Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Dubai's 26 faces

Passport photos at the BBC, PDF diagram of the international movements of 22 of them, and a bit of Dubai's CCTV video.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Salman Rushdie's statement on Amnesty International

From The Sunday Times
February 21, 2010
Salman Rushdie's statement on Amnesty International

"Amnesty International has done its reputation incalculable damage by allying itself with Moazzam Begg and his group Cageprisoners, and holding them up as human rights advocates. It looks very much as if Amnesty's leadership is suffering from a kind of moral bankruptcy, and has lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. It has greatly compounded its error by suspending the redoubtable Gita Sahgal for the crime of going public with her concerns. Gita Sahgal is a woman of immense integrity and distinction and I am personally grateful to her for the courageous stands she made at the time of the Khomeini fatwa against The Satanic Verses, as a leading member of the groups Southall Black Sisters and Women Against Fundamentalism. It is people like Gita Sahgal who are the true voices of the human rights movement; Amnesty and Begg have revealed, by their statements and actions, that they deserve our contempt."

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The press opens up a bombardment of Amnesty's hypocrisy website for supporters of Gita Sahgal

Global Petition to Amnesty International: Restoring the Integrity of Human Rights (at the Sahgal site)

"Testimonial amico dei terroristi" Amnesty International sotto accusa (Il Giornale di Bordo)

The moral blindness of the "human rights" industry (The Spectator)

Amnesty shouldn't support men like Moazzam Begg (The Independant)

Double standards on human rights (The Guardian)

Amnesty has lent spurious legitimacy to extremists who spurn its values (The Times)

Amnesty International Stands by Jihadist (Washington Examiner)

And from Slate:

Suspension of Conscience

Amnesty International has lost sight of its original purpose.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Feb. 15, 2010, at 12:19 PM ET

It's an old story, but it bears retelling. One day at the dawn of the 1960s, a lawyer named Peter Benenson was reading the newspaper on the London subway. He came across a small item reporting that two students from Portugal—then still a fascist dictatorship running a filthy empire in Africa—had been sentenced to seven years imprisonment for raising a toast to liberty in a public place in Lisbon. After a short cogitation, he decided to take action, and his open letter concerning "prisoners of conscience" was published on the front page of the London Observer. You may never have heard or read about this micro-event or its macro consequences, but I am willing to wager that you have heard of Amnesty International, which was the great tree that sprouted from this acorn. Its "branches"—the innumerable local groups that sprang into existence—have been responsible for the release of many political prisoners and the public shaming of many of the regimes that hold them.

In common with all great ideas, the Amnesty concept was marvelously simple. Each local branch was asked to sponsor a minimum of three prisoners of conscience: one from a NATO country, one from a Warsaw Pact country, and one from the Third—or neutralist—World. In time, the organization also evolved policies that opposed the use of capital punishment or torture in all cases, but the definition of "prisoner of conscience" remained central. And it included a requirement that the prisoner in question be exactly that: a person jailed for the expression of an opinion. Amnesty did not adopt people who either used or advocated violence.
This organization is precious to me and to millions of other people, including many thousands of men and women who were and are incarcerated and maltreated because of their courage as dissidents and who regained their liberty as a consequence of Amnesty International's unsleeping work. So to learn of its degeneration and politicization is to be reading about a moral crisis that has global implications.

