Latif Yahia Blog.

2012-02-08T04:20:00.000-08:00

RAF helicopter death revelation leads to secret Iraq detention camp.

Death in RAF helicopter and secret prison camp in Iraq desert raises questions about legality of British and US operations.

An RAF helicopter in Iraq.

On the evening of 11 April 2003, a pair of RAF CH47 Chinook helicopters swept over Iraq's western desert towards a remote rendezvous point beside Route 10, the highway that begins life on the outskirts of Baghdad before running for mile after mile towards the border with Jordan.

As they approached their destination, the crews assumed they were on an operation that would be uneventful. Two days earlier Saddam Hussein's statue had been toppled after American tanks rolled into the Iraqi capital; three weeks later George Bush would stand in front of a banner saying "mission accomplished".

The helicopter crews had been told that a number of detainees were under armed guard at the side of the highway. They were to pick them up after dark and take them to a prison camp. What followed was far from routine: before the night was out, one man had died on board one of the helicopters, allegedly beaten to death by RAF personnel.

The incident was immediately shrouded in secrecy. When the Guardian heard about it and began to ask questions, the Ministry of Defence responded with an extraordinary degree of obstruction and obfuscation, evading questions not just for days but for weeks and months. The RAF's own police examined the death in an investigation codenamed Operation Raker, but this ended with some of the most salient facts remaining deeply buried. The alleged culprits faced no charges.

Asked where the men were being taken, the MoD had initially indicated that they were en route to a prisoner of war camp, one inspected regularly by the Red Cross.

Later it became clear that this was not correct: they were being transported to an altogether more secret location. The truth about the mission raises some searching questions about the legality of some of the British forces' operations carried out in close co-operation with US allies.

One of the first hints that something untoward had happened aboard one of the RAF Chinooks came six years later when Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer was giving evidence at the public inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, the hotel receptionist tortured to death by British troops in September that year.

Mercer, who had been the British army's most senior lawyer in Iraq, told the inquiry that by the time of Mousa's death, several other people had died in UK military custody.

Asked about these mysterious deaths, the Ministry of Defence named one of the deceased as Tanik Mahmud, and said he had "sustained a fatal injury" while travelling aboard an RAF Chinook. Perplexingly, the ministry added that the cause of his death remained unknown.

'Unlawful killing'Asked how they could be sure he had suffered a fatal injury when the cause of his death was not known, the MoD took five weeks to answer.

Eventually, officials admitted that the RAF had received a complaint – anonymously, they said – that "three RAF Regiment personnel on board the helicopter had kicked, punched or otherwise assaulted Mr Mahmud leading to unlawful killing".

This raised many other questions, which the MoD appeared sometimes reluctant to answer.

One of the few that it answered promptly – within hours – concerned the location to which the prisoners were being taken. They were going to Umm Qasr, the MoD said: this was the town on the Kuwaiti border where British and American forces had constructed a large prisoner-of-war camp, a place that came under the supervision of military lawyers and was inspected regularly by the Red Cross.

More information about the incident was to be found in a number of documents released in Australia under that country's freedom of information laws.

The deceased had been one of 64 men detained at a roadblock set up by a soldiers of the Australian SAS. Working alongside a solitary member of a US airforce unit, the 20 Australians were attempting to capture so-called "high-value targets", former high-ranking members of the deposed regime attempting to flee the country.

Seven days earlier, Saddam had appeared suddenly in the middle of a crowd of cheering supporters, an event that was filmed and broadcast on Iraqi TV, along with a speech he was said to have made in which he exhorted his countrymen to "fight them brothers, hit them day and night". The coalition forces were determined to find him.

Three of the prisoners at the side of the highway were suspected of being officials of Saddam's ruling Ba'ath party. Four were held because they were Iranians and in possession of an enormous sum of cash – more than $600,000 – and a letter offering a bounty for each American killed.

The remainder of the prisoners appear to have fallen under suspicion because they were travelling together on a coach. Some were Iraqis and others were Syrian, and all were to be interrogated about Saddam.

None of the 64 were armed, however, and none were in uniform. A number were middle-aged and at least one was severely disabled. Despite this, the men were to be detained as EPWs, enemy prisoners of war. They were to be loaded into the Chinooks in groups of eight and ferried to the prison camp.

As a result of what might be described as a legal sleight of hand, the men were never recorded as prisoners of the 20 Australians. On paper, at least, the lone American was said to have captured them. This meant that the Australian government could consider itself not to be bound by a Geneva convention clause that obliged it to demand the return of any prisoner it transferred to the US if it became apparent that US forces were not treating them in accordance with the convention.

At this point in the Guardian's inquiries, a report written by the squadron leader commanding the 2nd squadron of the RAF Regiment was leaked.

This document, prepared as part of a brief US field inquiry into the incident, showed that the Australians had bound the prisoners' thumbs together before handing them over.

The RAF Regiment gunners then placed hessian bags over the prisoners' heads as they were being led aboard the Chinooks, despite a ban on hooding imposed on the UK's armed forces more than four decades earlier.

Knelt uponEach prisoner was forced to lie face down on the floor of the aircraft, and those who "refused to adopt the required position" were forced to the floor and knelt upon.

One man who slipped out of his thumb restraint and flailed his arms around was said to have been "lowered" to the floor and "subdued".

By the time the helicopters had reached their destination, two of the prisoners "were found to be unresponsive", according to the squadron leader, while "there was some commotion at the front of the aircraft" because a third prisoner, a disabled man, had somehow parted company with both his prosthetic legs.

It was a windy night, the sand was being whipped up by the Chinooks' rotor blades, and visibility was down to 1.5 metres. The American troops who received the prisoners say the British appeared to be rushing, anxious to transport them all before dawn.

The two "unresponsive" men were loaded into the back of a Humvee vehicle, face down and on top of each other, while the man with no legs was placed in the front passenger seat.

All three were driven to a "holding facility", where one was declared dead. The bag had been taped so securely over his head that it needed to be cut off.

