Right now a court case is going on the the UK to try and get to the bottom of the Majaz/Rio Blanco torture case that we've featured on this humble corner of cyberspace quite a lot. Here's my very favourite quote from proceedings so far, part of the depositions made by witnesses late last week:
The engineers José Saavedra and Darwin Palacios as well as workers Eugenio Castro and Román Tirado Villar, confirmed that the company (Monterrico Metals) coordinated the reprisal operation against the protestors.
Román Tirado, administrator of the Rio Blanco camp, kept in constant contact with Andrew Bristow Bevege, Director and General Manager of the company, who ordered the security company 'Forza' and the police to abuse and torture the protestors.
José Saavedra affirmed that "Román Tirado gave instructions to the police, the workers and to Forza about the villagers, said that they were terrorists and they had to be treated as such. He also was in charge of taking the photographs".
Your private placement dollars in junior mining companies at work
Remember the story of the tortures and death at the Monterrico Metals Majaz (now called Rio Blanco) copper project in northern Peru? Yeah, sure you do, cos IKN ran this post with the scandalous photos when the story hit in January and followed it up with a dozen or so reports about the aftermath, including how diplo douchebag Richard Ralph was profiting from the threats and torture tactics used by the mining world and in cahoots with the Toledo government of the time.
So today The UK Guardian reports that the company is getting its ass sued in a British court of law for multimillions. Here's the link (got a video embedded) and here's an extract:
Richard Meeran, of Leigh Day, the London law firm bringing the high court case, said the evidence of torture was incontrovertible and that it was inconceivable the company could have been unaware of what was happening on its site.
"The company must have been aware of the inhuman treatment of the victims during their three-day ordeal at the Rio Blanco mine," he said. "Yet there is no evidence of it taking any steps to prevent the harm. On the contrary, it would appear that the company was working in cahoots with the police. It is vital that multinationals are held legally accountable for human rights violations occurring at their overseas operations."
Here's a nice photo of Billy Fernando Joya Améndola, taken from the COFADEH website (Committee of Families of Detained and Disappeared in Honduras). Here's how the biography of Billy Joya starts on that page (translated):
Retired police captain, ex-integrant of the 3-16 intelligence squad and founder of the elite repression squadron "Lince de los Cobros" and first commander of the squadron. From 1984 to 1991 a member of the 3-16 death squad where he took various roles under the pseudonym of "Licenciado Arrazola".
So why mention Billy Joya today? Well, perhaps because he's just been named ministry assessor to the coupmonger government by usurper Micheletti.
Tegucigalpa 1 (PL); The de facto government of Roberto Micheletti in Honduras named Billy Joya as ministerial assessor, known for coordinating and directing tortures and assassinations in the country during the 1980sCONTINUES HERE
Wow, I bet all you coup apologists are feeling really proud of yourself now. And for those of you versed in Spanish, check out the threats Billy Joya was making to citizens in 2007. UPDATE: Here's an English language link to the attempts to bring Billy Joya to justice that failed due to his first fleeing the country and later using amnesty laws (and dubious court rulings) to protect himself.
Here follow twenty-six of the 2,000 or so photos showing the torture suffered by prisoners at the hands of the USA and its military that The Hawaiian wanted banned, unpublished, suppressed and otherwise kept secret. All are small, but click on any photo to make bigger.
Via Ten Percent. Tomorrow Craig Murray will hopefully blow the lid off the lies the world has been fed over the torture tactics used as an excuse to invade Iraq. I sincerely hope that the disgraced members of the British government resign but know that their total lack of integrity and honour will allow them to ignore their shame.
On the contrary to the scum that hold power, Craig Murray is an example to us all. Honour amongst gentlemen still exists and we should be grateful for people like Murray who stood up to the tyranny.
My name is Craig Murray. I was British Ambassador in Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004.
I had joined the Diplomatic Service in 1984 and became a member of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Senior Management Structure in 1998. I had held a variety of posts including Deputy High Commissioner, Accra (1998 to 2001) and First Secretary Political and Economic, Warsaw (1994 to 1997).