Amnesty International has just suspended one of its senior officers, a woman named Gita Sahgal who until recently headed the organization's "gender unit." It's fairly easy to summarize her concern in her own words. "To be appearing on platforms with Britain's most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender," she wrote, "is a gross error of judgment." One might think that to be an uncontroversial statement, but it led to her immediate suspension.
The background is also distressingly easy to summarize. Moazzem Begg, a British citizen, was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan in the aftermath of the intervention in 2001. He was imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay and then released. He has since become the moving spirit in a separate organization calling itself Cageprisoners. Begg does not deny his past as an Islamist activist, which took him to Afghanistan in the first place. He does not withdraw from his statement that the Taliban was the best government available to Afghanistan. Cageprisoners has another senior member named Asim Qureshi, who speaks in defense of jihad at rallies sponsored by the extremist group Hizb-ut Tahrir (banned in many Muslim countries). Cageprisoners also defends men like Abu Hamza, leader of the mosque that sheltered Richard "Shoe Bomber" Reid among many other violent and criminal characters who have been convicted in open court of heinous offenses that have nothing at all to do with freedom of expression. Yet Amnesty International includes Begg in delegations that petition the British government about human rights. For Saghal to say that Cageprisoners has a program that goes "way beyond being a prisoners' rights organization" is to say the very least of it. But that's all she had to say in order to be suspended from her job. As I write this, she is experiencing some difficulty in getting a lawyer to represent her. Such is—so far—the prestige of Amnesty International. "Although it is said that we must defend everybody no matter what they've done," she comments, "it appears that if you're a secular, atheist, Asian British woman, you don't deserve a defense from our civil rights firms."
That may well change, and I hope it does. But Sahgal has it slightly wrong. Amnesty International was not set up to defend everybody, no matter what they did. No organization in the world could hope to do that. IRA bombers and Khmer Rouge killers and Gens. Pinochet and Videla were not Amnesty prisoners when they eventually faced the bar of the court. The entire raison d'être of the noble foundation was to defend and protect those who were made to suffer for their views. In theory, I suppose, this could include the view that women should be chattel, homosexuals and Jews and Hindus marked for slaughter, and all the rest of the lovely jihadist canon. But—see above—Cageprisoners defends those who have gone slightly further than merely advocating such things. It's well-nigh incredible that Amnesty should give a platform to people who are shady on this question and absolutely disgraceful that it should suspend a renowned employee who gave voice to her deep and sincere misgivings.
The other great thing about the early days of Amnesty International was its voluntary principle. It was all a matter of free individuals giving their time and money in the cause of the rights of others. Some estimates say that there are currently more than 2 million subscribers worldwide. It's now incumbent on any member who takes the original charter seriously to withdraw funding until Begg is cut loose to run his own beautiful organization and until Sahgal has been reinstated.

Update Feb. 15: Gita Saghal's supporters now have a Web site, which contains further material about Amnesty's betrayal of its founding principles. I urge you to visit it.

Monday, February 15, 2010

A bit from YouTube

My account there is
On my profile page there, I get some flak from (mostly) couch jihadis and as a rule I leave them up, for the benefit of anyone who is investigating such people. But today's effort came in the form of a private message, so I'll preserve it here. Click for the original size.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Two more pieces from The Times about the AI scandal

The conscience stifled by Amnesty

Second Amnesty chief attacks Islamist links
This second fellow is Sam Zarifi, who seems to be concerned with the Taliban region. His dissenting opinion was leaked to the Times, unlike Sahgal's.

Update 15 February: AI dimisses the criticism and continues to see nothing wrong with using a proponent of terrorism on their road shows. And they still refuse to say why they suspended Sahgal. They claim that there is "vigorous internal debate" within their furtive organization, which might be an underhanded way to reassure the faithful that AI allows some deviation from groupthink provided that it is kept secret from others. (Zarifi's opinion was leaked.)

AbdulElah Hider Shayea

عبد الإله حيدر شائع
which he renders in our alphabet as
AbdulElah Hider Shayea

photo from al-Jazeera

This Yemeni poses as a journalist but he is in fact an al-Qa'ida "publicist". He was one of only about 12 or 15 people who were authorized to start new threads on al-Qa'ida's major Arabic-language forum Hesbah. It was Shayea with whom Anwar al-Awlaki made his first contact since the airstrike in Shabwah on 2009.12.24 [1]. And the subsequent batch of al-Awlaki's terrorist "authorization" and incitement, broadcast by al-Jazeera, was signed by Shayea.

Until quite recently he was using this web space:
but that site has suddenly gone dead. (Maktoob itself is still in business.) My guess is that Shayea has been paid by al-Jazeera to work on behalf of al-Qa'ida exclusively via al-Jazeera in future. We'll see.

Update: that site is back in business. Nothing added since it went down.

[1] From that website:

لقائي مع الشيخ أنور العولقي بعد حادثة فورت هود ..
كتبها عبد الإله ، في 21 تشرين الثاني 2009 الساعة: 22:14 م

العولقي: الميجور نضال حسن اعتبرني موضع ثقته واعتبرته بطلا

الإمام الهارب المرتبط بـ«القاعدة» في أول مقابلة صحافية: يتحدث عن مرتكب مذبحة «فورت هود»

صنعاء ـ اليمن: سودرسان راغايان*
في أول مقابلة صحافية له بعد مذبحة فورت هود قال الشيخ الأميركي ذو الأصول اليمنية أنور العولقي إنه لم يأمر أو يضغط على نضال لإلحاق الضرر بأميركيين، لكنه كان يعتبر نفسه موضع ثقة الطبيب النفسي. كما كشف عن علمه بعدم ارتياح نضال للاستمرار بالجيش عن طريق رسائل البريد الإلكتروني التي بعث بها إليه. وقال الإمام الهارب إنه لعب دورا في تديّن نضال قبل ثماني سنوات عندما استمع إليه في محاضرة له في مسجد دارة الهجرة بشمال فيرجينيا. وقال العولقي إن نضال وثق به، وإنهما تبادلا المراسلات الإلكترونية خلال العام الماضي.
تقدم الصورة التي رسمها العولقي لمرتكب مذبحة فورت هود بعض الإشارات إلى الحالة الذهنية لنضال ودوافعه خلال الشهور التي سبقت مذبحة 5 نوفمبر (تشرين الثاني) التي قتل خلالها 13 مجندا أميركيا. كما أضافت تعليقات العولقي إلى التساؤلات حول ما إذا كانت السلطات الأميركية، التي كانت على علم ببعض رسائل نضال الإلكترونية إلى العولقي، قد استشعرت تهديدات محتملة. وكانت الاستخبارات الأميركية قد اعترضت بعض الرسائل الإلكترونية التي بعث بها نضال، لكن مكتب التحقيقات الفيدرالي استنتج أنها لا تشكل تهديدا جديا وأنه لا ضرورة لإجراء تحقيق.

لم تتمكن «واشنطن بوست» من إجراء المقابلة مع العولقي إذ رفض لقاء أي صحافي أميركي، لكنه تحدث عن علاقته بنضال ـ التي توثقت عبر ما يزيد على عشر رسائل إلكترونية ـ إلى عبد الإله حيدر شائع، الصحافي اليمني والخبير في شؤون الجماعات الإرهابية والذي يرتبط بصلات وثيقة مع العولقي المرتبط بـ«القاعدة». وقد اتصلت به «واشنطن بوست» لإجراء المقابلة كما دفعت له تكاليف سفره. وفي يوم الأحد عرض عبد الإله تفاصيل المقابلة التي أجراها مع العولقي، الكاتب والداعية الشهير الذي تلقى خطبه وكتاباته عن الجهاد اهتماما كبيرا بين الأصوليين. وقد س


أضف الى مفضلتك

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Amnesty International's whitewash of 11 February

Contrary to Gita Sahgal’s assertions to the media, she was not suspended from Amnesty International for raising these issues internally. In fact we actively welcome vigorous internal debate. Up to now we have maintained confidentiality in line with our policy but wanted to correct this misrepresentation. This is not a reflection on the organisation’s respect for her work as a women’s rights activist and does not undermine the work she has done over the last few years as the head of Amnesty International’s gender unit.

They go on, but they do not say why she was suspended. I can only presume that she was suspended for exposing AI's hypocrisy externally. Intimidating dissent is the best way I know to debase one's credibility.

Sleazy people, these AI:
Our work with Moazzam Begg has focused exclusively on highlighting the human rights violations committed in Guantánamo Bay and the need for the US government to shut it down and either release or put on trial those who have been held there. Moazzam Begg was one of the first detainees released by the US without charge, and has never been charged with any terrorist-related offence or put on trial.

When President Obama promised to close Guantánamo, Amnesty International hoped that we could wind down our campaign and focus more broadly on human rights abuses related to security and terrorism. However, as that promise remains unmet, Amnesty International continues to work with Moazzam Begg and other former detainees to ask European governments to accommodate those who cannot be returned to their country of citizenship without risk of torture or ill-treatment.

That's how these self-righteous nonentities pin the conduct of Muslims fascists like Moazzem Begg on the United States. If it were up to Begg, every homosexual in Amnesty International would be beheaded. But he serves their Yankee-bashing purpose and that's good enough.

In this complex and polarised world we at Amnesty International face the challenge of communicating clearly the scope of our work with individuals and groups. Amnesty International champions and continues to champion Moazzam Begg’s rights as a former detainee at Guantánamo. He speaks about his own views and experiences, not Amnesty International’s. And Moazzam Begg has never used a platform he shared with Amnesty to speak against the rights of others.

Disgusting self-absolution by these guys. Moazzem Begg incites hate all day every day. His whole agenda is the destruction of all human rights. And that's fine with AI as long as he leaves them out of it.

Toward the end of the piece, Amnesty takes the opportunity to do a little self-advertising, which is habitual for any hypocritical NGO:
Amnesty International has a long history of demanding justice – in the case of our Counter Terror with Justice Campaign we called for both an end to human rights abuses at Guantánamo and other locations, and called for those detained there to be brought to justice, in fair trials that respected due process.

More coming.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Another tantrum by professional victim Moazzem Begg

He copied a blog entry which smears the 30-year veteran of human rights campaigning Gita Sahgal. Of course a Muslim supremacist like Moazzem Begg has nothing but hate for any Hindu, particularly a female.

Before Begg copied that spew to his own website, I had seen it myself in its original location. I said to the author, "When I saw the word 'Republican' in the first sentence, I stopped reading." And indeed it's just the work of a narcissistic self-righteous self-pitying hypocrite. But it takes the side of the malignant and worthless professional victim Moazzem Begg. That was enough for Begg, and he copied the whole thing.

Begg, a 15-year-old girl has more backbone than you.

Moazzem Begg on his own is not worth my attention. No, my purpose here is to damage Amnesty International. A group that seeks to profit from hate and evil is a group that I seek to destroy. Treacherous hypocrites of AI, I say to you:

You hired a Taliban member with a total contempt for justice, utterly intollerant, and a proponent of using the most evil possible means to achieve the most evil possible end. Then you put him on the road to lecture the world about right and wrong.

More coming. But Amnesty, with or without my contributions, this scandal WILL NOT GO AWAY. Everything that Muslim fascism touches, it destroys. Your group will be no exception.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Moazzem Begg of Amnesty International #2

Another one that the self-appointed global priesthood will probably want him to conceal:

Jihad - The Solution?

By Asim Qureshi

The counter-terrorism policies that are being suggested in the wake of the attempted attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib are indicative of a return to the Bush/Blair style policies that have led to the intense criminalisation and marginalisation of Muslims around the world. Instead of the question ‘why?’ being put forward, we are all dragooned into an iron fist response. Already motions have been made towards an ‘intervention’ in Yemen as well as an assault on our collective privacy with body scanners and techniques such as profiling, to be used in order to try and catch suspected terrorists.

The rationale or the ‘why?’, however perverted, that led to the tragic decisions by Abdulmuttalib has once again been ignored completely. Despite his own admission that foreign policy has played a crucial role in his decision making process, this factor has been put aside as governments and the media seek to present ‘how’ he came to take such actions.

Predictably, with slim evidence on the ‘how’ of his actions, the media in particular have turned to any possible avenue in order to present the picture of ‘radicalisation’. In this circumstance, the one piece of information available online from the statements of Abdulmuttalib himself was that the University College London student Islamic Society had arranged for a one week conference on the War on Terror and its impact. Among the speakers were Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Victoria Brittain, Phil Shiner, Moazzam Begg, Yvonne Ridley and I. In the same way that we are all used to speaking across the country in relation to issues to do with human rights and the War on Terror, we all attended in our various capacities.

The lecture that the student Islamic Society requested I do was entitled Jihad v Terrorism - the title in itself explaining much of the content. The basic position being that jihad as the concept of the conduct of hostilities from classical Islamic law is distinct from the modernist actions that have been taken by individuals and how Islam finds no room for terrorism.

Had Abdulmuttalib attended my talk (which I am told by the UCL Islamic society president at the time, Qasim Rafiq, that he did not) or had he the opportunity to listen to Moazzam Begg, he would have realized, like the way so many others do, that he had the opportunity to try and effect change with the issues that plagued him by working within the system. In fact, this is pretty much the legacy of Cageprisoners, that the organisation has provided a safe and open space for Muslims to speak about issues that impact on them all the while remaining within the processes that are recognised within the country.

From this perspective, Cageprisoners remains at the forefront of challenging detention without trial, torture and human rights violations as we try our hardest to convince Muslims that they should remain part of the process and get involved. However this process can only work if the affected community are given a true space in order to discuss the issues that affect them. The reason why the Jihad v Terrorism talk at UCL was arranged, was because it was felt that the time had come to really address an issue that young Muslims are very much struggling with - it was something that needed to be spoken about in order to help clarify the differences without simplistic statements of condemnation that do not convince anyone.

Cageprisoners has also opened a very unique space for dialogue, not just in the UK but across the world. For the first time we invited a former guard from Guantanamo Bay to speak on a platform with former prisoners. Rather than being a moment of accusations and condemnation, it was an exercise in reconciliation in the truest form. The Two Sides - One Story tour was well received all over the UK as each event was oversubscribed due to their unprecedented nature.