The US inquiry concluded that "appropriate" methods had been used to subdue the man who died. The RAF made no attempt to contact next of kin to inform them of his death, however. Were it not for the anonymous complaint, this would have been the end of the matter.

The complaint is understood to have been made by a member of the Chinook's crew, unhappy at what he saw happening in the helicopter's cabin as they were flying to the camp. After receiving the complaint, the RAF police moved slowly.

According to the MoD, they waited more than a year after the death before asking an RAF pathologist whether the body should be exhumed and examined. Asked to explain the delay, the MoD said the investigators "did not know Mr Mahmud's place of burial".

Once the location was disclosed by the US military, officials explained, "discussions took place on the feasibility of accessing Mr Mahmud's remains, taking into account serious security concerns and obtaining permission from the local imam". At this point, according to the MoD, the RAF pathologist "indicated that given the climate and the degree of decomposition since the death, it would be extremely difficult to establish cause of death". As a result, no postmortem examination was ever carried out.

This advice surprises one eminent civilian pathologist, who says that only exhumation could reveal the state of decomposition.

Derrick Pounder, professor of forensic medicine at the University of Dundee, who has experience of exhumations and postmortem examinations in the Middle East – including cases of deaths in custody – said: "That advice would be contrary to the advice that any UK forensic scientist would offer to any police in the UK who were investigating an allegation of assault leading to death."

He says an examination of the hard tissue may have revealed evidence of an assault before the prisoner died: ribs, for example, sometimes fracture in a distinctive manner when kicked. Asked whether a copy of the pathologist's advice would be made available, the MoD said no copy could be found in its files. After this advice was received the case was passed to RAF's prosecutors, who advised that there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges. They also concluded that any further investigation was pointless.

Asked why the men had been taken as EPWs, when none were armed and all were wearing civilian clothes, the MoD appeared to be stumped.

"UK forces did not detain these individuals, they transported them," the ministry said. "This is not a question we can answer. This question should be directed to the detaining country."

Eventually, the Guardianobtained a copy of the passport that had been in the dead man's pocket, and the death certificate that had been issued by the US military authorities. The passport showed the dead man was a Baghdad odd-job man aged 36. It also showed that his name was not Tanik Mahmud, but Tariq Sabri al-Fahdawi. The RAF police investigation appeared to have been so superficial that it had failed to establish the dead man's identity.

Unknown cause of deathThe certificate recorded Sabri's cause of death as unknown. It also showed that the whereabouts of his grave, far from being uncertain, could be pinpointed precisely. The American officer who completed the certificate had gone to considerable lengths to ensure it could be found, beyond the airfield perimeter: "700m out front gate to first culvert, 191 degrees for 50m, next to grave with stacked stones in same location ..."

But of greater significance was what the death certificate revealed about the location of the airfield. It showed that the 64 prisoners had not been flown to the prison camp at Umm Qasr at all. They had been taken an airfield codenamed H1, described on the certificate as the forward operating base of a US special forces unit known as Task Force-20. H1 was an airfield built next to an oil pipeline pumping station.

It was 350 miles north-west of Umm Qasr, in the middle of Iraq's western desert, a vast and desolate expanse of sand and scree. The nearest settlement was many miles away: it is difficult to see how there could have been a "local imam" whose permission needed to be sought before exhumation, or how anyone in the vicinity who could pose "serious security concerns".

The holding facility at H1 was not inspected by the Red Cross. Moreover, its existence was not disclosed to Lieutenant Colonel Mercer, the UK's most senior army lawyer in Iraq at the time. Mercer says he was "extremely surprised" to learn of its existence.

He said: "This matter potentially raises very serious questions. Strenuous efforts were made at all times to ensure that all prisoners were accorded the full protection of the Geneva conventions and vigorous objections would have been raised if there was the slightest possibility of a breach of the conventions. It appears from the information disclosed that some prisoner operations were being conducted, deliberately or otherwise, outside of the chain of command."

The holding facility appears effectively to have been a secret prison – a so-called black site. It is entirely possible, according to international law experts, that taking prisoners to H1 could amount to "unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement", and that the prisoners were subjected to "enforced disappearances", both of which are war crimes under the Rome statute of the international criminal court.

One former RAF Regiment trooper who was based at H1 for several months has described being involved in a number of similar missions in which prisoners were collected from coalition special forces. This always happened "under total darkness", he says. On arrival at H1, the prisoners were handed on to people whom he describes as "other authorities".

Could this explain why the police investigation into the alleged killing of Tariq Sabri ended with some of the most basic facts – such as his name and the the cause of his death – remaining unknown?

According one well-placed source with knowledge of Operation Raker, the RAF police investigation into the death, there were some at the MoD who were concerned about the possible consequences of a more thorough inquiry: people who were filled with dread at the thought that it could lead to accusations that British forces and others had been involved in crimes against humanity.

When the MoD realised that the location to which the prisoners were flown was known to the Guardian, it quickly apologised for previously stating that they had been flown to Umm Qasr. This had been an innocent mistake, one that a spokesman said could be attributed to "admin/human error".

At this point the MoD also released a copy of the US field inquiry report, which had been withheld from the Guardian for more than a year.

The report showed that a British special forces unit known as Task Force 14, and an Australian unit known as Task Force 64 were an integral part of operations at H1. Both units were under US tactical control.

The ministry also volunteered an admission that the investigation into Sabri's death was not conducted quickly enough. But it said that this could not happen today as its procedures had changed, and added that Operation Raker was now the subject of a review by a team of military police and former civilian detectives known as IHAT – the Iraq historic allegations team.

Asked whether there was any truth in the suggestion that officials had interfered with the investigation into Sabri's death in order to suppress information about the UK's involvement with H1, the MoD replied that IHAT was "giving consideration to any involvement with the investigation of MoD officials who were external to it", and that it would be "inappropriate to comment" while that review was continuing.

Geneva conventionThe MoD was also asked whether it was satisfied that UK forces serving at H1 had never been in breach of the Geneva convention, or any other international humanitarian law. It replied by stating only that IHAT would consider the actions of those who came into contact with Sabri.

