Activists Take Over Incinerator Site
Indymedia UK - 28 Jul 2008
‘Stop Incineration Now!’ protestors demonstrated their in the early hours of the 21st July fury now after on the highly controversial incinerator plant had begun. Activists took over the site of the proposed new incinerator plant in Newhaven. They entered the premises under the cover of darkness last night in an organised attempt at non-violent direct action, after resistance through democratic means failed them. Several protestors formed a barricade by superglue-ing themselves to the road in an attempt to prevent vehicle access, whilst on the site itself, other members of the group ‘locked-on’ to machinery in order to halt further activity. They claim to be exercising their democratic right to protest non-violently in a last-ditch attempt to promote their concerns about the consequences of incinerators on public health and safety.

The War Party’s Credo: Power Before Profits
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 28 Jul 2008
Summary: RaimondoI have to say no one can know what will happen. What we do know, however, is this: there is a determined effort to drag us into war with Iran, a coordinated and well-financed campaign carried out by the same crowd that was so successful last time around. Whether they succeed or fail depends, at least to some extent, on the ability of the antiwar opposition to raise a hue and cry and mobilize the generally antiwar American public against such a prospect. There has already been remarkable progress made in this regard, including the stalling of a congressional resolution that would have endorsed a blockade of Iran and paved the way for war. source: Anti War.Comread more

War With Iran?
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) - 28 Jul 2008
Summary: Commentators whom I respect are saying, with conviction, that there?s no way the U.S. is going to attack Iran. Alexander Cockburn, Jim Lobe and Tom Engelhardt, for example, say no. Others whom I equally respect predict the opposite. Gordon Prather, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter and Justin Raimondo say yes, it?s going to happen. source: Counterpunchread more

Commons Apology Over 1971 Bomb Disinformation
UKWatch.net - 28 Jul 2008
The Government this week apologised for smearing the victims of one of the first major bombings of the Troubles. McGurk’s Bar on North Queen Street in Belfast was blown up on 4 December 1971, killing 15 people including two women and three children. Allegations quick surfaced that the dead included IRA members who had accidentally detonated their own bomb. Among those smeared was 73-year-old Philip Garry, the great-uncle of Linlithgow and East Falkirk MP Michael Connarty, who raised the case in a Commons adjournment debate on Monday. Connarty highlighted documents uncovered in the National Archives which revealed the Army’s role in spreading the smears: The Pat Finucane Centre submitted those reports, having found them, to the historical inquiries team. It is clear from the reports that there was a travesty involving the Army, which said in the report that the bomb was clearly inside the pub, because five men standing around it were blown to smithereens. The Army said that the bombing was clearly an IRA own goal?it said that the bomb was, in effect, in the pub in transit. That was then. The historical inquiries team report says that it was recommended that the Secretary of State answer a question in the House confirming that story. That was never done, but, sadly, a former Member of the House, now Lord Kilclooney, said on television and in Stormont that the bomb was an IRA bomb. He said that there was no question that the bombing was a Protestant paramilitary operation. The Army’s account was reflected in press reports at the time. The truth only began to emerge in 1977, when one of the bombers, UVF member Robert Campbell, was arrested on a separate matter. For six years, the approach taken in all the police reports?this is clear from the historical inquiry team’s report of the police reports?was to keep trying to turn the evidence to suggest that the Army report was correct. The reports said things such as that the forensics showed there was no doubt that the bomb had been inside the pub. The forensic evidence did not come out until February, but Dr. Hall, who produced it, said that there was no doubt that the bomb had been placed outside the door or adjacent to it?not in the pub at all. However, the police reports still spread the same story, and every single inquiry in the report shows that the police tried to pin the bombing on the people in the bar to show that they had killed themselves and their fellow citizens from the community. That is unforgivable. The debate was closed by Northern Ireland Minister Paul Goggins,who delivered an apology on behalf of the Government. Although we cannot speak for the Ministers who made statements at the time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are deeply sorry not just for the appalling suffering and loss of life that occurred at McGurk’s bar, but for the extraordinary additional pain caused to both the immediate families and the wider community by the erroneous suggestions made in the immediate aftermath of the explosion about who was responsible. Such perceptions and preconceived ideas should never have been allowed to cloud the actual evidence. Goggins told the House that the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Historical Inquiries Team had found no evidence that the security forces had colluded in the bombings. However, some relatives question why the army was so quick to lay a false trail of suspicion. Philip Garry’s grandson, Robert McLenaghan, has called for an investigation into allegations that the bombing was a false flag operation. The claims surfaced last year, when a number of newspaper articles quoted a loyalist using the pseudonym ‘John Black.’ He claimed to have been working with the a secretive British Army unit called the MRF. Some of Blacks claims, such as the suggestion that MRF members were present in Derry on Bloody Sunday, are regarded as outlandish within the North’s human rights community. However, the MRF is known to have conducted plain-clothes patrols in Belfast in the early 1970s, and to have recruited paramilitaries from both sides. On a visit to England last month, McLenaghan called on former British service personnel who may have knowledge of Black’s allegations to come forward. “We would like a public forum, which is international and independent of both the British and Irish Governments for him and others like him to be allowed to speak, he said.