Wider than these conferences -it is important for Muslims in the UK to be given the space to speak about jihad at conferences, in the mosques and at demonstrations. There has been much misunderstanding as to its meaning, far too often the concept is mischievously misinterpreted for nefarious purposes. As a concept it is extremely important for Muslims as it is used as the term that defines the defence of Muslim countries/people against foreign occupying forces. Only by opening up the debate about jihad in the mosques will Islamic scholars find the space to really begin challenging the ideas of Muslims who are confused of the rights and wrongs.

The response of the UK to this whole episode has been to suggest attacks against Yemen and also to bring in profiling as a counter-terrorism measure - policies which will only further increase the frustrations of young Muslims and increase the feeling of marginalisation and criminalisation.

Cageprisoners feel that by promoting more dialogue and debate on various issues such as jihad, there can only be benefit in understanding, even where various parties or individuals do not agree with one another. It is our desire that we try and keep avenues of dialogue open with as many individuals that we can, hence why we keep strong ties with various Islamic thinkers, organisations, politicians and even celebrities. We believe that by keeping channels open with all, we can act as a conduit to reversing some of the trends in counter-terrorism policies that have been nothing but counter-productive to the stability of this and other countries. It is not a victim mentality, but a strategy seeking to salvage basic civil liberties and protect the society for us all.

Of particular note is the criticism that Cageprisoners has received for our association with Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Our main support for him stems from his status as a prisoner who was detained without charge in Yemen at the behest of the US administration. This is a man who unequivocally condemned the 9/11 attacks after they had taken place, and yet the US administration still chose to try and have him detained having also interrogated him in Yemen despite never being charged with any crime. Cageprisoners does not follow any scholar or thinker, including Anwar al-Awlaki, and often use our broad relationship with Islamic figures from every tradition to help promote dialogue on issues relevant to our remit from all sides. We are not interested in the business of divisive politics by making claims that any one scholar is more or less relevant than another, rather we seek to keep the communities together by focusing on where we can cooperate. Anwar al-Awlaki’s contribution to Cageprisoners has always been positive, particularly when invited to our events he has only spoken from his experiences as a former prisoner.

Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib studied here in the UK and had complete advantages while here to be part of the system in order to raise his concerns about things he felt were wrong with the world. His own admission that his actions reflect the foreign policy of the US and her allies only points to the need to understand why he was too frustrated to take the advantages he had been given. One possible suggestion is that the climate of fear that has been created by counter-terrorism policies has denied mosques the ability of openly discussing and arguing relevant issues including but not limited to the meaning of the various ideas about jihad effectively, and thus it has not been possible for them to engage young disenfranchised Muslims such as Abdulmuttalib by explaining how he could respond to the ‘troubles’ that he saw.

From all of our travels throughout the UK, a common theme that the team at Cageprisoners has found is that many Muslims believe that our brothers and sisters in faith fighting for their survival in various parts of the world have a legitimate right to do so - that policy of self defence from an Islamic perspective is known as jihad. It is a concept that has already been recognised by the Western world in the 80s through their support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation, and again in the 90s as they supported the Bosniaks and Kosovars in their resistance. What this means in practice is that the limitations and justifications require to be clarified and refined in the caldron of public debate between those who have an interest in these issues. Only then can there be a meeting of the opposing views - it is only through this mechanism that we have any hope of persuading, in light of the grievances mentioned by the 7/7 bombers, Abdulmuttalib and others like him, that the ends can never justify the means. It would seem common sense that an open and honest debate about jihad is very much required, indeed, the discussion on jihad is the solution.

Source :Asim Qureshi


The following is
as it appeared at about 02:00 GMT 2010.02.10.

Posted: 07 February 2010

Amnesty International is being accused in a media article today of putting the human rights of some people above those of others. This is not, and has never been, true. Implicit in the accusation, is the view that we should choose those whose rights we promote. We reject this view utterly. Amnesty International campaigns for all internationally recognised human rights for all people – it is not about their views, their political opinions, their actions – it’s about upholding the universality of human rights: these are the inalienable rights of all human beings. As part and parcel of promoting human rights, we also have a long history of demanding that those who perpetrate human rights abuses be brought to justice – whoever they may be. We make this call because victims deserve to see justice done, to know that the harm done to them has been exposed and to seek reparations.

Whenever Amnesty International accuses governments or other actors of committing human rights violations – based on our research – they typically make one of two defences. Either the violation never happened, for example, denying the existence of secret detention facilities or that the victim got what he or she “deserved.”

When the US government defended its detention of people it suspected as terrorists in Guantánamo Bay, then President Bush famously described the detainees as the “worst of the worst.” Translation – these men got what they deserved. They got years of detention, torture and ill-treatment, solitary confinement, complete isolation from the world and of course, no means to defend themselves against the charge of being the “worst of the worst”.

Amnesty International responded to President Bush’s claims by calling on the US authorities to either try them in a court of law in proceedings that met international standards for fair trial or release them. In a tacit acknowledgement that they got it wrong, the US authorities have released more than 500 detainees without bringing charges.

One of those who was released without charge, and has never been convicted of terrorist-related offences, is Moazzam Begg. Following his release in 2005, Amnesty International met him to discuss his experiences. Moazzam Begg’s account is consistent with the testimony of other detainees about human rights violations. He has since spoken at Amnesty International events describing his experiences and highlighting the plight of detainees who remain in Guantánamo and the need for accountability for human rights violations.

A European tour is currently underway as part of a campaign to encourage more EU countries to accept former Guantánamo detainees.

The tour was initiated by Reprieve and the Centre for Constitutional Rights but a number of Amnesty International national sections are hosting the tour in different European countries.

Tomorrow, Moazzam Begg will speaking alongside Amnesty International, speaking specifically on behalf of those detainees in need of protection in a third country.

Today, Amnesty International is being criticised for speaking alongside him and for being “soft” on the Taleban, when our record is one of unreserved opposition to their abuses over the years.

Interestingly, the US and other governments that have violated human rights standards in the name of countering terrorism justify those violations by saying that our security can only be protected by violating the rights of others. Mr Begg is one of the people that the US government defined as “other.”

But there is no place for the “other” in human rights because to argue that some people are more ‘deserving’ than others of having their rights protected is to argue that some beings are less than human.

Widney Brown, Senior Director for International Law and Policy, Amnesty International – International Secretariat.

Moazzem Begg of Amnesty International

I have zero tolerance for sanctimonious hypocrites who use terrorism to make money, as Amnesty International is doing with their "Fight Terrorism with Justice" racket.

Since he might delete it at the request of AI (who must regret by now that they ever heard of this guy) I will preserve it here, in full:


17 September 2009

Cageprisoners (CP) proudly presents ‘From the Prisoners to the Prisoners’ by Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, a message exclusively produced for the successful Cageprisoners fundraising dinner held last Sunday 30 August 2009.

In what is his most recent lecture, Imam al-Awlaki brings to life the inspirational writings of several Muslims detained in the ‘War on Terror’. Quoting from figures such as Sami al-Arian (USA), Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (Jordan), Abdullah Thani Faris Al Sulami Al Unuzi (Guantanamo Bay), and Babar Ahmad (UK), Imam al-Awlaki provides an insight into the daily thoughts and feelings of individuals who have been imprisoned without any regard to the principles of due process and the rule of law.

As a result of pressure from Islamophobic pressure groups, Kensington and Chelsea Council refused to allow Imam al-Awlaki’s message to be screened at the event. The Council acted hastily without consulting Cageprisoners about Imam al-Awlaki or the contents of his message. To date, no specific details have been provided as to why the Council decided to ban Imam al-Awlaki’s message. Such blatant censorship by the Council is reflective of the pervasive theme of the ‘war on terror’ – punishment without regard for due process.

In spite of these efforts and perhaps as a result of them, Imam al-Awlaki’s words have seen the light of day and will now inspire countless others beyond the 500 individuals who were deprived of hearing them at the Cageprisoners dinner. “They plot and plan and Allah too plans but Allah is the best of planners.” (Qu’ran 8:30).

Cageprisoners requests its supporters to reflect and act upon Imam al-Awlaki’s message and his encouragement to “give that which belongs to Allah but He decided to put in your hands, to give some if it for the sake of assisting and freeing and helping your brother behind bars.”

Imam al-Awlaki’s message can be heard at the link below:

Notes to Editor:

1. Cageprisoners’ annual fundraising dinner took place on 30 August 2009 at Kensington Town Hall at 6.30 pm. Guest speakers included ex-Guantanamo Bay detainees Binyam Mohamed, Sami el-Hajj and Moazzam Begg as well as Terry Brookes, a former guard at Guantanamo Bay. The dinner was co-sponsored by the Cordoba Foundation, Tyndallwoods Solicitors, Khan Solicitors, Muslim Hands, Birnberg Peirce & Partners, Hhugs, the Hittin Institute, Aerosol Arabic, and Life of This World Productions.