Nor would the MoD comment on another claim made by the source with knowledge of Operation Raker: that both CIA and MI6 officers were involved in the interrogation of prisoners flown secretly to H1, and that these were the "other authorities" whom RAF Regiment troopers were told would be taking possession of their prisoners. The ministry's only response to questions about non-military interrogators at H1 was a terse: "No further information."

The involvement of the CIA in Task Force 20 is no secret in the US, where it has been disclosed in Pentagon statements and congressional testimony. According to Human Rights Watch, the inter-agency unit was responsible for "some of the most serious allegations of detainee abuse" following the invasion.

Before the end of that year, the unit merged with a similar unit previously based in Afghanistan and changed its name to Task Force 121. By then, however, some at the Pentagon were sufficiently concerned about its methods to send a special investigator to Iraq. Stuart Herrington, a retired military intelligence colonel, discovered that the unit was holding undeclared "ghost" detainees and operating a secret interrogation centre to conceal its activities. Some of its prisoners showed signs of having been beaten.

This was several months before the abuses at Abu Ghraib became known, and Herrington's top-secret report shocked some in Washington. Eventually, somebody leaked it.

Over the years that followed, the unit changed its name again, to Task Force 6-26, and later to Task Force 145, possibly in an attempt to confuse adversaries. Its precise size and the names of its commanders have never been disclosed. But its methods appear to have remained the same. The American Civil Liberties Union obtained a series of US defence documents that showed that the unit's personnel had been investigated repeatedly over their alleged involvement in a catalogue of abuses. In one case, taskforce interrogators were said to have forced a 73-year-old woman to crawl around a room while a man sat on her back, before forcing a broom handle into her anus. Two of her fingers were broken. The woman, a retired teacher, said her interrogators demanded to know the whereabouts of her son and husband, both of whom she said were dead.

In 2006, an investigation by the New York Timesfound that some taskforce prisoners had been water-boarded, and others were beaten or shot with paintball guns. While a number of interrogators had been prosecuted, posters around one of their bases proclaimed "no blood, no foul": they would be safe as long as none of their subjects bled. The ultimate destination for some of the prisoners who passed though this base was said to be Abu Ghraib. The newspaper's investigation did not uncover the continuing UK involvement with the taskforce, however.

But this became clear when one British member spoke out after quitting the army in disgust. Ben Griffin, a young SAS trooper, said the unit was capturing hundreds of people who were being rendered to prisons where they faced torture, and that he had witnessed dozens of illegal acts by US troops. "My commanding officer at the time expressed his concern to the whole squadron that we were becoming the secret police of Baghdad," Griffin said. The MoD responded by obtaining a court injunction to silence Griffin, and warned he faced jail if he said any more.

The review of Operation Raker being conducted by IHAT is nearing completion, and a report is expected to be handed to the head of the RAF police at the end of this month. The MoD says it is not going to be published.

2012-02-06T08:59:00.000-08:00

How the American administration and the CIA created terrorists and mass-murderers

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski visited Afghanistan in 1979:
This is what he said to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
"We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed. That land over there is yours, you’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again. Because your cause is right and God is on your side"

Former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook said:
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.'

Hilary Clinton admits that the American government created, supported and supplied the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 70's, these Mujahideen became Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the Brotherhood of Islam. The very terrorists that they now fight in their "War on Terror".
Yes Mrs Clinton They created them and we pay the price.

Mr. Obama, President of the United States of America welcomes the mass murderer Noori Al-Maliki to the Whitehouse and says without shame that Iraq is a safe, independent, sovereign state in which Al-Maliki is a Democratically elected leader.
Yes Mr. Obama, in Al-Maliki's democratic Iraq there are 138,000 in prison and an unknown amount in secret prisons, seven of which have been discovered recently. During the dictator Saddam Hussein's reign we had 14,800 prisoners -this information was found after the 2003 invasion-
Half of the number of prisoners held under Al-Maliki's democratic government have not been afforded legal aid, a court hearing or visitation by family members, in fact once they are handcuffed and removed from the family home or wherever they are arrested ,no other news is ever passed on the family of their whereabouts or legal standing. Under this "Democratic Government" that America supports, Iraq has no electricity, no clean water, no infrastructure, no justice and no human rights. Presently there are 3 million Iraqi refugees inside Iraq -mostly since the civil war from 2006 until now- something that is not reported in the western media as it would be evidence of Americas failure. 5 million Iraqi refugees outside of Iraq and over 1.5 million killed. There are 1 million widows.
A special thanks also to you Mr. President, for your presentation of Iraq as a gift to Iran on a golden plate.
The irony of the situation is that when America chooses to go to war with another country it uses "Human Rights violations" as it's first tool in the propaganda machine. Where are the Human rights in Iraq now?

A special thanks from me to your CIA, well done and thank you for having me put on the "terrorist watch list" in Ireland, it only goes to back-up my belief that if you are honest, speak out for your people and country, have a manner or dignity, you are a terrorist in the eyes of American foreign policy. We all know that Ireland -the state not the people- will always believe what you tell it to, it is a state of America not Europe, and even if it were to try some independent thought you would keep it in line by threatening to send all the Irish illegal immigrants home, just like your predecessor Mr. Bush did when the Irish government didn't want to open Shannon airport to the US Military or rendition flights. If having dignity and manner, speaking out for my country, it's people, justice and human rights around the world makes me a "terrorist" in your eyes, well then sir, I will wear that title proudly.

2012-02-01T05:04:00.000-08:00

Unlucky Bastard teaser No.3: To Trap a Traitor

Latif Yahia reads a document found in Uday Saddam Hussein's office after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. لطيف يحيى يقرأ وثيقة وجدت في مكتب عدي صدام حسين بعد أحتلال العراق عام ٢٠٠٣

2012-01-31T01:35:00.000-08:00

Big Brother Internet.