I had also been head of the FCO section of the Embargo Surveillance Sector leading up to and during the first Gulf War, monitoring and interdicting Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In consequence I had obtained security clearances even higher than those routinely given to all executive members of the Diplomatic Service. I had extensive experience throughout my career of dealing with intelligence material and the intelligence services.
It was made plain to me in briefing in London before initial departure for Tashkent that Uzbekistan was a key ally in the War on Terror and to be treated as such. It was particularly important to the USA who valued its security cooperation and its provision of a major US airbase at Karshi-Khanabad.
As Ambassador in Uzbekistan I regularly received intelligence material released by MI6. This material was given to MI6 by the CIA, mostly originating from their Tashkent station. It was normally issued to me telegraphically by MI6 at the same time it was issued to UK ministers and officials in London.
From the start of my time as Ambassador, I was also receiving a continual stream of information about widespread torture of suspected political or religious dissidents in Tashkent. This was taking place on a phenomenal scale. In early 2003 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, in the preparation of which my Embassy much assisted, described torture in Uzbekistan as “routine and systemic”.
The horror and staggering extent of torture in Uzbekistan is well documented and I have been informed by the Chair is not in the purview of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. But what follows goes directly to the question of UK non-compliance with the UN Convention Against Torture.
In gathering evidence from victims of torture, we built a consistent picture of the narrative which the torturers were seeking to validate from confessions under torture. They sought confessions which linked domestic opposition to President Karimov with Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden; they sought to exaggerate the strength of the terrorist threat in Central Asia. People arrested on all sorts of pretexts – (I recall one involved in a dispute over ownership of a garage plot) suddenly found themselves tortured into confessing to membership of both the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Al-Qaida. They were also made to confess to attending Al-Qaida training camps in Tajikistan and Afghanistan. In an echo of Stalin’s security services from which the Uzbek SNB had an unbroken institutional descent, they were given long lists of names of people they had to confess were also in IMU and Al-Qaida.
It became obvious to me after just a few weeks that the CIA material from Uzbekistan was giving precisely the same narrative being extracted by the Uzbek torturers – and that the CIA “intelligence” was giving information far from the truth.
I was immediately concerned that British ministers and officials were being unknowingly exposed to material derived from torture, and therefore were acting illegally.
I asked my Deputy, Karen Moran, to call on a senior member of the US Embassy and tell him I was concerned that the CIA intelligence was probably derived from torture by the Uzbek security services. Karen Moran reported back to me that the US Embassy had replied that it probably did come from torture, but in the War on Terror they did not view that as a problem. In October or November of 2002 I sent the FCO a telegram classified Top Secret and addressed specifically for the attention of the Secretary of State. I argued that to receive this material from torture was: • Illegal – Plainly it was a breach of UNCAT • Immoral – To support such despicable practices undermined our claims to civilisation • Impractical – The material was designed to paint a false picture I received no reply, so in January or February of 2003 I sent a further telegram repeating the same points.
I was summoned back to a meeting which was held in the FCO on 7 or 8 March 2003. Present were Linda Duffield, Director Wider Europe; Matthew Kydd, Head Permanent Under Secretary’s Department; Sir Michael Wood, Legal Adviser.
At the start of the meeting Linda Duffield told me that Sir Michael Jay, Permanent Under Secretary, wished me to know that my telegrams were unwise and that these sensitive questions were best not discussed on paper.
In the meeting, Sir Michael Wood told me that it was not illegal for us to obtain intelligence from torture, provided someone else did the torture. He added “I make no comment on the moral aspect” and appeared to me to be signalling disapproval.
Matthew Kydd told me that the Security Services considered the material from the CIA in Tashkent useful. He also argued that, as the final intelligence report issued by the security services excludes the name of the detainee interrogated, it is not possible to prove that torture was involved in any particular piece of intelligence.
Linda Duffield told me that Jack Straw had discussed this question with Sir Richard Dearlove and the policy was that, in the War on Terror, we should not question such intelligence. The UK/US intelligence sharing agreement stipulated that all intelligence must be shared. Influential figures in the US believed this was an unfair agreement as we received much more from the US than they did from us. It was not in our interest to abandon the universality principle and refuse categories of CIA material.
It was agreed that Sir Michael Wood’s view that it was not illegal to receive intelligence from torture would be put in writing. I attach a copy of his letter of 13 March 2003. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf
This meeting was minuted. I have seen the minute, which is classified Top Secret. On the top copy is a manuscript note giving Jack Straw’s views. It is entirely plain from this note that this torture policy was under his personal direction.
I returned to Tashkent. In May 2003, during a visit to Tashkent by my line manager, Simon Butt, he told me I was viewed in London as “unpatriotic”. This hurt me enormously as I had served my country with great enthusiasm for 19 years. Every traceable generation of my family had served in the British military. I felt it was my country which had abandoned the principles I had believed I was working for.
In August 2003 the FCO attempted to frame me on eighteen false charges of gross misconduct and demanded my resignation. I refused and after a sickening fight was acquitted and returned to Tashkent in January 2004.
While in London in approximately May 2004 for a medical check-up I was informed by Jon Benjamin, Head of Human Rights Policy Department FCO, that there had just been a senior level interdepartmental FCO meeting on receiving intelligence from torture and he had been surprised I was not invited. The policy that we would accept this intelligence had been re-affirmed.
On return to Tashkent I sent on 22 July 2004 yet a further telegram arguing we should not obtain intelligence from torture. I kept an electronic copy and this is attached. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Telegram.pdf
I specifically argued (paras 16 to 18) that we were in breach of Article 4 of UNCAT which concerns complicity with torture. I also referred to the US transport of detainees to Uzbekistan (para 18). I referred to the London interdepartmental meeting (paras 8 to 9).
I received a brief and extraordinary reply to the effect that there had been no such meeting in the last two weeks. I knew it had been before then and had not referred to a date in my telegram.
This telegram, which was sparked by my anger at the lies in our public position on torture after Abu Ghraib became public, resulted in my dismissal as ambassador when it was leaked to the Financial Times (not by me).
Conclusions
1. All CIA intelligence is received by the UK. MI6 has seen the fruits of every CIA waterboarding session and rendition torture. Very many will have been passed on to ministers and senior officials.
2. Ministers decided the principle of the universality of the UK/US intelligence sharing agreement was more important than any aversion to torture. We could not refuse this material from the CIA without compromising the basic agreement.
3. Ministers did know they were receiving intelligence from torture. There was a definite, internally promulgated and legally cleared policy to receive intelligence from torture, directed in person by Jack Straw.
4. The format of intelligence reports contains a deliberate double blind; by excluding the name of the detainee from the final report, Ministers can state they have never knowingly seen intelligence from torture.
5. The government’s public lines that we do not condone, endorse, encourage or instigate torture, even that we condemn it and work against it, do not answer the key question:
“Are we prepared on a regular basis to receive intelligence from torture?” That question is capable of a one word answer. The true answer is yes. The government refuses to give a straight answer.
Borev got the story, ten percent got the story but it's still getting full airtime here and not just a link.
Ask Chileans, ask Argentines, ask Peruvians. They'll all tell you that you can't cover up large scale, state run human rights abuses, state terrorism, extrajudicial killings, torture, rape and all their cohorts forever. Sooner or later the word begins to get out. So add this communique from a working party of UK members of parliament and US/Canada/UK trade unionss to the 1,000 army personnel being investigated for 'false positives' and the 22,000 (yes, twenty-two thousand) cases of disappeared. And unlike their partners in torture and crime, these British MPs don't mince words and directly imply Alvaro Uribe.
All in the name of freedom and democracy.......as usual.
We are a delegation of British Parliamentarians and British, American and Canadian trade unionists, and have spent seven days here in Colombia gathering information on human and labour rights abuses. We have met a wide range of individuals and groups across Colombian society, covering civil, political, legal and military interests, including trade unions, students and teachers, indigenous peoples, peasant farmers, trade union lawyers, human rights defenders, and former FARC hostages. We have travelled to Arauca province to hear the testimonials of communities and individuals caught up in the conflict in that part of the country. We visited Buon Pastor prison in Bogota and spoke to the women political prisoners incarcerated there; we also met with Martin Sandoval, imprisoned unjustly in Arauca. We had the opportunity in speaking also with senior members of Alvaro Uribe's government and the President himself. We are grateful to all those individuals and groups who have generously given us their time.
We are shocked at what we have heard, and have no doubts on the evidence given that the Colombian government of Alvaro Uribe, and the security forces, are complicit in human rights crimes. We are convinced also that the murderous activities of the paramilitary forces are condoned and actively supported by the government and army. These crimes are aggravated by the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators and the failure of the legal system to prosecute the criminals and those who issue the orders.
Instead of imprisoning the real criminals, the Government has locked up trade unionists, members of the political opposition and human rights defenders like Martin Sandoval. We call for his immediate release and that of other political prisoners and trade unionists.
On our return to the United Kingdom and North America we will be calling for:
an immediate end to all military aid and support to the Colombian Government;
no Free Trade Agreements until human and labour rights are respected in an internationally
verifiable way;
the public exposure of multinational companies, such as for their complicity in human and
labour rights violations in Colombia;
an immediate end to the criminalisation of legitimate and democratic opposition, including
Senator Piedad Cordoba, Senator Gloria Ramirez, Congressman Wilson Borja and Dr. Carlos
Lozano and others;
support for dialogue, a peace process and a humanitarian exchange;
An end to extrajudicial executions and 'false positives' carried out by the Colombian army.
A full account of our findings and recommendations will be published in the near future.
Signatures Appended, Wednesday, 8 April 2009
List of Delegates
Ian Davidson MP: Member of Parliament for Glasgow;
David Drever: President of the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS);
Simon Dubbins: Director of International Relations of Unite the Union and member of the Executive of the European TUC;
Sam Gurney: International Policy Officer for the TUC and member of the ILO Governing Body
Sally Hunt: General Secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), also a member of the Justice for Colombia National Committee and of both the TUC Executive and TUC General Council where she is spokesperson on international relations;
Peter Kilfoyle MP: Member of Parliament for Liverpool, former Government Minister;
Adam Lee: International Officer of the United Steelworkers (USW);
Andy Love MP: Member of Parliament for Edmonton, Parliamentary Private Secretary;
James McGovern MP: Member of Parliament for Dundee;
John O'Neill: Partner at Thompsons Solicitors;
Sandra Osborne MP: Member of Parliament for Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock, Member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee;
Stephanie Peacock: Member of the Labour Party National Executive Committee;
Frederick Redmond: International Vice President of the United Steelworkers (USW) and a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Council;
Mark Rowlinson: Legal Officer of the United Steelworkers (USW);
Mick Shaw: President of the Fire Brigades Union (FBU);
James Sheridan MP: Member of Parliament for Paisley and Renfrewshire North;
Tony Woodhouse: Chair of the National Executive Committee of Unite the Union.
So not only does the USA break the Geneva conventions, but it breaks it with the official, written approval of its Commander in Chief. You think this is defensible? Think again.
Two choices:
1) Impeach former President Bush 2) Never but never think you have claim to the moral high ground again.
"Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.
Check out the following, kindly sent along earlier by reader MH. Straight pastes of the two reports about how Sweden's Securitas are investigating the torture of locals in Peru. They're coming at you from all sides now, Bristow. Run and hide and don't tell anyone! Great PR tactics so far, idiot!
The Peruvian company Forza, owned by Swedish Securitas, is accused of having tied and beaten demonstrators – one to death. The abuses are said to have occurred at a demonstration against a mining operation in Rio Blanco, in Peru, 2005. According to Reuters, photographs representing the alleged incident have been published by a Peruvian human rights association.
- If this is true we have to take action, says Gisela Lindstrand, [Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications] at Securitas AB to Expressen.se.