Islamophobia in the British media
UKWatch.net - 28 Jul 2008
A recent Channel 4 Television ?Dispatches? documentary, ?Muslims under Siege,? showed how the demonisation of Muslims and the propagation of Islamophobia have become widespread in British media and politics. Presented by journalist Peter Oborne, the programme was based on research for a pamphlet, also entitled, ?Muslims under Siege?[1] written by Oborne and James Jones, a television journalist. The ?Dispatches? programme commissioned a survey of newspaper reportage by the Cardiff School of Journalism. It involved nearly 1,000 articles written since the year 2000, noting the content and context of articles pertaining to Muslims and Islam. The findings showed that 69 percent of the articles presented Muslims as a source of problems not just in terms of terrorism but also on cultural issues, and that 26 percent of the articles portrayed Islam as dangerous, backward or irrational. Professor Justin Lewis said the survey of the articles showed a ?series of ideas repeated over time… that links Muslims with terrorism… with extremism… with incompatibility with British values. Those ideas are repeated over and over again and inevitably they are going to play a part in shaping public consciousness.? A significant finding was that the emphasis of the articles switched this year from terrorism (27 percent) to religious and cultural issues (32 percent). Professor Lewis explained that the focus on Muslims having different cultural values is ?in some ways more damaging, it portrays all British Muslims with this notion of being extreme and incompatible with British values.? Many of the articles in tabloid newspapers were either outright lies or gross distortions. A Sun newspaper report of October 7, 2006 stated that a ?Muslim hate mob? had attacked a house in an exclusive suburb of Windsor that was being refurbished to be used by British soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Whilst the house had been vandalised, no evidence could be produced to show it had been carried out by Muslims. Oborne spoke to the senior policeman who had investigated the case. He explained the attack had taken place overnight and there was no evidence to show who had done it. The pamphlet states the real reason for the attack was ?simpler and rather closer to home.? An article written in the local paper the previous day revealed that the local army barracks received three anonymous calls objecting to the presence of the soldiers. The calls were from local residents objecting that the plans for the house would lower property prices. A petition had been also been signed by 40 residents objecting to the use of the house by the army. Three months later the Sun had to issue a formal statement retracting the story, but has issued no apology. A Daily Express article of October 24, 2005 claimed that pressure from Muslims had led to two major banks withdrawing the use of ?piggy? banks in their advertising material. In fact one of the banks, the Halifax, had not used piggy banks for several years and the other bank, the NatWest, issued a press statement explaining, ?There is absolutely no fact in the story. We simply had a UK-wide savings marketing campaign, which included pictures of piggy banks, running until the end of September. Piggy banks have been and will continue to be used as a promotional item by NatWest.? The pamphlet makes clear the denigration of Muslims is not confined to the tabloid press, but is also present in the broadsheets, including the ?liberal? ones. It notes that Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, then writing in the Independent ten years ago, said ?I am an Islamophobe and proud of it.? In another