Do you remember the Safe-Cyber instructions they taught you in the mandatory Computer Ed class (operated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology)? First you fire up your Secured Computing Device (SCD) and its hardware token authenticator.
Then you enter the six-digit algorithmically generated password displayed (a new one flashes every 60 seconds) and are asked to supply your biometric identifier. You place your thumb on the built-in fingerprint pad, click, and wait for the Internet connection to begin. But it doesn’t.
Instead, the screen goes black for a second before the dreaded words appear: “Malware has been detected on this SCD. As mandated by federal law, it has been placed in quarantine.” Then the machine shuts down.
This is not just conjecture, but an imminent scenario. Policies, such as the White House proposed “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace,” which will transform the character, culture and freedom of the Internet, are already in place. The 20 cybersecurity-related bills introduced in the Senate in 2011, and the dozen introduced in the House of Representatives, have wound their way through committees and, according to Senator Harry Reid, are scheduled to be voted on in the first quarter of 2012. Almost all of them, with the blessing of the White House, would make the Department of Homeland Security the overseer of private-sector networks.

Considering the apocalyptic rhetoric coming from Washington and the ranks of cybersecurity experts – echoed by media reports that portray every picayune data breach as Armageddon – it would appear that the vulnerability of the Internet has been underplayed for many years.

In the Internet’s start-up decades, both industry and government were committed to establishing an atmosphere of trust that would draw the public into conducting more and more digital business. Though data breaches, theft of trade secrets, identity theft and bank robbery have been a fact of Internet life since its beginnings, there were few laws requiring disclosure. Banks and credit card firms ate their losses as a cost of doing business, and the giant corporations kept mum rather than roil the public. Recently, the pendulum has swung in the other direction and a raucous alarm has been sounded regarding the great danger posed by the Internet.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

The Nation is at a crossroads. The globally-interconnected digital information and communications infrastructure known as “cyberspace” underpins almost every facet of modern society and provides critical support for the U.S. economy, civil infrastructure, public safety, and national security. This technology has transformed the global economy and connected people in ways never imagined. Yet, cybersecurity risks pose some of the most serious economic and national security challenges of the 21st century. The digital infrastructure’s architecture was driven more by considerations of interoperability and efficiency than of security. Consequently, a growing array of state and non-state actors are compromising, stealing, changing, or destroying information and could cause critical disruptions to U.S. systems. (White House Cyberspace Policy Review, 2011)
While there may be other factors behind the current wave of cybersecurity alarmism, we have identified three major forces: The Government, the Cybersecurity-Industrial complex, and the so-called “Hacktivists.”

The Hacktivists LulzSec and Anonymous, the most-publicized of the hacktivists, along with a growing community of ad hoc cyberactors, have had a multi-faceted impact on the cybersecurity environment that goes far beyond the number of hackers at work or the amount of actual damage their exploits have inflicted.
They have skillfully publicized their outsized, headline-ready cyberintrusions. Their attacks, which are something other than the garden variety cybercrime, have compromised the web assets of Sony, the CIA, Fox News, the Church of Scientology, Bank of America and many more. Beyond the financial damage and security breaches, they’ve created a public relations nightmare forcing these major institutions to go public with what they would otherwise go to great lengths to conceal.
As a result, attention has been focused on the inadequacies of Internet security. If organizations as large, powerful and security-conscious as these are vulnerable, who then is safe? Not only have the targets been breached and embarrassed, consumer trust in the Internet has also been shaken.

These high profile, anarchic Internet exploits – compounded by the role of social media in evading and undermining government control of the political and media arena (Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, etc.) – have intensified government efforts to clamp down on the Internet … while providing the media with scary cyber-stories to further that agenda.
The Government The US government agenda to control the Internet is at least a decade old. Just three months after the Bush White House created the Department of Homeland Security, it issued “The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.” The document begins:
My Fellow Americans:
The way business is transacted, government operates, and national defense is conducted have changed. These activities now rely on an interdependent network of information technology infrastructures called cyberspace. The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace provides a framework for protecting this infrastructure that is essential to our economy, security, and way of life.
In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and national security of the United States.
Nearly a decade later, the basic message from the White House sounds much the same, if louder and more urgent. But there is a big difference. President Obama, and the rest of the Beltway insiders, have now formally defined cyberspace as a “strategic national asset.”
On the face of it, this appears to be a reasonable approach for a world that has become, in a relatively short time, totally dependent on digital resources. Unfortunately, it is an approach that provides a straight path to the militarization of the Internet and the loss of liberty that will follow. It is an approach that will elevate the most common forms of cybercrime (bank robbery, credit card theft) to the high-alert status of a cyberwar attack.
This government mindset will lead to the same abrogation of individual rights in cyberspace as the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012 has codified in “Battlefield America.”
Given the integrated nature of cyberspace, computer-induced failures of power grids, transportation networks, or financial systems could cause massive physical damage and economic disruption. DoD operations – both at home and abroad – are dependent on this critical infrastructure. As military strength ultimately depends on economic vitality, sustained intellectual property losses erode both U.S. military effectiveness and national competitiveness in the global economy. Cyber hygiene must be practiced by everyone at all times; it is just as important for individuals to be focused on protecting themselves as it is to keep security software and operating systems up to date. (Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace, July 2011)
Many Internet experts and cybersecurity professionals have deemed 2011 “The Year of the Hack,” in recognition of the unending stream of headlines related to data breaches and thefts. We believe that – aside from any real uptick in cybercrime or cyberwarfare skirmishes – this perception is the result of the government’s determination to soften up the public to meekly accept an upcoming barrage of Internet regulation. It is a digital-age version of the tried and true fear mongering that is always employed to further empower the president and further enrich the military/industrial and Homeland Security complex. The government says it’s not fear mongering, just education.
The national dialogue on cybersecurity must begin today. The government, working with industry, should explain this challenge and discuss what the Nation can do to solve problems in a way that the American people can appreciate the need for action. People cannot value security without first understanding how much is at risk. Therefore, the Federal government should initiate a national public awareness and education campaign informed by previous successful campaigns. (White House Cyberspace Policy Review, 2011)
The Prominence of the Non-military Aspects of Warfare. Non-military means of warfare, such as cyber, economic, resource, psychological, and information-based forms of conflict will become more prevalent in conflicts over the next two decades. In the future, states and non-state adversaries will engage in “media warfare” to dominate the 24-hour news cycle and manipulate public opinion to advance their own agenda and gain popular support for their cause. (“Global Trends 2025,” National Intelligence Council, 2008)
The Money Card A key point being used to “educate” the public is the putative astronomical monetary loss caused by cybercrime in all its forms. There is, of course, no way to ascertain the validity of these numbers or even to figure out just what kind of losses are included in the estimates, which are generally arrived at by the large cybersecurity corporations. Some loss-figures appear to include the fall in a company’s stock price that usually follows revelation of a major hack (but doesn’t adjust that figure when the stock price climbs back up), as well as adding in an arbitrary sum attributable to time lost in recovery.
The largest global estimate of money lost to cybercrime currently floating around – as totted up by McAfee, the world’s largest cybersecurity company and endorsed by the White House – is $1 trillion a year. Symantec Corp., another cybersecurity giant, calculates the annual toll of global cybercrime to be about $388 billion. For dramatic impact, Symantec notes that figure is greater than the black market in marijuana, cocaine and heroin combined. Either of those (wildly divergent) sums is impressive, but do they mean anything? Or are they just part of a government “education campaign modeled on previous successful campaigns,” such as selling the public on the certainty of WMDs in Hussein’s Iraq?
Far from being broadly based estimates of losses across the population, the cyber-crime estimates that we have appear to be largely the answers of a handful of people extrapolated to the whole population. A single individual who claims $50,000 losses, in an N = 1000 person survey, is all it takes to generate a $10 billion loss over the population. One unverified claim of $7,500 in phishing losses translates into $1.5 billion.
Our assessment of the quality of cyber-crime surveys is harsh: they are so compromised and biased that no faith whatever can be placed in their findings.
There has long been a shortage of hard data about information security failures, as many of the available statistics are not only poor but are collected by parties such as security vendors or law enforcement agencies that have a vested interest in under- or over-reporting. (“Sex, Lies and Cyber-crime Surveys,” Microsoft Research)
The Cybersecurity-Industrial Complex The fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) surrounding cyberspace has helped turn cybersecurity into an enormously profitable business, worth between $60 and $100 billion a year, depending on who’s providing the statistics. The sector is expected to grow 10 percent annually for at least the next five years. You don’t have to attribute any ethical lapses in the cybersecurity industry to recognize that it, like the government, has a great interest in “educating” the public in cybersecurity awareness.
Security experts say that it is virtually impossible for any company or government agency to build a security network that hackers will be unable to penetrate. (Reuters, 27 May 2011)
“I am convinced that every company in every conceivable industry with significant size and valuable intellectual property and trade secrets has been compromised (or will be shortly), with the great majority of the victims rarely discovering the intrusion or its impact …. In fact, I divide the entire set of Fortune Global 2,000 firms into two categories: those that know they’ve been compromised and those that don’t yet know.” – Dmitri Alperovitch, Vice President of Threat Research for McAfee
The military-industrial complex of the Cold War era has morphed into the cybersecurity-military/industrial-Homeland Security complex of the Cyber War era … to which there is no end in sight. With the cybersecurity industry creating the technology required to stem the very cyberattacks they are in charge of discovering and monitoring, we face an endless cyberarms race that will undoubtedly be fed on exaggerations of the virtual menace and our vulnerability to it.
On the heels of the fear and hysteria will come the firm push for strict control and regulation of the Internet. It will be championed by government and industry as the necessary response to cyberwar, cyberterrorism, and cybercrime which, since cyberspace is considered a “strategic national asset,” are essentially all the same.
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) for instance, which is scheduled for a vote in 2012, will take a page from the National Defense Appropriation Act of 2012. In order to protect the rights of copyright holders to profit from their intellectual property, SOPA would permit the dissolution of due process and open the door wide to censorship and the denial of the right to free speech. The bill, supporters suggest, is not just about recovering the billions lost to bootlegged movies and music, rather, it’s about protecting the military strength that ultimately depends on economic vitality.
We agree with The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has called SOPA the most extreme, anti-Internet, anti-privacy, anti-free speech copyright proposal in US legislative history. It is, however, only one of many legislative proposals likely to be steamrollered through Congress in the coming year.
Computer security expert Eugene Kaspersky, co-founder of Kaspersky Labs, envisions the “passportization” of the Internet. In his opinion, to access critical online services, such as banking or electronic voting, “it should be made mandatory to log-on only with the use of a unique personal identifier [for example, a token – a sort of cyber-passport] and establish a secure authoring connection.”
Microsoft has proposed what it calls a “public health model” for the Internet. Cybercitizens would be required to have a “clean bill of health,” make their computers open to inspection, and, if contaminated by a virus or other malware, be prepared for quarantine.
President Obama’s National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace is pushing for development and public adoption of Internet user authentication systems that will function as a driver’s license for the cyberhighway.
Government control of the flow of information will strike a blow against Internet anonymity and the free speech it has made possible. Driver’s license, bill of health, passport, whatever you call it – it’s all about the ability to track and control the individual. Today, traffic in copyrighted digital material is the criminal behavior supposedly under attack; tomorrow, it will be the ability to speak out against corrupt government.
Hello, Big Brother.
Trendpost: The demand for ever-more effective cybersecurity tools to counter the ever-more inventive depredations of cybercriminals and cyberwarriors will be with us far into the foreseeable future. Clearly, this situation will create many jobs, both for the formally educated and the creative hacker. In addition, The National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education – established to provide cyber-awareness training to students in Kindergarten through post-graduate programs – will need many specialized teachers.
Somewhat farther along on the timeline, there is a high likelihood that the manufacture of cyber-components will be repatriated to the US. The 2011 Department of Defense’s “Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace” notes: “The majority of information technology products used in the United States are manufactured and assembled overseas. The reliance of DoD on foreign manufacturing and development creates challenges in managing risk at points of design, manufacture, service, distribution, and disposal.”
A high probability exists that 2012 will bring revelations about contamination in the global IT hardware and software supply chain and proof that computer components are providing our “enemies” with entry to critical networks or transmitting sensitive information to them. This will turn the DoD’s security concern into a hot imperative.

