Last month, a former Labour Party defence minister proposed a
discussion on the feasibility of dropping a neutron bomb on the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Speaking in the House of Lords on
November 22, Lord Gilbert said the bomb's "full title was the
ERRB-enhanced radiation reduced blast weapon. I can think of many
uses for it in this day and age." He added that such a weapon could
be utilised "in the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan".
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/12/31/dron-d31.html
UK High Court rejects inquiry into British role in Pakistan drone strikes
By Robert Stevens
31 December 2012
On December 21, the High Court in London rejected a request for a
judicial inquiry into the alleged role of the UK's Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) spying operation in aiding drone
strikes by the US in Pakistan's northwest region.
The case was brought by Noor Khan, a Pakistani man whose father was
killed, along with 49 other people, by a US drone attack on March 17,
2011. Khan's father, Malik Daud Khan, was chairing a peaceful jirga
(tribal assembly) meeting to discuss chromite mining rights in North
Waziristan when he was killed by several missile strikes.
In his legal submission, Khan asked the court to look into whether UK
intelligence officials provided assistance in the killing of his
father and if they are liable for prosecution under British law.
The revealing 15-page ruling by Lord Justice Moses and supported by
Mr Justice Simon came down blatantly in favour of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. In essence, it serves as the legal justification
for ensuring that the UK's role in assisting the US to carry out its
murderous drone operations never sees the light of day. As with every
ruling designed to conceal the nefarious and illegal activities of
the ruling elite, it is cloaked in the guise that to require the UK
government to reveal such information would jeopardise "national
security".
Citing evidence given to the court from the Foreign Office, the
ruling states "that if the Secretary of State were required to make a
substantive response to the claim, the likely consequence would be
serious harm to national security and international relations. The
United Kingdom Government would be compelled to express a definitive
view on legal issues, complicating and damaging relations with our
most important bilateral ally and, in consequence, damaging the
United Kingdom's security."
The ruling refused permission for Khan's claim, stating that "the
real aim and target of these proceedings is not to inform GCHQ
employees that if they were prosecuted, no defence of combatant
immunity would be available. The real aim is to persuade this court
to make a public pronouncement designed to condemn the activities of
the United States in North Waziristan, as a step in persuading them
to halt such activity."
The ruling also took note of legal proceedings that Khan has
undertaken in Pakistan, in order to reiterate that under no
conditions would the UK High Court make a ruling condemning the drone
attacks or the GCHQ's alleged role in these. Referring to Khan's plea
to the Court in Peshawar, Moses writes, "[H]e contends that the
Government of Pakistan, and various Ministries, are under a
constitutional obligation to take all necessary action to stop
'illegal drone strikes' and 'safeguard its citizens from target
killing by an external force'. He pleads that 'the act of killing of
innocent people on March 17 2011 was extra-judicial killing, more
generally referred to as murder'. The prayer refers to criminal
offences by those inside and outside Pakistan in drone operations."
Moses continues, "It is plain, from the nature of the claims, that
the purpose of the proceedings in England and in Pakistan is to
persuade a court to do what it can to stop further strikes by drones
operated by the United States. That is, as Lord Rodger [a former UK
Supreme Court judge] would have put it, the real aim of both sets of
proceedings."
Moses dismissed the argument in the submission from Khan's legal team
that clarification was required regarding the legal basis for the
drone attacks carried out by the US in North Waziristan, in order to
establish whether British officials could be secondary parties to
murder or guilty of war crimes if they were providing critical
information to the US.
In their submission, Khan's team cited an authoritative Sunday Times
article dated July 25, 2010. Written months before the attack that
killed Khan's father and dozens of other innocent civilians, the
information it contained, including quotes from a GCHQ official,
confirmed that the GCHQ did pass vital locational and other
intelligence to the United States on the whereabouts of what were
described as "leading militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan" (see "UK
High Court hears Pakistan drone killing case"
<http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/11/dron-n02.html>).
The ruling noted the Sunday Times article was one of a "number of
reports" that alleged that the drone strikes "are linked to agents of
the US Government and to United Kingdom employees of GCHQ".
Moses, however, was quick to dismiss such reports, stating, "The
extent to which it is possible to identify a firm factual foundation
is an important question which I shall have to determine, but at this
stage I shall merely note that, through no fault of the claimant, his
case rests on a respectable but unconfirmed report."
In an attempt to further obfuscate the central issues raised in the
case, the ruling farcically portrays the GCHQ as akin to some rank
amateur outfit, instead of one of the most advanced and sophisticated
communications spying operation on the planet, with an annual budget
estimated in 2003 to be around £800 million.
The ruling states, "Since an employee is unlikely to be in a position
to know whether or how intelligence is disseminated no sensible
guidance could possibly be given as to the circumstances when
intelligence may lawfully be passed on and when it may not. If GCHQ
is run on anything like the system we have, over thirty years later,
learnt was adopted in the huts of Bletchley Park, the notion that
those obtaining the intelligence have anything other than an inkling
of how it may be deployed is little more than fanciful."
The judgment sheds important light on the British ruling elite's
overt disregard for international law that in other cases it
hypocritically and routinely cites to justify its predatory
imperialist aims.
Even greater atrocities than the drone strikes, which have already
killed thousands of people, are being considered by the ruling elite.
Last month, a former Labour Party defence minister proposed a
discussion on the feasibility of dropping a neutron bomb on the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Speaking in the House of Lords on
November 22, Lord Gilbert said the bomb's "full title was the
ERRB-enhanced radiation reduced blast weapon. I can think of many
uses for it in this day and age." He added that such a weapon could
be utilised "in the mountains on the border between Afghanistan and
Pakistan".
Gilbert said, "If you told them that some ERRB warheads were going to
be dropped there and that it would be a very unpleasant place to go,
they would not go there", concluding, "These things are not talked
about, but they should be, because there are great possibilities for
deterrence in using the weapons that we already have in that respect."
Khan is to appeal the High Court ruling. Rosa Curling of Leigh Day
solicitors representing him said, "This claim raises very serious
questions and issues about the UK's involvement in the CIA drone
attacks in Pakistan. This case seeks to determine the legality of
intelligence sharing in relation to GCHQ assistance in CIA drone
strikes. Those providing such information could be committing serious
criminal offences, including conspiracy to murder."
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel