Robbed and ruined by a British court on the orders of the CIA... and we couldn't tell a soul: The chilling story of how secret justice cost a couple their £5m home - and £700m business

 By David Rose

PUBLISHED: 22:43 GMT, 7 April 2012 | UPDATED: 22:43 GMT, 7 April 2012 dailymail.

Silent ordeal: Margaret Bentham and her husband Stuart lost their £5m home

Despite the years of cruel reality, Margaret Bentham still seemed incredulous as she told her story, a story she once thought she could never share.
But with quiet dignity she summed up the ordeal she and her businessman husband Stuart, a former British Army officer, have endured at the hands of the CIA.
‘We were robbed of a business worth millions,’ she said. ‘We were plunged into financial ruin. But the worst thing was, not only were we deprived of justice, we couldn’t tell a soul.’
In an exclusive interview, Mrs Bentham told The Mail on Sunday how the CIA decided a civil court case about the Afghan mobile phone company he had helped to establish was too ‘sensitive’ to air in public.
It used draconian legal powers to shut down the case – so destroying not only the Benthams’ livelihood, but any prospect of redress after Mr Bentham alleged the company had been stolen from him.
‘We lost our £5 million flat in Belgravia,’ said Mrs Bentham, 50. ‘We’d had a thriving telecoms business in London employing 23 people, and we lost that too.
The gagging order imposed by a US court meant I couldn’t even tell our friends what was wrong or Stuart could have gone to prison. It was  absolutely Kafkaesque.’ Even now, Mr Bentham could be extradited and jailed if he gave an interview.
The Benthams’ nightmare was made possible by a US legal procedure known as the State Secrets Privilege.
But as Tory MP David Davis disclosed last month when he set out the Benthams’ story in the Commons, an alarmingly similar system will soon exist in Britain, if the Coalition’s  current Green Paper on Justice and Security becomes law.
The public part of the court judgment that destroyed Mr Bentham’s fortune is two words long: ‘Case dismissed.’ The reasons remain secret, while he is subject to an indefinite legal gag.
Such secret judgments have never been permitted in Britain. Under the Green Paper, they would become routine.

Last week, comments by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and a joint letter to MPs by Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke together suggested that the Government is preparing a partial U-turn on the proposals.
In an apparent concession to critics, it may water down plans for secret inquests, and restrict secret hearings to a ‘tiny number’ involving national security. Unfortunately, that is exactly the category responsible for the Benthams’ ordeal.
‘The security services are still feeding Government Ministers with misleading claims to justify abhorrent and unjust proposals,’ Mr Davis said yesterday. ‘They are still seeking to bolster their collapsing argument  for undermining centuries of British judicial rights.’

Partners: Mr Bentham, left, Mr Bayat, centre, and Lord Michael, far right in Taliban-ruled Kabul in 1998

Even if the Green Paper is changed in the way suggested last week, he added, its proposed closed hearings, secret evidence and vetted ‘special advocates’ would allow security agencies to cover up incompetence and embarrassment by citing national security.

As Mr Davis revealed in the Commons, that is exactly what happened with the Benthams. In their case, the embarrassment could hardly have been greater: what the use of the State Secrets Privilege did was to conceal evidence of a massive CIA failure that stymied a real possibility of preventing the 9/11 attacks.

The background to the alleged fraud against Mr Bentham, 63, and his business partner Lord Michael Cecil, 52, a brother of the Marquess of Salisbury, goes back to 1998, when they went into business with Ehsanollah Bayat.
Mr Davis described him in the Commons as ‘a Kabul-born American citizen on friendly terms with the highest echelons of the Taliban government and particularly its leader, Mullah Omar’.

Mr Bayat had the connections to acquire the licence to build Afghanistan’s first mobile phone, internet and international call system – Mr Bentham and Lord Michael the business expertise.
But, as Mr Davis said, Mr Bayat had a secret: he was an informant for the FBI, the main US domestic counter- terrorism force. The link made an opening for Operation Foxden, a scheme the FBI planned to run jointly with the National Security Agency (NSA), the US electronic eavesdropping organisation.
The NSA offered $30 million and technical assistance, said Mr Davis. The plan was to build extra circuits into all the equipment installed, enabling the US to ‘record or listen live to every single landline and mobile phone call in Afghanistan’ and ‘monitor the telephone gateways channelling international calls in and out of the country – gateways already being used by Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their associates, thanks to the satellite phones given by Mr Bayat to Taliban ministers as gifts’.

By the beginning of 2000, after all the main partners had made several visits to Afghanistan, the project was at an advanced stage, and could have been fully functional within months – 18 months or more before 9/11.

Osama bin Laden

Recently, Mr Bayat has claimed he never had connections with US security agencies or the pre-9/11 Taliban government. But Mrs Bentham said that in the Nineties he seemed to make no secret of such links.

‘I remember one time when we flew in to Newark, New Jersey, and Bayat met us off the plane,’ she said. ‘He was with two FBI agents. We went to their office. Then they took me to the station so I could go shopping in New York while they had their meeting.’

But just as the project seemed to be on the brink of coming to fruition, it was wrecked by what Mr Davis termed a ‘turf war’ between the FBI and NSA on one side, and the CIA, which wanted to control it.

The consequence, as the agencies bickered in Washington, was that nothing happened for 20 months. By the time these bureaucratic obstacles had been cleared, it was too late.

A meeting to get the scheme going again, attended by Mr Bentham and Lord Michael, took place in New York in a hotel overlooking the World Trade Centre on September 8, 2001 – three days before the attacks.

Mr Davis commented: ‘Of course, we cannot say for certain that if US intelligence agencies had managed to tap the Afghan phone network sooner, we would have intercepted evidence in time to stop the 9/11 attacks, but it seems quite likely.’

After 9/11, the Taliban were toppled by US-led forces. Very soon after that, Lord Michael, Mr Bentham and their colleagues, working with Mr Bayat’s company Telephone Systems International (TSI), installed the very network that had been planned two years earlier. The Britons ordered and paid for most of the equipment and ran the project out of London.

Once operational in April 2002,  the firm became a licence to print money and is now said to be worth about £700 million.
The Mail on Sunday has copies of official US documents, signed by Mr Bayat in May 2002, stating that Mr Bentham and Lord Michael each were entitled to 15 per cent of the shares: their holdings, in other words, should now each be worth more than £100 million.

Instead, said Mrs Bentham, she and her husband are in straitened circumstances, and live in a rented house, dependent for holidays on hospitable friends.
‘We were living  a very comfortable life. And then it changed completely. We had no idea what we were dealing with, and the terrifying thing is what happened to us could happen to anyone.’

Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Ken Clarke together suggested that the Government is preparing a partial U-turn on the proposals to hold more trials in secret

In the autumn of 2002, having offered to buy out Mr Bentham and Lord Michael for a ‘derisory’ sum that did not even cover the cost of the equipment they bought, Mr Bayat sued them for ‘deceit and  conspiracy’, and, simultaneously, simply denied they had any legal entitlement to shares in TSI.
They had copious documentation, and, their lawyers believed, a cast-iron case. But as Mr Davis told MPs, this was no ordinary commercial squabble: ‘The US intelligence agencies feared the consequences if the truth about their infighting emerged and they were determined to stop that truth from emerging.’
First, they offered Bayat $1 million for his legal fight – part of a more general plan to exclude British citizens and British agencies from the ongoing phone intelligence operation. Then, when the Britons’ lawyers refused to back down, ‘CIA officers threatened them, warning the whole case would be shut down if they continued’.
Finally, in November 2004, came the use of the State Secrets Privilege. The effect was not only to close down the case immediately, but  to expunge all trace from court records.
Lord Michael and Mr Bentham were subject to a gagging order so severe that when they tried to reopen the case in London, they were forbidden on pain of contempt of court from discussing any aspect of the intelligence background with their own lawyers.
Although there were hearings in London, which the Britons lost for technical legal reasons, the British courts had little idea of what had actually happened. ‘The State Secrets Privilege meant that the US agencies were restricting what could be said in court in England,’ Mrs Bentham said.
‘I couldn’t speak to friends, and I felt pretty sure our phone calls  and emails were being monitored. Meanwhile, legal fees meant we were facing a colossal drain on our cash. Imagine: you have to sell your home, but you can’t tell anyone why.
‘So we just stopped going out socially, because people would ask, “How are things?” and we couldn’t even begin to answer. It’s only now, after the parliamentary debate, that at last people know.’
The worst moment, she recalled, was when the State Secrets Privilege was deployed. ‘They showed the judge some kind of statement that we couldn’t see, and he shut down the case next day for reasons we weren’t allowed to read. And that’s the kind of thing that’s going to happen here if the Green Paper becomes law.’
Later, she said, the Benthams’ American lawyers asked a US judge whether their British lawyers could see the secret judgment and gagging order in strict confidentiality, so that at least they could advise them whether they should try to pursue the case in London. The judge refused. 
They also tried to get the State Secrets Privilege reversed in a  federal US appeals court. They lost again – and the appeal court’s 17-page decision is also strictly secret.
Mrs Bentham said: ‘The lesson is that the US legal system is perfectly willing to condone the theft of our assets. What gets me is that one of the main reasons the British Government has justified the Green Paper is to protect American secrets.’
At the end of the Commons debate, Foreign Office Minister Jeremy Browne gave the Benthams a glimmer of hope. He said the Prime Minister had been aware of their plight for months and would in due course respond to their representations.
Meanwhile, Mr Davis said the case highlighted a fundamental inequality between Britain and the US: that American agencies could apparently dictate what British citizens could talk about in British courts  – even the very use of the State Secrets Privilege which had enabled such secrecy in the first place.
‘It’s just not good enough to say that restricting the Green Paper proposals to national security cases will make them less obnoxious,’ Mr Davis said yesterday. ‘Once you let security trump the rule of law, injustice such as this is inevitable.’

I want your opinion!!

A few months ago as you can see from the first date on his messages befriended me on Facebook, I get a lot of requests and added him. After I did he sent me the first message. I didn't reply to it for two reasons, firstly Iw as very busy and secondly I don't give out that kind of information to people that I do not know personally or have dealings with, you just don't know who they are not matter what they tell you on Facebook!

What I want or should I say would like is for you to read everything and give me your opinion.
Here are his messages and my answer

Elliot Collier

Elliot Collier  lives in Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA.

    •    Al-Rashid                                  8/March/2011

Mr Yahia,

I hope this message finds you and is not dismissed by an assistant. My name is Elliot Collier; back in 2005 and 2006 I lived at the former Al-Rashid training facility in Baghdad described in your book (I was not a soldier). I am writing to inquire if you would be willing to provide some basic information about the facility such as former uses of the various buildings and things of that nature. If so I have several maps I can send for reference. I appreciate you taking the time to read this, I am a big fan of your books and blog, and I would be honored to have your assitance in this matter. 

Sincerely,
Elliot Collier

PS: I have also sent a request through your website via Mr. Rolls.
   
After I posted a photo on my Facebook page and on Twitter that I received from a Solider in the American Army today, he sent me this message.

American Democracy in Iraq!!

I'm ashamed of you Mr. Yahia. I sympathized with your past experiences, but even still, how can you of all people attack America like this without pause? You know better than anyone that the actions of certain leaders, agencies, or persons are not a reflection of their country. Look at the atrocities committed by Iraqis, Afghanis, Iranians, and other people in the middle east; yet you are not posting pictures of their soldiers with dead bodies or slamming their governments. Why are you not outraged about insurgents decapitating civilians? Why are you not protesting Al-Jazira for broadcasting these murders? These pictures and videos do exist... why are you not posting them and condemning the terrorists? Why are we not to assume all Iraqis are murderous, barbaric monsters because of what Uday did? You criticize the US for invading Iraq but might I remind you if we hadn't Saddam would still be in power, and Uday would still be alive. You claimed it was Iraq's war to fight and the US shouldn't have been involved, but do you really think anything would have happened? Who would have stepped up to challenge his power? I will admit war crimes were committed, on both sides; but these are not the actions of a whole people. I spent a year being shot at (by whom?) in Iraq yet never fired a shot myself. We were all taught to take the diplomatic approach first. I have befriended many Iraqis and even assisted several in immigrating to the United States. Does this place me in the same lot as the man in that picture because of our birthplace? Not all Americans are evil, just as not all Iraqis are terrorists. You cannot judge a country based on the perverse actions of a few deranged individuals (which again, exist on BOTH sides). Your hatred and negativity is what is preventing you from finding asylum in another country. Who would want a man who continually spouts off hatred at every government he does not agree with? Yes, you've been through some terrible situations that I personally cannot even imagine, but positive actions will carry you a lot further in life. You claim that out of you, Saddam, and Uday, you were the only one left standing... but are you? You claim to support peace, but nothing you do supports this claim. You are a bitter, resentful man that has no future if you don't follow your own teachings and start practicing tolerance and not hatred. You are different than Uday... but are you any better?

Here is my answer to Mr. Collier.

I am ashamed of you Mr. Collier. To spout off at me with no regard or understanding of what I am saying to you or the world except your own vision, that I am attacking all the people in America. If you had truly read anything that I have written you would know that I continually repeat that I am not against American people, but I am most definitely against American foreign policy.
You say that you have been shot at yet did not return fire, that is because you are not a soldier, but I ask the question what were you doing in Iraq? Why would you risk your life in a barbaric country like Iraq, if it were not for the love of your country or maybe the huge wage that you were being paid to be there, I guarantee it was not because you loved Iraq, the Iraqi people or wanted to see us a free nation. Ask yourself this, how can we be a free nation when we were invaded by a foreign force without provocation?
Yes, it was for Iraqi people to depose Saddam, how can you tell me that we would not have had an "Arab Spring" ? Who would have thought that Mubarak would have been brought down by his own people? I cannot say the same for Libya as we all know foreign hands were a part of that also.
If America had not invaded and Saddam was still in power there would not be Sunni on Shia killings, people would not be being beheaded, murdered or paid to change their name from Sunni to Shia, Under Saddam no matter how much I hated his regime, people had electricity, clean water and medicines, the only time that they did not was under sanctions, yet another weapon used by foreign hands against the people of Iraq.
You accuse me of being bitter etc. I am not bitter, I am telling the truth, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that I am wrong and maybe you should take your own advice. As for the people you helped to Immigrate to America, well done to you I hope that they make you proud.
As for Al-Jazeera TV if you don't know who is behind them and paying their wages ask your government. All of these insurgents and militias were made after America invaded.
Ask yourself this, if I had posted a picture of Iraqis standing with "job well done" smiles outside of a car with dead Americans inside how would you feel?, no matter what your politics or feeling for your government? Why is it that every other life has more value and is entitled to more feelings of outrage than an Iraqis?? Also if I had posted that type of picture you would have accused me of being a supporter of the insurgents, so really it's a no win situation for me isn't it? the best example would have been the photos that were put on the internet of insurgents who had killed Mercenaries  in Fallujah, what did the American army do to Fallujah? They fired everything legal and illegal at it until it was not much more than powder in the ground, anyone who survived will see generations of their children disfigured and deformed from the chemical weapons that were used and until now Fallujah has the highest cancer level in Iraq. Those mercenaries were not even American or legally attached to the US forces. So again many were killed for a few.
 So I stay true to myself  Mr. Collier no matter what you think of me.
If you want to tell me that Iraq is safer today under the puppets that have been installed by America and it is not controlled by Iran then I think you need to take a step back and let yourself see things clearly.
Where do you think that I get these photos? I get them from other Americans who disagree with what is going on with their own people but are not in a position to do anything about it.
This is a quote from your message above:

"Your hatred and negativity is what is preventing you from finding asylum in another country. Who would want a man who continually spouts off hatred at every government he does not agree with?"

