 and 7 p. He tore it up.

Basra 2003, Hanan Shmailawi, 33

On 10 November 2003 Hanan Shmailawi, aged 33, was sitting down to supper with her husband and children when shots were fired into the room. She was shot in the head and legs and was rushed to hospital but died later that night. Soldiers from C Company, 1st Battalion, the Kings Regiment fired the shots. His husband said, “Those present were terrified and could not understand why British soldiers would fire into our home.”

The Ministry of Defence has not accepted liability for her death

Derry 1972, Manus Deery

On 19 May 1972 my brother, Manus Deery, was sharing a bag of chips with his friends when he was shot and killed by soldier ‘A’ from C Company, 1st Battalion, the Royal Welch Fusiliers. Manus had just received his first pay packet that evening.

Manus and his friends were standing behind the Bogside Inn when the soldiers opened fire from the Derry walls. The soldiers claimed there was a gunman in the area at the time. Manus was struck by a bullet on the side of the head.

There was no evidence of an RUC investigation. The soldiers’ version of events went unchallenged because their statements were taken by the Royal Military Police. No soldiers were ever prosecuted with his killing.

Basra 2003, Ahmed Jabbar Karim

Ahmed Jabbar Karim Ali, aged 17, was on his way to work with his brother when British soldiers captured him on May 8th 2003. He was badly beaten and then ordered to swim across a river. Weakened from the beating he received from the soldiers, he floundered. He was dead when he was pulled from the river.

During the investigation into his death, his body was exhumed and taken to an American military base without the family’s knowledge. His father has never been contacted about the outcome of the investigation.

Ahmed’s father wrote: “As a parent my feelings are deeply hurt and I am suffering from great sadness.”

Derry 1981 and 1985, Gary and Charles English

My son Gary English, who was 19, died on Easter Sunday on 19 April 1981. Gary was struck by a British army landrover. The landrover was driven by Stephen Neville Buzzard under the command of Hugh Dalton Smith both of B Company, 2nd Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment. Gary was struck by the landrover and as he lay on the ground unconscious the vehicle was reversed over his body. Another young man, Jim Brown, was also killed by the same landrover. The soldiers were not charged with murder but rather a lesser offence of reckless driving, both were acquitted at trial. My son Charles then made his own decision. He joined the IRA and was killed on August 6 1985 when a home made rocket launcher exploded in his hands.

Basra 2003, Lafteh Ahmed Awdeh

Lafteh Ahmed Awdeh, aged 22, was killed by a British army vehicle on September 4 2003. Lafteh was working in the fields with his father when a column of British Army vehicles cut across the field. The driver of the truck tried to negotiate a ditch but hit the young man. He was thrown into the air and died instantly. The truck sped away with all the other vehicles leaving him dead by the side of the road.

The Ministry of Defence has not accepted liability for his death.

Derry 1982, Stephen McConomy

On 16 April 1982 my 11 year old brother, Stephen McConomy, left home after his dinner. My mother never saw her son alive again.

Stephen was among a group of youngsters aged between 9 and 12 hanging around a British army Saracen on Fahan Street. Some of the children were messing around throwing stones and trying to decorate the vehicle with a tricolour. While Stephen walked away with his hands in his pockets, the hatch of the vehicle opened and a single plastic bullet was aimed and fired at Stephen. It hit him in the back of the head; he died three days later in hospital.

By-standers, who attempted to help Stephen, were threatened at gunpoint by the soldiers.

Lance Corporal Nigel Robert Englefield of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment fired the shot that killed Stephen. Also present in the Saracen were Private Kenneth Edward Fountain, Private Mark Gardner and Private Colin Prentice.

No soldiers were ever prosecuted with his killing.

Basra 2003, Hanan Saleh Matrud

On 21 August 2003 a soldier from B Company, 1st Battalion of the King’s Regiment shot and killed Hanan Saleh Matrud, an eight year old girl. An Warrior armoured vehicle stopped near an alley that leads to Hanan’s home. Three or four soldiers got out. A group of children, including Hanan gathered, attracted by the soldiers. Suddenly a soldier aimed and fired a shot that hit Hanan in her lower torso. At first soldiers did not want to take her to hospital, but later did. She died the following day after an operation. According to Amnesty International Hanan’s death is one of 37 deaths of civilians killed by British forces.

No proper investigation was carried out into this killing which the British Ministry of Defence described as “an unfortunate casualty of war.”

Derry 1973, Thomas Friel

On the evening of 17 May 1973, my brother Thomas Friel, aged 22, left the Telstar Bar with his brother Seamus. Approximately six soldiers from B Company, 3rd Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment set upon them. The soldiers fired two rubber bullets at Thomas and Seamus from a close range. One of the bullets struck Thomas. As Seamus was helping Thomas to safety, the soldiers continued to fire rubber bullets at them.

Thomas died in hospital on 22 May 1973.

No proper investigation was carried out by the RUC. The soldiers’ version of events went unchallenged because their statements were taken by the Royal Military Police. No soldier was ever prosecuted with his death.

Basra 2003, Hassan Hameed Naser

On 9 August 2003 Hassan Hameed Naser, an unemployed single man, was shot dead by a soldier from B Company, 1st Battalion, the King’s Regiment. Hassan was among a group of demonstrators who had gathered to protest about the lack of fuel in the city of Basra. The victim’s brother, who witnessed the shooting, told Amnesty International that the soldier fired randomly into the crowd. No investigation was conducted into the killing.

Belfast 1992, Peter McBride

On 4 September 1992 my son, Peter McBride, aged 18 and the father of two daughters, was stopped by a foot patrol of the Scots Guards, a regiment of the British Army. After an identity check and a thorough body search, Peter ran from the patrol and was chased by the soldiers. A witness heard the words “shoot the bastard”. Two soldiers, Guardsman Mark Wright and Jim Fisher shot at him, hitting him twice in the back. Peter stumbled towards the back entry behind his sister’s house, where he collapsed and died.

The two soldiers were convicted of his murder, however, they remain in the British army and have recently served in Basra. General Mike Jackson and John Spellar sat on the Army Board which decided that the murder of Peter was not a serious enough offence to warrant dismissal.

Basra 2003, Baha Mousa

Baha Mousa, a 26 year old hotel receptionist from Basra and the father of two boys was tortured and beaten to death by soldiers from the Queen’ Lancashire Regiment. Baha was arrested from the hotel where he worked on September 14 2003. He was taken to a British military base. One of his fellow workers who was also arrested said that Baha was tied and hooded and then repeatedly kicked and assaulted by the British troops, begging all the while to have the hood removed because he could no longer breathe. Baha was strangled to death four days after his arrest.

Two British soldiers arrested in connection with this killing were released without charge.

His father is infuriated by the way the British army has treated Baha’s death. He said, “if these men have no punishment, they will do this again”.

Between April and September last year at least 6 other people died in British military custody in Iraq.

Derry 1972, Daniel Hegarty

My uncle, Daniel Hegarty, aged 15, was shot and killed on the morning of Operation Motorman, 31 July 1972. Daniel and his cousins, Christopher and Thomas went out for a walk because they wanted to see the ‘Centurion tanks. As they walked along Creggan Heights, soldiers opened fire on the boys at close range with a General Purpose Machine Gun. Christopher was wounded and Daniel died from two gunshot wounds to the head. He was shot by soldier ‘B’ of A Company, 1st Battalion, the Royal Scots.

The soldiers claimed that three boys were armed. However, the soldiers made no attempt to arrest the three and left the scene immediately.

There was no RUC investigation and the RUC map of the scene of the killing was deliberately falsified. The soldiers’ version of events went unchallenged because their statements were taken by the Royal Military Police. No soldier was ever prosecuted with his killing.

Basra 2003, Kasber Farhoud Jasmin

On June 3 2003 Kasber Farhoud Jamin, was fishing with a small group in southern Iraq when he was shot in the head by a passing British military river patrol. His brother who was with him in the boat said they were gathering in their net when the patrol approached. “Abruptly he fell in to the river. I shouted at him but there was no response.”

Using lanterns the rest of the fishermen searched for the young man in the river and eventually pulled him from the water. He had a bullet wound to the head.

The Ministry of Defence has not accepted liability for his death. There was no investigation.

Derry 1971, Annette McGavigan

On 6 September 1971 my sister, Annette McGavigan, was shot and killed by British army troops. The identity of the regiment and the soldier who shot Annette has never been confirmed. All that is known is that soldier ‘B’ and soldier ‘C’ opened fire during the incident.

There was rioting going on in and around the Little Diamond, at the edge of the Bogside. British soldiers were positioned in the grounds of the old post office. During the rioting, two nail bombs were thrown at the soldiers. They replied by opening fire into a crowd of young people, mainly girls. Annette was in the crowd; she was hit by a bullet in the back of the head and died instantly.

The soldiers claimed that there was a gun battle, eyewitnesses refuted this.

There is no evidence of a proper investigation by the RUC into her death. The soldiers’ version of events went unchallenged because their statements were taken by the Royal Military Police. No soldiers have ever been prosecuted with her killing. Annette was 14 years old.

Basra 2003, Jaafer Hashim Majeed

Jaafer Hashim Majeed, aged 13, was playing in the street outside his home when he came across an unexploded cluster bomb. As his father looked on, the bomb exploded, injuring the 13-year-old so severely injured that he died before arriving at the hospital.

The arms manufacturer Raytheon makes these cluster bombs.

The cluster bomb was one of thousands dropped on Iraq by British and American forces. The Ministry of Defence has not accepted liability for his death.

Derry 1978, Patsy Duffy

On 24 November 1978 my father, Patsy Duffy, was shot dead by undercover British soldiers.

My father entered a house on Maureen Avenue that was being used by the IRA to keep weapons. My father went to the house to inspect these weapons, which were locked in a wardrobe in an upstairs room. The house was being staked-out by undercover British soldiers – the SAS. The SAS had been in the house for two days.

As soon as my father entered the upstairs room the soldiers opened fire, he was hit by 14 bullets. The soldiers claimed that they fired at him from outside the room. However, the forensic evidence states that he had been shot in the chest at close range by two bullets.

All the other shots were fired from behind.

The wardrobe where the weapons were kept was locked when the police arrived at the scene and my father was unarmed.

My father could have been arrested instead of being executed. He was unarmed and did not pose a threat to anyone.

There was no proper investigation by the RUC and no soldier was ever prosecuted with his killing.

Basra 2003, Walid Fayay Mazban

Walid Fayay Mazban, a 42 year old driver was shot dead on 24 August 2003 at a temporary checkpoint in Basara by a soldier from the 1st Battalion, the Kings Regiment. He was the sole breadwinner for his wife, two children and two parents.

As Walid drove his minibus through a crossroads where the British soldiers were staffing a temporary checkpoint, he was fired on from behind. He sustained multiple bullet injuries in his lower back. Following the shooting he was taken to hospital, where he died the next day.

Nothing suspicious was found when the vehicle was searched.

The family was told in January 2004 that an investigation had been launched into the killing.

Investigations into the incidents involving British troops are conducted by the Royal Military Police.

Falluja 29 April 2003

On 29 April 2003 US Army paratroopers from 82nd Airborne Division killed 13 demonstrators and injured 75 more on the streets of Falluja. The demonstrators were unarmed. They had gone to a local school that had been occupied by US forces to ask them to leave. It was a peaceful protest and no one was armed. The demonstrators stated that they had been attacked without provocation and that the US soldiers had fired excessively and indiscriminately.

The paratroopers claimed that they opened fire in self-defence after being shot at by armed civilians. Civilian witnesses state that there was no gun-fight. Evidence at the scene supports the civilian witnesses’ version of events.

The massacre at Falluja marked a turning point and directly contributed to the growing uprising against the US and British occupation.

Derry - Bloody Sunday 31 January 1972

On 30th January 1972, in Derry, members of the British Army’s Parachute Regiment opened fire on marchers demonstrating for civil rights. 14 innocent civilians were killed and a further 13 were injured by gunfire. No one was charged with the killings. The British judiciary colluded with the army and local police to prevent the truth of the event from emerging for more than 30 years. After years of campaigning, the families of the dead forced the British Government into establishing a second public inquiry into the killings. That inquiry is still ongoing since 1998.

Monday, 14 June, 2004

Iraq Contract Awarded to Controversial former Scots Guards Officer

Mother calls for US Investigation into Contract

By Pat Finucane Centre

A former Scots Guards officer who suggested that murdered Belfast teenager Peter McBride may have been carrying a bomb when he was murdered by two soldiers under his command has been awarded a major private security contract in Iraq by the US Department of Defence. Jean McBride has appealed to supporters of the family to raise the issue in the US Congress and Senate. “We are asking our supporters in the US to raise this directly with John Kerry and call for a congressional hearing into Tim Spicer’s track record.

Lt Col Tim Spicer of Aegis Defence Services has attempted to justify the McBride murder on a number of occasions and in doing so has made inaccurate and offensive claims about the circumstances that have been proven totally wrong by various courts.

A spokesperson for the Pat Finucane Centre has urged all those concerned at the role of private security firms in human rights abuses in Iraq to raise concerns at this contract.

“Spicer is a highly controversial figure. Despite numerous court rulings that held that the soldiers under his command murdered an unarmed 18 year old boy and concocted lies to cover up their actions Spicer has continued to claim that his soldiers should not have been prosecuted. By his own admission he wanted to send Guardsmen Wright and Fisher back on patrol immediately after the murder. “It’s the same principle as getting straight back on a horse when you have been thrown off” he wrote in his autobiography. His deeply offensive claims about the murder were repeated in the Daily Mail leading to calls for a boycott of the paper by Jean McBride and a complaint to the Press Complaints Council.

Reacting to the news today Jean McBride appealed to supporters of the family to raise the issue in the US Congress and Senate. “We are asking our supporters in the US to raise this directly with John Kerry and call for a congressional hearing into Tim Spicer’s track record. Given the involvement of private security firms in torture and murder in Iraq I shudder to think that Spicer has been awarded a contract to create the world’s largest private army. As Commanding Officer of the Scots Guards he told a pack of lies about Peter’s murder and dragged his name through the dirt. God knows what his own private army will do in Iraq. ”

Wednesday, 9 June, 2004

Controversial Commando Wins Iraq Contract

By Pratap Chatterjee, Special to CorpWatch June 9th, 2004

“ Occupation authorities in Iraq have awarded a $293 million contract effectively creating the world's largest private army to a company headed by Lieutenant Colonel Tim Spicer, a former officer with the Scots Guard, an elite regiment of the British military, who has been investigated for illegally smuggling arms and planning military offensives to support mining, oil, and gas operations around the world. On May 25, the Army Transportation command awarded Spicer's company, Aegis Defense Services, the contract to coordinate all the security for Iraqi reconstruction projects.

"I am pleased to confirm that we've been awarded a contract to assist the Project Management Office (PMO) in Iraq by the United States Department of Defense," said Spicer, who started Aegis just over a year ago on Picadilly in London, only a short walk from Buckingham Palace. "The contract involves coordination of security support for reconstruction contractors and for the protection of PMO personnel."

Under the "cost-plus" contract, the military will cover all of the company's expenses, plus a pre-determined percentage of whatever they spend, which critics say is a license to over-bill. The company has also been asked to provide 75 close protection teams--comprised of eight men each--for the high-level staff of companies that are running the oil and gas fields, electricity, and water services in Iraq.”

See full article at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11350

Monday, 10 May, 2004

A Proud Tradition

By Danny Morrison

The 'Daily Telegraph' wrote: " The Royal Military Police are already investigating allegations of mistreatment of Iraqis by British soldiers in southern Iraq after the Mirror's publication of photographs said to show a member of The Queen's Lancashire Regiment urinating on an Iraqi lying in a military truck with a hood over his head." The 'Guardian' wrote: " The soldier at the centre of the new revelations in the Mirror, Soldier C, said he saw four beatings where PoWs were punched and kicked, the paper reported. In one, a corporal placed a sandbag over a suspect's face and poked his fingers in the victim's eyes until he screamed with pain." In the Commons, Tony Blair used prime minister's questions to say any "human rights abuses, torture or degradation" of prisoners were "wholly unacceptable".

PRISONERS' STATEMENTS

"On the table was a small bottle of stuff, and two syringes with needles…Somebody came from behind and put on a blindfold. The soldier gave me an injection on the right arm, then he tied something round it, then he did something to my fingers… Then I felt this feeling in my arm, electric shocks, but two given to start off with, not painful, just uncomfortable. Then every time they asked a question, it only kept increasing."

"He kicked my legs apart and stuck his heel into my privates. Others came in and said that half my district had been wiped out in the fighting. At about 4am I was told that I was to be taken for a ride in a helicopter and that I was to be thrown out."

"After what seemed about one hour in the helicopter I was thrown from it and kicked and batoned into a lorry."

"The next I knew was being put into a helicopter and taken away. I overheard voices talking about, 'Throw him out' Before I went into the helicopter I was asked if I could swim."

"What was going to happen to me? Are they coming to kill me? I wished to God they would end it."

"I was beaten again. I was taken out and made stand against the wall. The soldiers said, 'You are being taken out to be shot."

"I was beaten and kicked in the stomach and privates for about half-an-hour. I was made lie on the floor. One put his foot on my throat and the other held my legs. The other one lit matches. He blew them out and then put them to my privates."

"I was forced to stand against a wall with my hands supporting my body for a long time. I collapsed. My hands and legs were beaten whenever this happened and the insides of my feet were kicked until my ankles were swollen to almost twice their normal size. At the time that I was against this wall I got bread and water once and water alone on two other occasions. I was also punched in the ribs and in the stomach, as well as being nipped."

"After being hooded I was led to the helicopter and I was thrown bodily into the helicopter. During this my hands and wrists were hurt due to the others handcuffed to me not being pushed equally. On being put into the helicopter, the handcuffs were removed and were applied to the back of the hood to tighten it around the head."

"I would estimate that the helicopter journey lasted half an hour at the end of which I was put in a lorry. I was made to lie face downwards in the back with other men thrown on top of me."

"A shot was fired. It went past my ear. They all had a good laugh at this."

"I was not allowed to dress again but was told to put the hood back over my head. I was taken to another room, stood against the wall, the hood was removed and a flash picture was taken."

PRINCIPAL METHODS OF INTERROGATION

Twenty-five principal methods of interrogation have been documented, which included: stretching a man over benches with two electric fires underneath and kicking him in the stomach; insertion of instruments in the anal passage; electric shocks given by use of a machine; urinating on prisoners; and psychological tortures such as firing shots close to their faces, playing Russian roulette or throwing them out of helicopters just above the ground (when the prisoners thought they were high in the air).

NEVER AGAIN

All of the above quotes are extracts from statements running to 4,500 pages, compiled by the European Commission on Human Rights over thirty years ago. They refer to the interrogations of Irish people in the North by the British military and Special Branch. The ECHR found Britain guilty of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners. A British prime minister stood up in the House of Commons to state that 'ill-treating' (sic) prisoners was totally unacceptable and would never happen again.

It happened again and again and again. A proud tradition.

First in Ireland, now in Iraq.

Tuesday, 27 April, 2004

Iraq - Out Now

By John Pilger

Four years ago, I travelled the length of Iraq, from the hills where St. Matthew is buried in the Kurdish north to the heartland of Mesopotamia, and Baghdad, and the Shia south. I have seldom felt as safe in any country.

Once, in the Edwardian colonnade of Baghdad's book market, a young man shouted something at me about the hardship his family had been forced to endure under the embargo imposed by the US and Britain. What happened next was typical of Iraqis; a passer-by calmed the man, putting his arm around his shoulder, while another was quickly at my side. "Forgive him", he said reassuringly. "We do not connect the people of the west with the actions of their governments. You are welcome."

At one of the melancholy evening auctions where Iraqis come to sell their most intimate possessions out of urgent need, a woman with two infants watched as their push chairs went for pennies, and a man who had collected doves since he was 15 came with his last bird and its cage; and yet people said to me: "You are welcome."

Such grace and dignity were often expressed by those Iraqi exiles who loathed Saddam Hussein and opposed both the economic siege and the Anglo-American assault on their homeland; thousands of these anti-Saddamites marched against the war in London last year, to the chagrin of the warmongers, who never understood the dichotomy of their principled stand.

Were I to undertake the same journey in Iraq today, I might not return alive. Foreign terrorists have ensured that. With the most lethal weapons that billions of dollars can buy, and the threats of their cowboy generals and the panic-stricken brutality of their foot soldiers, more than 120,000 of these invaders have ripped up the fabric of a nation that survived the years of Saddam Hussein, just as they oversaw the destruction of its artifacts. They have brought to Iraq a daily, murderous violence which surpasses that of a tyrant who never promised a fake democracy.

Amnesty International reports that US-led forces have "shot Iraqis dead during demonstrations, tortured and ill-treated prisoners, arrested people arbitrarily and held them indefinitely, demolished houses in acts of revenge and collective punishment". Slaughter In Fallujah, US marines slaughtered up to 600 people, according to hospital directors. They did it with aircraft and heavy weapons deployed in urban areas, as revenge for the killing of four US mercenaries. Many of the dead of Fallujah were women and children and the elderly.

Only the Arab television networks, notably al Jazeera, have shown the true scale of this crime, while the Anglo-American media continue to channel and amplify the lies of the White House and Downing Street.

On BBC news bulletins and Newsnight, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "terrorists" are still currency, a term that is never applied to the principal source and cause of the terrorism in Iraq, the foreign invaders, who have now killed at least 11,000 civilians, according to Amnesty and others. The overall figure, including conscripts, may be as high as 55,000.

A nationalist uprising has been underway in Iraq for more than a year, uniting at least 15 major groups, most of them opposed to the old regime. This has been suppressed in a mendacious lexicon invented in Washington and London and reported incessantly.

"Remnants" and "tribalists" and "fundamentalists" dominate this lexicon, while Iraq is denied the legacy of a history in which much of the modern world is rooted.

Even now, as the uprising spreads, there is only cryptic gesturing at the obvious: that this is a war of national liberation and that the enemy is "us". The pro-invasion Sydney Morning Herald is typical. Having expressed "surprise" at the uniting of Shias and Sunnis, the paper's Baghdad correspondent recently described "how GI bullies are making enemies of their Iraqi friends" and how he and his driver had been threatened by Americans. "I'll take you out quick as a flash, motherf***er!" a soldier told the reporter.