example from the Independent, Bruce Anderson wrote: ?There are widespread fears that Muslim immigrants, reinforced by political pressure and, ultimately, by terrorism, will succeed where Islamic armies failed and change irrevocably the character of European civilisation.? Also quoted is the notorious outburst of author Martin Amis in the Times: ?There is a definite urge?don?t you have it? The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.? The pamphlet notes: ?Islamophobia is a tremendous force for unification in British public culture. It does not merely bring liberal progressives like Polly Toynbee together with curmudgeonly Tory commentators like Bruce Anderson. It also enlists militant atheists with Christian believers.? In the introduction to the pamphlet, the authors say that the impulse to write it came from the comments of ex-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw against Muslim women wearing the veil. This was then taken up by other Labour politicians. Labour MP Phil Woolas, then Minister for Race Relations, wrote to the press in support of Straw?s statements, claiming that wearing the veil invited hostility. Interviewed in the TV documentary by Oborne, Woolas claimed he was merely reflecting the views of his constituents. The pamphlet comments, ?It soon became clear that this was more than a random rumination from a member of the government… Labour appeared… to try to identify with a general mood of resentment and anxiety about the presence of Muslim communities in this country and to intervene in the politics of religious identity.? As the programme pointed out, less than one percent of Muslim women wear the veil. The campaign of Islamophobia, especially since the London bombings of July 7, 2005, has led to increased threats towards Muslims. An ICM poll of Muslims found that since July 2005, 61 percent report an increase in hostility and 36 percent said they or a family member had been subject to abuse. Oborne spoke to several Muslims who had been subject to abuse and attacks. Sarfraz Sarwar has lived in Basildon, Essex for 40 years. He related how, over the last few years, his house has been subject to fire bombings and had bricks thrown at it. Sarwar has set up surveillance cameras around his house and feels he is living in a state of siege. The programme and pamphlet brought out how the far-right British National Party (BNP) uses Islamophobia to try to increase its influence, noting that Nick Griffin, BNP leader, ?has been inspired by the press.? In Griffin?s words, ?We bang on about Islam. Why? Because to the ordinary public out there it?s the thing they can understand. It?s the thing the newspaper editors sell newspapers with.? In their foreword to the pamphlet, Jones and Oborne point out that Muslims in Britain are: * Mainly young. * Tend to live in the most deprived cities. * Are disadvantaged and discriminated against in housing, education and employment by comparison with other faith groups. The orchestrated campaign of Islamophobia can only serve to increase their isolation and lead to a growing frustration. While noting that Islamophobia was promoted by the Labour cabinet following Straw?s lead in 2006, a limitation of the pamphlet is that it fails to link it to other aspects of government policy: namely the whipping up of fear of terrorist attacks and using the ?war against terror? to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as numerous attacks on democratic rights. Notes: [1] ?Muslims under Siege? by Peter Oborne and James Jones, Democratic Audit, 2008 See Also: Britain: Demand the release of Hicham Yezza [2 June 2008] The ?White Season?: The British Broadcasting Corporation?s Pim Fortuyn moment [19 March 2008]