Firstly I am not seeking asylum, I have lived 20 years in the west and what I am seeking is Citizenship which I am entitled to by law. I do not spout off hatred at governments and even if I did what about freedom of speech or is that only for Western people? And if so, what is the point of bringing Democracy to the middle east if we are not truly allowed to practice it? Your words prove that anyone who had some sort of authority in Iraq be you a soldier/fireman etc (because let's face it anyone who went to Iraq had authority over the Iraqi people) believes that anyone who had an opinion different to your American one is wrong! You see what I have learned in my 20 years in the West is that it is fine to criticize dictators, despots and tyrants but not democracies, which is strange because that is truly what democracy is all about isn't it? So, although I understood perfectly well before, I am thankful that somebody finally said it out loud. It is more than clear now why people like Uday's pimps, murderers from militias etc have attained Citizenship in the West, they are able to put their heads down and say Yes, yes, yes, that is until they get the citizenship and then you see them on Arabic TV (because after years they still can't speak the language of their new country) saying things like "Uday was a Martyr" and "down with America". What you see is what you get with me, I am not two faced.
As I said earlier, I HOPE THE IRAQIS THAT YOU HELPED TO IMMIGRATE TO THE US DO YOU PROUD.

As Mr. Bush, your President who began all of these invasions around the world said himself;

"If my country was invaded, I would be the first one to fight against the invading force."

" They're occupied (Iraq), they're not happy about it"

Good day Sir.

We are the 99%

Are we finally now getting the message that the world goes to war not for Human rights or democracy, but to protect the wealth and investments of big business and big banks.
With all the speeches given by Obama, Sarkowzy and Cameron over the past weeks and months about Gaddafi and his brutal regime, can we not for the last time see beyond the political manoeuvrings and lies about protecting people and understand that the only thing that these world leaders are protecting is

themselves. Saddam Hussein wanted to start trading his oil in Euros, Gaddafi wanted to create a new currency to rival the dollar and the euro and possibly shift the worlds power from the west to Africa and the Middle-east, how threatening is that to the powers that be in the west?!  Very, is the answer.
What is the worst thing that you can do for your country?  Make it debt free! Be self sufficient, just like Syria. Syria at this moment in time owes nothing to no one. I guarantee that if Bashar Al Assad is toppled, within one year Syria as a nation will owe billions!
I do not support dictatorships unlike the US, UK and France in some cases, but none of these countries ever have a problem with the dictator that they support and install until he decides to do something that threatens their interest, even if it has the interest of the dictators own country at heart. And do not be fooled, just as they  support one dictator they build and support his opposition too, that way they always have their fingers in the pie and the next guy always will take a small slice of the cake just to get the chair.
The biggest example is Iraq, Saddam was built by the CIA it's a well known fact, he was their friend during the Iran/Iraq war and up until he invaded Kuwait, then they started crying Human rights etc, why? He had control of not only his oil fields but now Kuwaits also. He was allowed to remain in power because his petrol would be sold cheaply in the "oil for food program" and America would hold the money, Once he decided to go to euros instead of Dollars he signed his death warrant.
What was Saddam finally replaced with? Americans, British, French, Europeans and Canadians, people who had sworn allegiance to another country and would therefore do as that country asked of them in order to retain the 'privileges' afforded to them by holding that nations passport. We had one Saddam Hussein now we have hundreds, none care for the country they govern or the people, except of course at election times when they go around with envelopes and make people promise to vote for them before handing it over. Some use blankets to buy votes, ask yourself this, how impoverished or ignorant of the power of your vote do you have to be in order to trade it for a blanket?
It is all very well sitting watching TV thinking to yourself, 'God that's terrible' but not doing or really even saying anything about it because well, you think it doesn't affect you. But eventually it will and does now just in ways that you don't notice or understand yet.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, how long do you think it will be until these people who are pushed, push back. 

 

Tony Blair wrote to Gaddafi 'to suggest investment projects'

Tony Blair wrote to Col Muammar Gaddafi to suggest African projects in which the former Libyan leader could invest, according to reports.

Tony Blair meets Libyan leader Col Gaddafi at his desert base outside Sirte south of Tripoli in 2007

The former prime minister told Gaddafi, in a letter dated February 17 2008, that he was "very interested to hear from you of the progress that is being made and the great opportunities there are for the future".

He also thanked the dictator for his "hospitality during my visit to Libya and for taking the time to meet with me. I greatly appreciated and enjoyed our wide-ranging conversation."

Mr Blair says he was "particularly interested in what you said about the funds that will be dedicated to projects in Africa, since you know I am doing a lot of work there and know of good, worthwhile projects for investments".

Tony Blair with Colonel Gaddafi in 2007

The disclosure of the letter in the Daily Mail comes after documents which were found in Tripoli appeared to show that the former prime minister secretly met Gaddafi twice before the Lockerbie bomber was released.

Mr Blair also sent other letters on the same date in 2008 thanking the then-prime minister of Libya, Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi, and to a man believed to be deputy prime minister, Dr Abdulhafid al-Zulaytini, for "facilitating my meeting with the Leader".

In both letters he presses the two politicians for further meetings, saying "do let me know when you are in London" and tells them the appropriate means by which to contact him, it was reported.
Mr Blair has maintained his counsel on the full extent of his meetings in Libya since leaving office in June 2007.
Earlier this week, The Daily Telegraph learned that Mr Blair used visits to Libya after he left office to lobby for business for the American investment bank JP Morgan.
A senior executive with the Libyan Investment Authority, the $70 billion fund used to invest the country's oil money abroad, said Mr Blair was one of three prominent western businessmen who regularly dealt with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the former leader.
Saif al-Islam and his close aides oversaw the activities of the fund, and often directed its officials on where they should make its investments, he said.
The executive, speaking on condition of anonymity, said officials were told the "ideas" they were ordered to pursue came from Mr Blair as well as one other British businessman and a former American diplomat.
A spokesman for Tony Blair said: "Tony Blair has never sought or received funding from Gaddafi or the Libyan government for any of his projects in Africa and neither have his charities.
"This discussion was about how best Libya used its substantial Africa Development Fund to help internationally supported infrastructure projects in Africa for the benefit of African people.
"It was a perfectly proper and sensible discussion to have. In the event they never did support them.”

Geography of a Woman

Between 18 and 22 a woman is like Africa... half discovered, half wild, naturally beautiful with fertile deltas.
Between 23 and 30 a woman is like America... well developed and open to trade, especially for high financed investors.
Between 31 and 45 a woman is like India... very hot, relaxed and convinced of her own beauty.
Between 46 and 55 a woman is like France... gently aging but sensual with an appreciation for the finer things.
Between 56 and 60 she is like Yugoslavia... lost the war, haunted by past mistakes and in need of massive reconstruction.
From 61 on, a woman is like Afghanistan... everyone knows where it is, but no one wants to go there.

Geography of a man

Between 15 and 60 a man is like Ireland... ruled by a DICK.

This House hates Human Rights (Cambridge Union)

Debate:

the Title of the debate was (This House hates Human Rights) The debate took place in Cambridge Union Society, in UK 25/Nov/2010.

PROPOSITION:

1-Andy Hayman : was the highest ranking officer responsible for counter-terrorism in the UK whilst at London's Metropolitan Police, and was directly responsible for the investigation into the 7 July London bombings.

2-Peter Hitchens : writes for The Mail on Sunday. A former resident correspondent in Moscow and Washington, he appears frequently on radio and television, debating typically left-wing opponents on a variety of topics.

3-Charles Drummond : is a history PhD student at Trinity College. A graduate of Harvard University, Drummond was a liaison to national security fellows at the Kennedy School of Government and an intern at the American Bar Association, where he worked on issues of human rights law.

OPPOSITION:

1-Philip Murray : is currently studying for a PhD in public law at Corpus Christi College, where he also teaches constitutional law. His research covers a broad range of constitutional issues, including human rights law.

2-Isabella Sanky :

3-Dr. Latif Yahia : PhD International Law an Iraqi-born author, blogger and former military officer in the Iran-Iraq War. Dr Yahia was also forcibly recruited to be the body double of Saddam Hussein's elder son Uday Hussein.

Part 1 Andy Hayman.

Part 2 Philip Murray.

Part 3 Charles Drummond.

Part 4 Isabella Sanky.

Part 5 Peter Hitchens.

Part 6 Dr. Latif Yahia.

The Iraqi police and Militias are hand in hand to destroy Iraqis.

By: Latif Yahia

For those that do not read Arabic, this video shows the so-called Iraqi Police who are actually Militias abusing Iraqi people. This is why I put the title "The Iraqi police and Militias are hand in hand to destroy Iraqis"
The real problem now is that half of these so-called Iraqi police have fled Iraq and are seeking Asylum in European and Western countries, having seen this footage and taking it as typical behavior, would you be comfortable having one of these guys become a refugee in your country?
Once they attain refugee status they return to Iraq to kill, kidnap and make money to send to the country that they have status in, when they have filled their account they go back to the country of status and await citizenship. These countries that they hide this blood money in never ask where it came from, they do their dirty job in Iraq save the money in the West until they become citizens and then return to Iraq with Western passports so that no one can touch them. All you have to do is take the former and present incarnations of the Iraqi governments as examples, they all sat in the UK , America, Canada, Ireland, Australia, Cyprus, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland, and more, even Asia, taking social welfare and boom all of a sudden they are multimillionaires
No one asks the hard questions because this is the Hypocrisy of Western countries, if something happens with these people in the countries that they have status in they are marked as terrorists, when they go and do the same things in their homeland it is fine 'no problem'
I have not found justice or real human rights in any country in my last 19 years in the West, any country that is known not to have human rights or a justice system if they are friends with the west suffer no consequences, Saudi Arabia would be a perfect example 17 of the 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi, but Saudi was not invaded, because Saudi is America's friend, instead they invaded Iraq, a country that has never attacked America, nor did it have the capability to as the US was fully aware.

Jalal Talabani and Saddam 1991 Baghdad
Massoud Barzani and Saddam 1996 Baghdad

It's 'old news' but I will say it again to keep it fresh in our minds, Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction. When the American administration realized or acknowledged this they immediately changed their reasons for invasion from 'Imminent threat' to ' Removal of Dictator' because Saddam, as America then decided, could not remain in power, as he had in the past killed members of his own society. The reasons were unimportant. Saddam HAD to be removed.
Now he has been replaced by not one but 325 new murderers, plus the President and his Militia in what is now known as Kurdistan, each political party has it's own Private Army or Militia. We have attained a new record in Iraq, we have two serving Presidents one who serves just for the North Massoud Barzani, and one in Baghdad who has been 'elected' for the second time Jalal Talabani. Barzani forced the Iraqi government and all the political leaders to re-elect Talabani because he was afraid that if Talabani did not have a job elsewhere, he may go back to 'Kurdistan' and continue the 1996 war when Barzani asked Saddam Hussein to bring the Republic Guard to fight with him against Talabani and his Army.
Since 2003, over 1 million Iraqis have been killed under the eyes of the Americans who came to 'install' Democracy in Iraq. There are over 5 million Iraqi refugees inside and outside Iraq.
My question is, who will pay the price ultimately, the Iraqi people or the Western countries?
For the moment the Western countries are not concerned with this problem as there is enough money coming out of Iraq that can be frozen or seized to compensate them enough in this world recession. In the last seven years 364 billion has gone missing from Iraq, this is what the government has admitted to.
To put into perspective how large an amount this is we shall do this exercise;
If I were to count to 1 million without interruption it would take me nearly one week.
If I were to count to 1 Billion without interruption it would take me 35 years.
now multiply that by 364, it equals 12,740, that's how many years I would spend counting the money Iraq has lost.
To be continued.

Al-Qaeda the biggest Myth built by the CIA.

By: Latif Yahia

Bin Laden did not invent Al-Qaeda, this name for the Jihadist party only came about after 9/11. Al-Qaeda as we now know it was funded, trained and armed by the CIA and serves two purposes, the first is to strike terror into any and all persons and countries that is beneficial to America for sales of weapons, contractors or services. Secondly it draws out those who have ill will against America and befriends them under the illusion of fighting for the same aim, the irony is that they then become pawns for a master they set out to harm, ignorant that their comrades are indeed the enemy. America has an enemy indeed but one of it's own making and choosing.
This is the biggest scandal in the history of the CIA.
with this enemy America now has the means to perpetuate "Terrorism" around the world for the next 50 to 100 years, anything and everything will be blamed on Al-Qaeda or a similar faceless enemy, one that can never be found or fought in open battle, there is only really one other entity that the same can be said of, a Ghost.

Murders exchange Medals for Peace.

By: Latif Yahia

Having heard the news on the 13^th of September that Tony Blair was receiving the Liberty Medal for his “Critical role in advancing peace in Northern Ireland, the Middle East and his steadfast commitment to conflict resolution” I sat back in my chair and wondered whether I had fallen into a parallel universe.

Actually, to be very honest it is not the first time that I have visited this parallel universe. I visit it every time a world leader/politician who while in office, used force against another sovereign state and once out of office decided to ‘work for peace’ and was given medals or awards for it!

Now of course Tony Blair did do some good and nice things while he was in office, but for me it will always be overshadowed by his decision to follow Bush into Iraq. There are a lot of things that I could say about the decisions taken, but I think that the hardest part for me to accept Blair’s reasons for going in, was his strong belief that Saddam was a threat and he needed to be removed for ‘stability’ in the region. Saddam never threatened the UK and indeed it was proven then and is repeatedly proven to this day that even if he did have the desire, he certainly did not have the capability.

I don’t think that anyone would or could say that Iraq or the middle east is a more stable region now either, in fact the opposite is true, Iran now rules Iraq. This is shown by the fact that Noori Al-Maliki (Iranian backed Shia) refuses doggedly to hand over the reigns of power to his successor Aiyad Alawi (backed by US and UK), whom I might add was DEMOCRATICALLY elected, something that was also purportedly a very important reason for deposing Saddam.

Mr. Blair now gives motivational speeches on tolerance between faiths, works towards improving governance in Africa and Brokers peace talks between Israel and Palestine. Noble causes indeed, but would it not have been better for Mr. Blair to lead by example while in office?

Since Tony Blair left not only Downing street but government he has made many changes, he converted to Catholicism, he is donating the proceeds from his book sales to the British Legion, he formed the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and has become a Peace Ambassador, is he fulfilling lifelong dreams or trying to atone for many of the decisions he made in the past ten years?

What I also found amusing and ironic was that Bill Clinton presented this award to Tony, now for those of you that don’t know, Mr. Clinton had a daily bombing campaign, yes, each day or every other day, from 1993 until he/Monica finished his time in office he would drop bombs on Iraq and he also imposed the ‘no fly zone’. Some might also say that Bill paved the way for Bush’s invasion when he had the ‘Iraqi Freedom’ law passed in Congress in 1998. But now Bill also works for Peace.

So here we have Bill who used to just bomb Iraq giving the Liberty Medal to Tony who went one better and actually invaded it! It makes you wonder what award they have ready for George W. Bush? A Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe not, seemingly seven of the recipients of the Liberty Medal have gone on to receive a Nobel Prize, Tony may have that one in the bag too.

Politics is a dirty sticky business, those who want the power do what it takes, whatever that happens to be at the time, but when their time is over, see the error of their ways and spend the rest of their lives trying to make amends and give their friends jobs helping them to make amends. Why don’t we find a way to stop this cycle? Why is it that leaders have to do it this way? Can they not just ‘do good’ for their people from the start? Or is it that what is good and right is not what is profitable or powerful? Are they really our leaders or is someone else pulling the strings?

Bring Tony Blair to Trial for War Crime.

Tony Blair, would have us believe that he made the decision to go to war based on the best intelligence available at the time, and in his own words at the Hutton inquiry said he had “no doubt” that Saddam had WMD’s and that he was an imminent threat to the safety of the USA and the UK.

We have since seen the evidence put before us to go to war turn to ash, but Mr. Blair stands by his decision ‘til this day. Has he no remorse for the loss of Iraqi people and British troops? I understand the need for Mr. Blair to believe that he was right, but really, as a Labour Party leader his decisions flung in the face of his party’s policies, he became more Conservative than the Conservatives!

It all leads to many questions, have all the political parties melded into one? Have the rights of the individual been sold for the rights of the corporations? How much power have we handed to our governments under the illusion of protection from terrorists? Who are the real ‘terrorists’? How can we regain our power from the government? And possibly the hardest question of all, how can we stop this happening again?

If George Walker Bush and Tony Blair are allowed to continue on with their lives without any culpability what is there to deter any future leader from taking the same actions against another Sovereign Nation?

These men have to be held accountable for their actions, because if the are not then the lives of those who died count for nothing and we cannot call ourselves democratic nor inspirational.

Best regards,
Dr.Latif Yahia.☮
Ph.D International Law
Global Human Rights Activist.