2. Less than two weeks before the event, Kensington Town Hall informed Cageprisoners that the Council Leader had made a decision prohibiting Imam al-Awlaki’s video message from being aired. Cageprisoners response to this decision can be viewed at

3. Cage Prisoners is a human rights organisation that exists to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees held as part of the War on Terror. We aim to give a voice to the voiceless.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Amnesty International is collaborating with Londonistani hate-monger Moazzem Begg

Big mistake, AI.

[ permalink for this blog item is ]

Moazzem Begg lost his job with the Taliban in Afghanistan when NATO showed up in 2001. Since then he has made a career out of being a former inmate of Guantanamo Bay, feeding the self-pity and the brainless religious chauvinism of any Muslim who will listen, in support of any violent Muslim who is not getting his own way over Kufr. Moazzem Begg's M.O. is the entirely the standard one for a Sunni rabble-rouser and hate-monger in the UK, of whom there are hundreds.

The collaboration between this scabrous and anti-social individual, and the self-appointed priesthood called Amnesty International, has been exposed by Gita Sahgal of AI themselves. AI has now suspended that lady. Another mistake.

The Times.

Gita Sahgal's statement following her suspension by AI. I have reproduced it in full below.

Moazzem Begg's pity party for terrorist cleric Abdullah al-Faisal. Faisal served four years in the UK for attempting to incite murder.

Moazzem Begg's contempt of all the evidence against Ali al-Timimi of al-Qa'ida.

Moazzem Begg's endorsement of apocalyptic cult leader and al-Qa'ida cheerleader Anwar al-Awlaki.

Excerpt from the one about Ali al-Timimi, who is serving life-plus-70:

We would like to remind all of our brothers and sisters that God tests His slaves with whatever He Wills. Many great Muslim scholars before have faced the same trials and tests for nothing more than their beliefs. As Allah said in the Quran "And they witnessed what they were doing against the believers. They had nothing against them, except that they believed in God, the All-Mighty, Worthy of all Praise!" [85:7-8]

Begg never recognizes any non-Islamist jurisdiction over any Muslim, no matter on what evidence, nor for that matter any right to self-defence against Muslim terrorism by any non-Muslim.

This is Gita Sahgal's statement:

This morning the Sunday Times published an article about Amnesty International’s association with groups that support the Taliban and promote Islamic Right ideas. In that article, I was quoted as raising concerns about Amnesty’s very high profile associations with Guantanamo-detainee Moazzam Begg. I felt that Amnesty International was risking its reputation by associating itself with Begg, who heads an organization, Cageprisoners, that actively promotes Islamic Right ideas and individuals.

Within a few hours of the article being published, Amnesty had suspended me from my job.

A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when a great organisation must ask: if it lies to itself, can it demand the truth of others? For in defending the torture standard, one of the strongest and most embedded in international human rights law, Amnesty International has sanitized the history and politics of the ex-Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg and completely failed to recognize the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners.

The tragedy here is that the necessary defence of the torture standard has been inexcusably allied to the political legitimization of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right.

I have always opposed the illegal detention and torture of Muslim men at Guantanamo Bay and during the so-called War on Terror. I have been horrified and appalled by the treatment of people like Moazzam Begg and I have personally told him so. I have vocally opposed attempts by governments to justify ‘torture lite’.

The issue is not about Moazzam Begg’s freedom of opinion, nor about his right to propound his views: he already exercises these rights fully as he should. The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.

I sent two memos to my management asking a series of questions about what considerations were given to the nature of the relationship with Moazzam Begg and his organisation, Cageprisoners. I have received no answer to my questions. There has been a history of warnings within Amnesty that it is inadvisable to partner with Begg. Amnesty has created the impression that Begg is not only a victim of human rights violations but a defender of human rights. Many of my highly respected colleagues, each well-regarded in their area of expertise has said so. Each has been set aside.

As a result of my speaking to the Sunday Times, Amnesty International has announced that it has launched an internal inquiry. This is the moment to press for public answers, and to demonstrate that there is already a public demand including from Amnesty International members, to restore the integrity of the organisation and remind it of its fundamental principles.

I have been a human rights campaigner for over three decades, defending the rights of women and ethnic minorities, defending religious freedom and the rights of victims of torture, and campaigning against illegal detention and state repression. I have raised the issue of the association of Amnesty International with groups such as Begg’s consistently within the organisation. I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.