The photographs, distributed by an anonymous source, show men covered in blood with their hands tied behind their backs and plastic bags over their heads. One of the men is later seen dead in another photograph. In the photographs one can also see men wearing vests with the text Forza.
The photos clearly show that personnel of Forza played an active role in the repression and torture, said Javier Jahncke at the human rights organisation Fedepaz to Reuters.
The tortured men are said to be demonstrators against the mining operation which was about to start in Rio Blanco in 2005.
Local police accused
The company Forza was responsible for the mining venture’s security.
Also local police are accused of having helped put down the demonstration.
After receiving the allegations, Peru’s congress is initiating an investigation of the incident.
-We have contacted our subsidiary and we are investigating this in peace and quiet, says Gisela Lindstrand [Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications] at the international section of Securitas AB.
According to her, Securitas bought Forza in 2007, two years after the alleged events.
-If this is true and these persons remain at the company we have to take action.
Distancing itself
Gisela Lindstrand explains that Securitas asked Forza if they comply with laws and regulations when it bought the company.
Securitas distances itself from the behavior shown in the photographs.
-It is not conceivable that we would act this way. We are a serious security company, says Gisela Lindstrand.
Reuters have been in touch with Forza, but they decline to comment.
A company which is today owned by the Swedish security group Securitas will be investigated in Peru concerning suspected torture and abuse of the local population in relation to surveillance of mines in the country.
-We are trying to find out what has happened. It will take a while to investigate, says Gisela Lindstrand, Securitas Group [Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications], to TT [Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå].
Peru’s congress has said that suspected crimes by police and private security firms in 2005 will be investigated. Prosecutors are allegedly already working on it.
Last month, a human rights organization published photographs of men and women protesting against mining in Rio Blanco, in Peru.
The victims bled heavily and some had their hands tied behind their backs and plastic bags over their heads. One photograph shows a man bleeding heavily from his neck, and another photograph shows the same man dead one day later, according to Reuters.
“Want to investigate”
In one photograph, an armed guard from the company Forza, can be seen. Forza was bought by the multinational Securitas in 2007.
The photos clearly show that personnel of Forza played an active role in the repression and torture, said Javier Jahncke at the human rights organization to Reuters.
Lindstrand reports that she contacted Peru on Tuesday.
-I have spoken with our country manager and said that I want an investigation into what happened.
In Rio Blanco, Forza is working for the mining company Moterrico, which was bought by the Chinese Group Zijin in 2007. The mining company states that the allegations are one in a sequence of “resistance activities” against mining activity.
The police force in Peru is under-funded. Security at the country’s remote mines is contracted out to private security companies, which in turn hire former policemen and soldiers. They often face local protests against the social and environmental downsides of mining.
Trained security guards
According to human rights organizations, private companies often go way beyond the limits of the law in their assignments.
Lindstrand points out that the company [Forza] was bought after the suspected abuse, and that all Securitas Group’s security guards are trained in human rights.
-If this has happened, it is something which could never happen today, because now Securitas’ rules apply.
-TT: Can you guarantee that even in remote locations in Peru?
Yesterday, security firm Forza (part of the Swiss Securitas Group) was highlighted in this report from Reuters as at least part of the band of thugs that tortured Peruvian locals at the Monterrico Metals (MNA.L) mining camp in North Peru. As regular readers will recall, the accusations against Monterrico are very serious and include murder on the list.
However, did you also know that Forza is used by a whole bunch of foreign companies in the length and breadth of Peru? The list is long and includes names such as
Newmont Mining Yanacocha Coca-Cola Standard Bank Duke Energy Repsol Eli Lilly
and surprise surprise Richard Ralph....The British Embassy in Peru!!
And plenty plenty others. In fact all the following all use Forza as security personnel, so if you think that the kind of brutality shown by this bunch of bastards is not right for your investment dollar, why not send a mail to your fave IR department and demand that they rescind their contract with Forza immediately?
Hit scum in the back pocket; it's where they feel it the most
Andrew Bristow, prize shit