2012-01-28T00:21:00.000-08:00

Anonymous claims Stratfor spied on OWS.

Protesters affiliated with Occupy Wall Street demonstrate during an Occupy the Courts protest outside Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse on January 20, 2012 in New York City

Anonymous promised that after hacking the intelligence firm Stratfor, called by some a “shadow CIA,” they’d prove that they were more than just a consulting firm.
Now it looks like the private company worked along with law enforcement in attempting to bring down the Occupy movement.
In some of the latest pieces of correspondence made public, however, information that many had already suspected about the role law enforcement played in infiltrating the Occupy Wall Street movement is brought to light. In an exchange of emails between Stratfor executives that has been published by hackers involved in the matter, employees of the firm go back-and-forth with one another in detail over information that Texas law enforcement supplied the firm after investigating an Austin Occupy meet-up.
In the emails, Strafor employees discuss intel about the Occupy movement that was supplied to them by a “Texas DPS agent,” or an officer within the ranks of the Lone Star State’s Department of Public Safety. The DPS is a state-wide law enforcement agency that investigates suspicious activity and allegations of terrorism within Texas. The question of why state law enforcement shared that email with a private intelligence firm is open to interpretation, but certainly suggests that attempts to understand and perhaps undermine the local OWS chapter was more than just a minor operation.
According to the documentation, which includes correspondence from late 2011, Stratfor employees discuss both Occupy Austin and the Deep Green Resistance, or DGR. While DGR is not directly affiliated with Occupy Wall Street, it is a similar movement — to a degree — that encourages environmental activism that isn’t present in more mainstream campaigns. In a press release, the DGR attacks both Texas authorities and Strafor for their newly revealed roles.
“Deep Green Resistance condemns the surveillance and infiltration of activist groups by law enforcement and private corporations and calls on activists and their allies to expose and protest this violation of all of our constitutional rights,” the group says in a statement published Thursday.
Rachel Meeropol, a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, adds that she is outraged over how Stratfor and the DPS were in cahoots over infiltrating Occupy Austin.
“Law enforcement sharing information about local activism with private intelligence firms should be a huge scandal,” writes Meeropol in Thursday’s statement. “Privately funded surveillance and infiltration of activist groups is especially chilling, as time and again we see such corporations operate as if they are above the law and accountable to no one.”
In the emails, Stratfor staffers discuss how one of their own men went undercover to an Occupy Austin General Assembly and attempted to gain insight into how the group operates. Stratfor’s Scott Stewart writes that the movement is considered by some to be “a terrible threat to corporations,” but adds, “in reality, due to the history of anarchists, animal rights, anti-war and anti-globalization protesters, companies are well prepared for such hippy hijinks.” As the Occupy movement continues to thrive more than three months after Stewart shared such words with other Stratfor employees, it is clear that that isn’t the case.
In a separate email sent a month later in November, Korena Zucha of Stratfor writes that a Texas DPS agent has shared information about both movements. In it, Deep Green is linked with Occupy Austin, which DGR shrugs off as speculation. Representatives for DGR believe that the correspondence suggests that surveillance of both groups was ongoing.
In the back-and-forth, Stratfor staffers suggest that sources within Occupy Austin describe some of the DGR members as crazy, to which one adds, “that bothers me, because these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.”
Stratfor’s Marc Lanthemann, who signs his email as a “Watch Officer” for the firm, suggests that coordination between the DGR and Occupy movement could have dire consequences. Lanthemann writes in one email that he thinks Deep Green is an “eco-terror group is focused on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate outcome.”
“It doesn’t require an agent to get simple facts correct. Both of these assertions are just plain false,” responds DGR.

2012-01-24T05:03:00.000-08:00

Inside the Iraq War.

For most of the last decade, Iraq occupied center stage in the Arab world, as it was swiftly invaded and occupied by American forces in March 2003 before being wracked by the insurgency that sprang up in opposition and then by waves of sectarian killing that grew into something close to a civil war.
Since the bloodshed peaked in 2006, order was gradually restored, though violence remained high by any but wartime standards. The fairest elections in the country’s history in March 2010 led to the creation of a government of national unity, although after eight months of political stalemate that played out mostly along sectarian lines.
On Dec. 15, 2011, the American military formally ended its mission in Iraq, one that cost the lives of 4,487 service members, with another 32,226 wounded in action; more than one million service members served in Iraq during the course of the conflict. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died in the fighting that followed, although there are no firm estimates.
The closing ceremony in Baghdad sounded an uncertain trumpet for a war that was started to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction it did not have. It ended without the sizable, enduring American military presence for which many officers had hoped, and with the country facing a political crisis.
Even after the formal withdrawal, the military still has two bases in Iraq and roughly 4,000 troops. At the height of the war in 2007, there were 505 bases and more than 170,000 troops. More than one million service members served in Iraq during the course of the conflict.
The end of America’s military involvement reflected the messy, sectarian state of Iraqi politics — both in terms of the political forces that led to America’s withdrawal and in the sectarian political strains that boiled over as soon as the last troops had left.

Rising Strife Threatens Tenuous Stability:

Violence and political instability have escalated across Iraq since the withdrawal of American forces, as political and sectarian factions have fought for power and influence in a struggle that, within weeks, threatened to undo the stability that allowed the pullout in the first place.
In January 2012, a Shiite governor threatened to blockade an important commercial arterial road from Baghdad to the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north if Kurdish officials did not hand over Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi to government authorities. The Shiite-led national government has accused Mr. Hashimi, a Sunni, of running a sectarian death squad.
On Jan. 22, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch said the Americans had left behind a “budding police state,” with the country’s Shiite leadership increasingly ruling by force and fear. Insurgent attacks have surged across the country, and security forces loyal to the Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a Shiite, have pressed a campaign against Sunni politicians.
The turmoil has come at a time when Iraqis had hoped their leaders would be emboldened by their new independence to tackle the nation’s multitude of problems — finally confronting the social, economic and religious divisions that were papered over by the presence of American troops.
But while there remains hope that Iraqis can still unite, the country is far from the “sovereign, stable and self-reliant” place that President Obama described at the time of the American military withdrawal.
The criticisms from Human Rights Watch were released in their annual report on human rights in various countries. The group said that the Iraqi government had significantly restricted freedom of expression in the nation over the past year and that security forces had intimidated, beaten and detained activists, demonstrators and journalists.
“After the formal withdrawal last month, the political clampdown has intensified, and Maliki has threatened his political opponents with jail,” the group’s Middle East director, Sarah Leah Whitson, said in an interview.
At the same time, Al Qaeda has increased its attacks. On three different days in the month since the withdrawal, the daily death toll rose past 60, and on more than a dozen days the toll was more than 10. Without the help of American Special Operations forces, the Iraqi military and police forces have appeared unable to curb attacks on religious pilgrims, civilians and security officers.
As problems have persisted inside Iraq, its leaders have struggled to deal with neighbors, including Turkey, one of the largest foreign investors.
According to members of Mr. Maliki’s bloc, the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, called Iraqi politicians in mid-January and told them that they should peacefully deal with one another as they try to resolve their differences.
Around the same time, Mr. Erdogan called Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to express his concern about the tensions between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, warning that the crisis could lead to a sectarian war.
The calls angered Mr. Maliki because he felt that Mr. Erdogan, a Sunni, was criticizing how he was dealing with the country’s affairs. In a television interview, Mr. Maliki said that Mr. Erdogan was acting as though he controlled Iraq, and said that Mr. Erdogan should stop meddling.
The issue has lingered. Soon after, the head of Iran’s Quds Force was reported to have said that Iraq and southern Lebanon were under Iranian control. In response, top Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite politicians in Iraq called on Mr. Maliki to reprimand the Iranians as he had the Turks.

Widening Sectarian and Political Conflicts:

Within days of the departure of the last American convoy, the country was in political turmoil that was extreme even by its own standards. The Shiite-dominated government issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, one of the country’s most prominent Sunni leaders, accusing him of running a personal death squad that assassinated security officials and government bureaucrats. Mr. Hashimi denied the charges and accused Mr. Maliki’s government of using the country’s security forces to persecute political opponents, specifically Sunnis.
Almost as significant as what Mr. Hashimi said was where he said it: in Erbil, the capital of the semi-autonomous northern region of Kurdistan. Because of the region’s autonomy, Mr. Maliki’s security forces cannot easily act on the warrant. Mr. Hashimi said he would not return to Baghdad, effectively making him an internal exile
The following day Mr. Maliki threatened to abandon the American-backed power sharing government created a year previously, and ward Kurdish leaders that there would be “problems’' if they did not hand over Mr. Hashimi.
On Dec. 26, 2011, a powerful political group led by the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr called for Parliament to be dissolved and early elections to be held, the first open challenge to Mr. Maliki from within his Shiite coalition. The move by the Sadr bloc is not enough to immediately bring down the Maliki government. But even the prospect of a new vote adds more uncertainty to Iraq’s fragile political landscape, possibly setting the country’s main factions — Shiites, Sunnis and ethnic Kurds — and its byzantine networks of political allies scrambling for turf, influence, money and votes.
Less than two weeks later, Mr. Maliki’s government indicated that it was welcoming an Iranian-backed militia, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, into Iraq’s political system. The Shiite-led government’s support for the militia, which had only just sworn off violence, opened new sectarian fault lines in Iraq’s political crisis while potentially empowering Iran at a moment of rising military and economic tensions between Tehran and Washington. It could also tilt the nation’s center of gravity closer to Iran.
Asaib Ahl al-Haq — the name translates as League of the Righteous — broke away from the militia commanded by Moktada al-Sadr. The American military has long maintained that the group, led by a former spokesman for Mr. Sadr, Qais al-Khazali, was trained and financed by Iran’s elite Quds Force — something that Iran denies.
One of the deadliest insurgent groups operating in Iraq, Asaib Ahl al-Haq bombed American military convoys and bases, assassinated dozens of Iraqi officials and tried to kidnap Americans even as the last soldiers withdrew. Military officials said the group was responsible for the last American combat death in Iraq, a November 2011 roadside bomb attack in Baghdad.
Thousands of other militants, both Sunni and Shiite, cut deals with the government to stop fighting, and few officials see a meaningful peace in Iraq that does not include reconciling with armed groups. Yet critics worry that Mr. Maliki, facing fierce challenges to his leadership from Sunnis and even his fellow Shiites, may be making a cynical and shortsighted play for Asaib’s support. They say Mr. Maliki may use the group’s credentials as Shiite resistance fighters to divide challengers in his own Shiite coalition and weaken Mr. Sadr’s powerful bloc, which draws its political lifeblood from the Shiite underclass.
By doing so, Iraq’s government could embolden a militia with an almost nonexistent track record of peace while potentially handing Tehran greater influence in a country where the United States spent billions of dollars and lost nearly 4,500 American soldiers in nearly nine years of war.
Moreover, some American and Iraqi officials are leery about whether Asaib Ahl al-Haq is truly ready to forswear violence, especially with thousands of American diplomats and security contractors still in the country. Mr. Maliki’s attempts to marginalize the country’s Sunni minority and consolidate power have amplified their fears and, not coincidentally, precipitated a political crisis.
The arrest warrant for Mr. Hashimi that ignited the first spark of the the political crisis followed a near breakdown of relations between Mr. Maliki, a religious Shiite, and his adversaries in the Iraqiya coalition, a large political bloc that holds some 90 seats in Parliament and is supported by many Sunni Iraqis. Members of the Iraqiya coalition walked away from Parliament, accusing Mr. Maliki of seizing power and thwarting democratic procedures through a wave of politically tinged arrests.
In calling for the Kurds to turn over Mr. Hashemi, Mr. Maliki risked alienating a powerful minority that operates in its own semi-autonomous region and whose support he would need to form a new government without the support of the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya. While in the north, Mr. Hashemi is largely out of reach of Mr. Maliki’s security forces, and from there could easily flee the country.