Labour faces wipe-out after defeat in Glasgow East
UKWatch.net - 28 Jul 2008
Labour?s defeat by the Scottish National Party in the Glasgow East by-election is a devastating blow to the party and leaves Prime Minister Gordon Brown one of the walking dead. Labour saw its vote collapse in what was previously its third safest seat in Britain, losing a majority of over 13,500 in the 2005 General Election. The SNP, which came in a distant second three years ago, gained 11,277 votes on Thursday, a narrow majority of 365 with a massive swing of 22.5 percent from Labour. It is Labour?s third by-election defeat in nine weeks, not counting the recent Haltemprice and Howden vote in which the government would not even put up a candidate. Up until the last hours of voting, most pundits speculated that Labour?s huge majority would be eroded or even halved. Labour, while acknowledging the possibility of a big swing against it, pointed out that it had campaigned extensively in the seat, with local activists and party workers from across Scotland visiting over 20,000 homes. In the end voters expressed a level of hostility towards the government that far exceeded these expectations. Turnout was relatively high for a by-election in an inner city area, particularly during the period when businesses in Glasgow have their holidays. At 42.2 percent, it was only slightly lower than the figure for the seat at the last General Election. If the swing away from Labour in Glasgow East was replicated in the next general election, the party would retain just one of its current 41 seats in Scotland. Among those who would lose office would be Gordon Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling. Expressing the growing hostility of millions of workers across the UK to the party and the government, many traditional Labour voters either switched to the SNP or stayed at home. Journalists and candidates have reported the mood in the constituency?among the poorest in the UK with high levels of unemployment and ill-health?as one of disillusionment with and hostility toward Labour, which has dominated the city?s politics for generations. Many voters cited rocketing food and fuel prices as key factors in their opposition to Labour, as the government holds down or cuts public sector wages and welfare benefits. In May 2007 the SNP won a plurality of seats in elections to the Scottish Parliament, overtaking Labour to become the main party in Scotland. The SNP campaigned heavily in the area, with party leader and First Minister of the devolved Scottish government Alex Salmond visiting the constituency 12 times. Commenting on the campaign, Salmond said that the election was a ?test of strength between two governments.? During the campaign the SNP deliberately tried to play down its key policy of independence for Scotland, focusing on local health problems and rising domestic prices. Despite the SNP?s claims that the vote represents a ringing endorsement of their policies at Holyrood, most commentators have put the vote for the SNP down to the collapse of Labour?s support. The Conservative Party could only poll 1,639 votes in Glasgow East, only slightly higher than three years ago. It only came in third because the Liberal Democrat vote also collapsed to just 915 votes?suggesting that many of its supporters, along with traditional Labour voters, stayed at home or switched directly to the SNP to give the government a beating. Conservative leader David Cameron responded to the result by calling for a general election. In response, Brown said lamely, ?My task is getting on with the job. It?s exactly what people want me to do.? Looking like a condemned man, he commented on the loss of an area that Labour has held since the 1920s, ?We?ve got to listen and hear people?s concerns and that?s exactly what we are doing.? The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and Solidarity also stood in the constituency. The parties split from each other in 2006 after founding member Tommy Sheridan left the party over a successful libel case against Rupert Murdoch?s News of the World, which the SSP refused to support. Both parties, which have identical programmes, campaigned largely on local issues. Francis Curran, the SSP candidate, received 555 votes, with 512 votes cast for Solidarity. At just over four percent, the combined result for the two parties is slightly higher than the 3.5 percent of the vote garnered by the SSP alone in the constituency in 2005. It is lower, however, than the result for the SSP in the 2001 election, when it received 6.8 percent of the vote in the now defunct constituencies of Glasgow Baillieston and Glasgow Shettleston. At the count in the early hours of Friday morning, Labour?s candidate Margaret Curran requested a partial recount, claiming that some of her votes may have been wrongly awarded to her rival from the SSP, Francis Curran. Following this recount, Labour actually lost 11 votes. Brown may have rejected calls for his resignation, but pressure is mounting on the prime minister from within the party. Reflecting concerns among Labour MPs fearful of losing their seats at the next election, Graham Stringer, MP for Manchester Blackley, commented: ?We need a new start and that can only come from a debate around the leadership. I hope those discussions take place.? An unnamed Labour MP told the BBC that the party ?could not simply ignore? such a bad defeat, and predicted that Brown would face senior figures ?shooting from the hip? at the party conference in the autumn. There is little wonder. The pro-Labour Guardian newspaper was moved to ask: ?Does Labour face defeat at the next general election?or obliteration? The result from Glasgow East early this morning was more than simply terrible for Gordon Brown: it raises the spectre of a parliamentary wipe-out from which his party would struggle to recover.? It added, ?Perhaps the closest parallel is the 1990 Eastbourne by-election, which saw a 21% swing to the Liberal Democrats and triggered Margaret Thatcher?s ejection from office a month later. Some will speculate that the same could happen to Brown this autumn.? Labour is a party on its last legs. Labour membership has rapidly declined since 1997, falling to fewer than 200,000 mostly inactive and elderly members. In 2007 Labour reported that it had 17,000 members in Scotland, a fall of almost 50 percent since 1997. In 14 Scottish constituencies the party has fewer than 200 members, of whom only a small fraction participate in local meetings and campaigns. Electorally, Labour has lost the support of those sections of the middle class who jumped ship from the Tories in the mid-1990s to give it the victories in the 1997 and 2001 general elections. In May, Labour lost a by-election in the safe seat of Crewe and Nantwich, in which its majority of over 7,000 was turned into a 7,680 lead for the Conservatives. More fundamentally, having alienated millions of working class voters with its right-wing policies, militarism and slavish subservience to big business, even the safest of Labour strongholds can no longer be counted on to return a Labour MP. See Also: Glasgow East by-election: Stark social problems, poverty [24 July 2008] Britain: Scottish National Party steps up independence rhetoric [18 June 2008]

Iraq is About to Explode
AlterNet: War on Iraq - 28 Jul 2008
With Iraq’s internal politics a ticking time bomb—and Iran wielding its influence—neither John McCain nor Barack Obama have a realistic plan.

House Judiciary Committee Holds Historic Hearings on the Case for Impeachment
Democracy Now - 28 Jul 2008
The House Judiciary Committee held historic hearings on Friday about whether the White House overstepped its constitutional authority during the presidency of George W. Bush and whether or not such abuses would justify his impeachment. The hearing was billed as one on “Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations.” Although the title expressly did not include the word “impeachment,” several Democratic Congress members and witnesses used the opportunity to begin impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice President. We play highlights. [includes rush transcript]

How Chicago Shaped Obama: A Look at the Rise of a Politician
Democracy Now - 28 Jul 2008
We take an in-depth look at how the presumptive democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, was shaped as a politician by his years in Chicago and how he navigated the tough world of Chicago politics. We speak with Ryan Lizza, the political correspondent for The New Yorker magazine. His latest article, “Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama,” traces Obama’s political rise in Chicago.

Obama Holds Brief Q&A Before Thousands of Journalists of Color at UNITY Convention
Democracy Now - 28 Jul 2008
Senator Barack Obama addressed a crowd of thousands of journalists of color at the UNITY convention in Chicago Sunday. We play highlights of the Q&A session, including Obama responding to questions about affirmative action, African American reparations and whether, if elected, his administration would consider issuing an apology to Native Americans. [includes rush transcript]

Headlines for July 28, 2008
Democracy Now - 28 Jul 2008
Reversing Account, US Admits Killing Iraqi Civilians But Won?t Prosecute Soldiers, Obama Wraps Up Overseas Trip, McCain Denies Supporting Iraq Timetable, Backs Affirmative Action Ban, Top McCain Fundraiser Lobbying for Chevron in Amazon Suit, 1,000 Protest Iowa Immigration Raid, 4 Jailed Attempting Citizen’s Arrest on Rove, 2 Killed in Tennessee Church Gun Attack, 45 Killed in India Bombings, 16 Killed in Istanbul Bombings, Israel Proceeds with New Settlement Construction, McClellan: White House Fed Talking Points to Fox News, Lawmakers to Probe Yankee Stadium Bond Sale, 3 Teens Charged in Beating Death of Mexican Immigrant, Ex-CIA-Backed Haitian Death Squad Leader Convicted of Mortgage Fraud