That this was merely a glimpse of the terror and humiliation that Iraqis have to suffer every day in their own country was not made clear; yet this newspaper has published image after unctuous image of mournful US soldiers, inviting sympathy for an invader who has "taken out" thousands of innocent men, women and children.

A tenet of Western journalism is to excuse or minimise "our" culpability, however atrocious. Our dead are counted; theirs are not. Our victims are worthy; theirs are not.

This is an old story; there have been many Iraqs, or what Blair calls "historic struggles" waged against "insurgents and terrorists". Take Kenya in the 1950s. The approved version is still cherished in the West - first popularised in the press, then in fiction and movies; and like Iraq, it is a lie.

"The task to which we have set our minds", declared the governor of Kenya in 1955, "is to civilise a great mass of human beings who are in a very primitive moral and social state." The slaughter of thousands of nationalists, who were never called nationalists, was British government policy.

The myth of the Kenyan uprising was that the Mau Mau brought "demonic terror" to the heroic white settlers. In fact, the Mau Mau killed just 32 Europeans, compared with the estimated 10,000 Kenyans killed by the British, who ran concentration camps where the conditions were so harsh that 402 inmates died in just one month.

Torture, flogging and abuse of women and children were commonplace. "The special prisons," wrote the imperial historian V.G. Kiernan, "were probably as bad as any similar Nazi or Japanese establishments." None of this was reported. The "demonic terror" was all one way: black against white. The racist message was unmistakable.

It was the same in Vietnam. In 1969, the discovery of the American massacre in the village of My Lai was described on the cover of Newsweek as "An American tragedy", not a Vietnamese one. In fact, there were many massacres like My Lai, and almost none of them was reported at the time.

The real tragedy of soldiers policing a colonial occupation is also suppressed. More than 58,000 US soldiers were killed in Vietnam. The same number, according to a veterans' study, killed themselves on their return home.

Dr. Doug Rokke, director of the US army depleted uranium project following the 1991 Gulf War, estimates that more than 10,000 American troops have since died as a result of that war, many from contamination illness. When I asked him how many Iraqis had died, he raised his eyes and shook his head. "Solid uranium was used on shells", he said.

"Tens of thousands of Iraqis - men, women and children - were contaminated. Right through the 1990s, at international symposiums, I watched Iraqi officials approach their counterparts from the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense and ask, plead, for help with decontamination. The Iraqis didn't use uranium; it was not their weapon. I watched them rebuffed. It was pathetic."

During last year's invasion, US and British forces again used uranium-tipped shells, leaving whole areas so "hot" with radiation that only military survey teams in full protective clothing can approach them. No warning or medical help is given to Iraqi civilians; thousands of children play in these zones. The "coalition" has refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to send experts to assess what Rokke describes as "a catastrophe".

When will this catastrophe be properly reported by those meant to keep the record straight? When will the BBC and others investigate the conditions of some 10,000 Iraqis held without charge, many of them tortured, in US concentration camps inside Iraq, and the corralling, with razor wire, of entire Iraqi villages?

When will the BBC and others stop referring to "the handover of Iraqi sovereignty" on June 30, although there will be no such handover? The new regime will be stooges, with each ministry controlled by US officials and with its stooge army and stooge police force run by Americans.

A Saddamite law prohibiting trade unions for public sector workers will stay in force. Leading members of Saddam's infamous secret police, the Mukhabarat, will run "state security", directed by the CIA.

The US military will have the same "status of forces" agreement that they impose on the host nations of their 750 bases around the world, which in effect leaves them in charge. Iraq will be a US colony, like Haiti. And when will journalists have the professional courage to report the pivotal role that Israel has played in this grand colonial design for the Middle East?

A few weeks ago, Rick Mercier, a young columnist for the Free-Lance Star, a small paper in Virginia, did what no other journalist has done this past year. He apologised to his readers for the travesty of the reporting of events leading to the attack on Iraq. "Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage", he wrote. "Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for [Secretary of State] Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations ... Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Well done, Rick Mercier. But listen to the silence of your colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is said that British officers in Iraq now describe the "tactics" of their US comrades as "appalling". No, the very nature of a colonial occupation is appalling, as the families of 13 Iraqis killed by British soldiers, who are taking the British government to court, will agree. If the British military brass understand an inkling of their own colonial past, not least the bloody British retreat from Iraq 83 years ago, they will whisper in the ear of the little Wellington-cum-Palmerston in 10 Downing Street: "Get out now, before we are thrown out."