-- statement ends --

Before Begg can remove it at the request of his employers in Amnesty International (who are right now anxiously trying to get some of the egg off their faces) I will preserve here one of MB's affectations of concern for the vicious, profoundly ignorant, and sickeningly intolerant Saudi-trained hatemonger Abdullah al-Faisal:

Renowned Jamaican Muslim cleric Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal spent a second night yesterday in the custody of the Kenyan Anti-Terrorism Police Unit (ATPU) who arrested him in Mombasa on new year’s eve and held him on a holding charge of breaching immigration regulations.

Sheikh al-Faisal is being held at the Kilindini Port Police Station where the ATPU have issued orders that he should not be seen by anyone. The police have not formally said why he was being held but when he was arrested at the Nyali suburbs they claimed he had gone against his tourist visa by giving lectures and addressing congregations in Mosques. When his hosts were asked to take him his baggage yesterday morning they were told he would be deported. However later on Friday afternoon a source said they were still investigating his movements and had taken his laptop to Nairobi for expert analysis on the request of an unnamed foreign country which had issues with the cleric.

In 2007 Sheikh al-Faisal was deported from Britain where he had lived for twenty years to his native Jamaica for allegedly preaching “hatred against Jews, Hindus and Westerners”. He had been jailed in 2003 for the offense. Al-Faisal, who is from St James in Jamaica, left the island for the UK 26 years ago. Born Trevor William Forrest, he earned the nicknamed “Dictionary” because of his vocabulary. His parents were Salvation Army officers and he was raised as a Christian, but when he was aged 16 he went to Saudi Arabia – where he became a Muslim and spent eight years studying Islam at Madina University and later took a degree in Islamic Studies in the Saudi capital of Riyadh before going to the UK. It was not clear whether Britain had requested his removal from Kenya. ATPU officers in Mombasa however claimed the arrest was over immigration offenses but “he was of general interest to the unit”

The Muslim Human Rights Forum (MHRF) views the action against Sheikh al-Faisal as discriminatory since preachers of other faiths are usually granted similar visitors’ visa and are never restrained from preaching or conducting other lawful religious activities in the country.

“This is curtailing Sh. Faisal’s freedoms of expression and association in a very discriminative manner and holding him incommunicado which is totally

unacceptable,” said MHRF’s Chairman Al-Amin Kimathi “It follows a pattern we saw throughout last year where Muslim scholars and aid workers were arbitrarily arrested and deported from the country on very flimsy grounds,” Kimathi added. MHRF has instructed Mombasa lawyer Yusuf Abubakar to take up the case of Sheikh al-Faisal.


[Footnote: Kenya did succeed in excreting Abdullah al-Faisal back to Jamaica with the help of three other jurisdictions: Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, and Antigua.]

Certainly Moazzem Begg would want Amnesty International to get rid of any Hindu, such as Gita Sahgal. That would go double for a female, who moreover is a longstanding proponent of gender equality, which is contrary to the primitive and barbaric dicta of Moazzem Begg's Taliban and al-Qa'ida comrades.

More coming.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Threat from the Taliban in North Waziristan

It doesn't look very meaningful to me, but it has got quite a bit of press attention, so here is the complete original (unedited), which appeared in English.



I have received a pumphlet distributed in the population of North Waziristan that says that

the Taliban and government of Pakistan has signed for the safety of local population a peace deal which asked to Taliban that they will stop attacking the security forcers and in turn the government will remove all the checkposts and remove the forces deployed in Bakakhel village. Now the government has committed several acts which are against the peace deal.

1. They have esbtablished all the checkposts and some new checkpost are established as well.

2. They are asking even the women to show their N.I.C at checkposts. This is a big shame for tribal people their women are asked for NIC and most of the women are without NIC due to the slackness of government.

3. They have established network of spies which spy on mujahideen and then the drone attack come which cause losses to both mujahideen and local people.

4. They have done an unannnced operation of village Machas.

So the shura of Mujahideen declares that we will no more be patient if the government continue to voilate the peace deal.
If the army started another operation here the Mujahideen will start a big war in the area so the local people are directed to form a committee of the elders to meet Hamid Karzai and ask him for a safe place for the local people to migrate. Though He himself is kaffir but he is better to lookafter the peace deal than the Pakistanies.

From: Shura Mujahideen of North Waziristan Agency.


Brothers are requested to spread this news so that it reach the ears of Pakistani population.


One footnote: "village Machas" refers to the small refugee camp that was raided by the Pakistanis on [corrected] 22 January 2010 -- Islamabad's first serious action against the Taliban in North Waziristan. One Tallie was killed and several dozen, mainly Afghans, were arrested.