Tuesday, 27 April, 2004

A letter from 52 former senior British diplomats to Tony Blair

Doomed to failure in the Middle East

The Guardian

Dear Prime Minister,

We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close cooperation with the United States. Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the US, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "road map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the west and the Islamic and Arab worlds. The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved. But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence. Britain and the other sponsors of the road map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood. Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the coalition is naive. This is the view of virtually all independent specialists on the region, both in Britain and in America. We are glad to note that you and the president have welcomed the proposals outlined by Lakhdar Brahimi. We must be ready to provide what support he requests, and to give authority to the UN to work with the Iraqis themselves, including those who are now actively resisting the occupation, to clear up the mess.

The military actions of the coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them. It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders. Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition. The Iraqis killed by coalition forces probably total 10-15,000 (it is a disgrace that the coalition forces themselves appear to have no estimate), and the number killed in the last month in Falluja alone is apparently several hundred including many civilian men, women and children. Phrases such as "We mourn each loss of life. We salute them, and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice," apparently referring only to those who have died on the coalition side, are not well judged to moderate the passions these killings arouse.

We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the US on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally. We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency. If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

Yours faithfully,

Sir Graham Boyce (ambassador to Egypt 1999-2001); Sir Terence Clark (ambassador to Iraq 1985-89); Francis Cornish (ambassador to Israel 1998-2001); Sir James Craig (ambassador to Saudi Arabia 1979-84); Ivor Lucas (ambassador to Syria 1982-84); Richard Muir (ambassador to Kuwait 1999-2002); Sir Crispin Tickell (British permanent representative to the UN 1987-90); Sir Harold (Hooky) Walker (ambassador to Iraq 1990-91), and 44 others

[Full list of signatories: Brian Barder; Paul Bergne; John Birch; David Blatherwick; Graham Boyce; Julian Bullard; Juliet Campbell; Bryan Cartledge; Terence Clark; David Colvin; Francis Cornish; James Craig; Brian Crowe; Basil Eastwood; Stephen Egerton; William Fullerton; Dick Fyjis-Walker; Marrack Goulding; John Graham; Andrew Green; Vic Henderson; Peter Hinchcliffe; Brian Hitch; Archie Lamb; David Logan; Christopher Long; Ivor Lucas; Ian McCluney; Maureen MacGlashan; Philip McLean; Christopher MacRae; Oliver Miles; Martin Morland; Keith Morris; Richard Muir; Alan Munro; Stephen Nash; Robin O'Neill; Andrew Palmer; Bill Quantrill; David Ratford; Tom Richardson; Andrew Stuart; David Tatham; Crispin Tickell; Derek Tonkin; Charles Treadwell; Hugh Tunnell; Jeremy Varcoe; Hooky Walker; Michael Weir; Alan White.]

Tuesday, 27 April, 2004

Minister rejects attack on foreign policy

By Matthew Tempest and agencies

A government minister today dismissed the collective attack on its Middle East policy by 52 former diplomats as a "cry of frustration".

Mike O'Brien, a foreign office minister, was answering for the government after last night's unprecedented joint letter accused the government of following a "doomed" policy on Iraq, and abandoning the consensus on a Israel/Palestinian roadmap.

After a muted response last night - when news of the letter first broke - the government today went on the offensive, saying the opinions in the letter were based on a "false premise".

Appearing on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr O'Brien insisted that there had been no change in Britain's Middle East policy - and that Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza had "broken the logjam".

He said: "I think in many ways this is a cry of frustration that things are not going as quickly as we would all like, on the Middle East in particular.

"I was a little bit frustrated by it myself in the sense that they seem to be advocating a policy and that we should follow it on the Middle East, but we are following it. Then they criticise us for doing it.

"So I am not entirely sure where they are coming from."

The diplomats said that their letter was prompted by Mr Blair's joint news conference with the US president, George Bush, in the Rose Garden of the White House.

At that meeting, Mr Blair welcomed US backing for Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza while leaving illegal Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. Mr Bush also appeared to agree with Mr Sharon's dismissing of the "right of return" to Israel of Palestinian refugees.

The diplomats complained that the plan was "one-sided and illegal" and would simply lead to further bloodshed.

However, Mr O'Brien said that both Mr Blair and Mr Bush had made clear that Mr Sharon's proposals could not pre-judge the shape of a final Middle East peace settlement.

He said that Britain continued to support UN security council resolutions which call for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, which it has occupied since 1967.

"As far as we are concerned, our position remains entirely the same," he said. "We do not accept that the settlements have a legal right to remain on the West Bank. We do not accept that."

"I think we have got to be realistic. We can influence the US but we can't control the superpower. They listen to our quiet diplomacy but they also have their own policy," he said.

He added that he was not aware of Mr Bush having consulted Mr Blair before he came out in support of the Sharon plan. "I am not aware of a conversation immediately before. There may well have been one. I am not aware of that," he said.

"In a sense there didn't need to be because were quite closely engaged on what Ariel Sharon was planning to say. We knew what the American reaction was going to be."

Mr O'Brien was pressed, though, on the fact that Mr Bush also said he recognised that Israel would be keeping some settlements in the West Bank, and that the right of return for Palestinian refugees would be abandoned.

Mr O'Brien said: "As far as we are concerned, our position remains entirely the same, that we believe that this step is a step forward, and again let me tell you what Tony Blair actually said.

"He said: 'We welcome the Israeli proposal to disengage from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, we want the quartet [the US, EU, UK and Russia] to meet as soon as possible to discuss it, so that we can support the Palestinian authority in particular economically, politically, and in respect of security.'"

The minister went on: "What had happened with the roadmap in recent months [was that] we had woken up every morning, not to a peace process, but to death being reported from Israel and Palestine. What we needed was to break the logjam in policy.

"And what we have seen is a statement from Ariel Sharon to withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, and at least that is a break in the logjam, it acknowledges that the Palestinians should control some areas, it is a step, it is not enough, and both George W Bush and Tony Blair agreed that it should not prejudice the final stage negotiations.

On Iraq, Mr O'Brien said: "They don't set out any alternative in the letter. What they want to do is see if we can use the UN to move forward the process, and indeed that is our policy."

But he warned that if Moqtada al-Sadr refused to "negotiate", there would "obviously ... need to be some military reaction to that".

One of the former diplomats who signed the letter, Sir Marrack Goulding, hinted that their concerns were shared by current Foreign Office staff.

"I think that almost all of us who signed that letter have the impression that the regional expertise in the Foreign Office wasn't as fully used as it should have been in the formulation of the government's policy on Iraq."

The shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, said that Mr Blair could not ignore the concerns raised in the letter.

"This is a serious letter that raises serious questions. It requires serious answers from the government," he said.

Later the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, acknowledged that while their were differences between London and Washington on some issues, it was essential that they continued to work closely together.

"It is very important for us to try to work with the United States to and not to have a polarisation that would weaken our influence and weaken the influence of Europe," he told BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show.

He also defended the welcome given by Mr Blair and Mr Bush to the Sharon plan

"The issue of settlements in the West Bank is a problem," he said.

"We have always known that the Israelis would seek in a final status negotiation, the retention of some settlements in the West Bank and also they would resist the idea of return of refugees to the state of Israel itself.

"The important thing - and this a a point made by the Palestinians who are themselves realists - is that these things should be part of the final status negotiations.

"Those final negotiations may or may not involve the retention of some settlements but that is a matter for agreement between the parties. Every previous negotiation has anticipated that there would have to be some compromise about some of these very difficult issues for both sides."

Thursday, 29 January, 2004

Row at Trimble rights outburst

By Mary Fitzgerald

HUMAN rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have condemned comments made by Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble in which he called human rights groups a "great curse" and accused them of complicity in terrorist killings.

"One of the great curses of this world is the human rights industry," Mr Trimble said at an international conference of terrorism victims in Madrid this week.

"They justify terrorist acts and end up being complicit in the murder of innocent victims."

The Nobel Peace laureate's comments provoked an angry response.

Amnesty's Patrick Corrigan said the remarks were "well off the mark and ill-advised".

Steve Crawshaw of Human Rights Watch, said:"It is extraordinarily regrettable and disappointing that, above all, a man like that says something like this."

Tuesday-Wednesday, 27-28 January, 2004

Human rights groups 'a curse' - Trimble

"One of the great curses of this world is the human rights industry," David Trimble, Nobel Peace Prize winner!

By Republican News

Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble yesterday described the human rights "industry" as "one of the great curses of this world".

The Nobel Peace Prize winner was attending an International Congress on Victims of Terrorism in Madrid.

He said: "One of the great curses of this world is the human rights industry. They justify terrorist acts and end up being complicit in the murder of innocent victims."

But Mr Trimble acknowledged the ambiguity of terms such as victims or terrorism.

"What about an activist who dies as a result of their own actions? You may not think of that individual as a victim but they have a husband or a wife or children," he said.

Robin Kirk, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch, last night criticised Mr Trimble's remark, saying: "To call human rights defenders a curse is clearly unhinged and absurd."