A New Level of Insurgent Violence:

After the American military withdrawal, a fierce string of attacks occurred at the end of 2011 and continued into the new year, adding a new level of violence to the political and sectarian feuds.
In late December, the Sunni insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq killed more than 63 people in a series of explosions that ripped through Baghdad, transforming the morning commute into a bloodbath. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been accused of trying to plunge the country back into a sectarian conflict by pitting Sunnis and Shiites against one another.
On Jan. 5, 2012, insurgents launched a series of bombings against Shiite pilgrims making their way to the holy city of Karbala for Arbaeen, one of the holiest Shiite holidays. According to security officials, 68 people were killed in the attacks and more than 100 wounded.
On Jan. 14, insurgents mounted another attack against Shiites, as an explosion in the southern city of Basra killed 64 pilgrims traveling to a mosque in the city of Zubayr, just west of Basra, to commemorate the last day of Arbaeen.
The next day, in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province, insurgents detonated car bombs, and gunmen dressed as police officers wearing vests filled with explosives attacked a police compound where a top insurgent leader was being held, security officials said. Nine people, including five police officers, were killed; six insurgents, including three who detonated their explosives, also died.
No group claimed responsibility for the Jan. 14 or Jan. 15 attack, which appeared similar to others carried out by Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Crackdown on Foreign Contractors:

In the weeks following the military withdrawal, Iraqi authorities detained a few hundred foreign contractors, including many Americans who work for the United States Embassy, in one of the first major signs of the Iraqi government’s asserting its sovereignty since American troops pulled out of the country in December 2011.
The detentions occurred largely at the airport in Baghdad and at checkpoints around the capital after the Iraqi authorities raised questions about the contractors’ documents, including visas, weapons permits and authorizations to drive certain routes. Although no formal charges were filed, the detentions have lasted from a few hours to nearly three weeks.
The crackdown came amid other moves by the Iraqi government to take over functions that had been performed by the U.S. military and to claim areas of the country it had controlled. In the final weeks of the military withdrawal, the son of Iraq’s prime minister began evicting Western companies and contractors from the heavily fortified Green Zone, which had been the heart of U.S. military operations for much of the war.
Just after the last American troops left in December, the Iraqis stopped issuing and renewing many weapons licenses and other authorizations. The restrictions created a sequence of events in which contractors were being detained for having expired documents that the government would not renew.
The Iraqi authorities have also imposed new limitations on visas. In some recent cases, contractors have been told they have 10 days to leave Iraq or face arrest in what some industry officials call a form of controlled harassment.

Negotiations and an Exodus:

In 2008, Iraq and the United States signed a status of forces agreement, negotiated in the last days of the Bush administration, that called for the withdrawal of all American troops by the end of 2011. But the agreement was reached with a wink-and-nod understanding that a politically palatable way would be found to keep a substantial American troop presence in the country after that date.
But a number of Iraqi political factions publicly resisted the idea of a continued American military presence — notably the Sadrists, led by Moktada al-Sadr, an anti-American Shiite cleric who has called on his followers to attack American forces if they remain after the deadline. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had gained a second term only when Mr. Sadr through his support behind him after indecisive parliamentary elections in 2010.
The departure of American troops had coincided with rising concerns — in Iraq and in Washington — over Mr. Maliki’s increasingly aggressive use of power. Frequent raids in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone and the arrest of 600 former Baathists in November 2011, purportedly to head off a coup, fanned fears that Mr. Maliki will use the threat of terrorism and unrest as a pretext to strike political foes — and over whether Iraq’s fragile democracy will slide into a return to one-man rule.
Negotiations regarding American troops will continue. Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to come back in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago. Other scenarios being discussed include training in the United States, in a neighboring country such as Kuwait or having some American troops come back under the auspices of NATO.
In the meantime, an agreement is in place to keep more than 150 Defense Department personnel, both military and civilian, in Iraq to secure the American Embassy, manage military sales and carry out standard duties of a defense attaché and office of security cooperation. They will operate under the authority of the State Department, which will be taking the leading role in Iraq.
Leaders among the Kurds and Sunnis would like some American troops to stay as a buffer against what they fear will be Shiite political dominance, coupled in turn with the rising influence of neighboring Iran. And the senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, had proposed keeping as many as 14,000 to 18,000 troops there.
Even as the military reduces its troop strength in Iraq, the C.I.A. will continue to have a major presence in the country, as will security contractors working for the State Department.

No Iraqi Spring:

The one kind of turmoil Iraq has seen little of is the pro-democracy movement that sprang to life in early 2011 across the region, the so-called Arab spring. In February, demonstrators turned out, not seeking to topple their leaders but demanding better government services after years of war and deprivation. But security forces responded with a heavy hand.
In a country where the demographics skew even younger than in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya, the wave of political change in the region has laid bare a generation gap split by old resentments nurtured by dictatorship and war and a youthful grasping for a stake in the new Iraq. But the forces of youth are blunted by the same forces that have robbed Iraqi society of so much for so long — violence, a stagnant economy, zero-sum politics and sectarianism — and that have prevented a new political class from emerging to take Iraq into a new democratic future.

History of the Invasion of Iraq:
Almost immediately after ousting the Taliban from power in Afghanistan following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — some argue, even before — President George W. Bush began to press the case for an American-led invasion of Iraq. He cited the possibility that Saddam Hussein still sought nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in defiance of United Nations restrictions and sanctions. Mr. Bush and other senior American officials also sought to link Iraq to Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Both claims have since been largely discredited, though some officials and analysts continue to argue otherwise, saying that Mr. Hussein’s Iraq posed a real and imminent threat to the region and to the United States.
In his State of the Union address in 2002 , Mr. Bush linked Iraq with Iran and North Korea as an " axis of evil. '' In his 2003 address , Mr. Bush made it clear the United States would use force to disarm Mr. Hussein, despite the continuing work of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, and despite growing international protests, even from some allies. A week later Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made the administration’s case before the United Nations Security Council with photographs, intercepted messages and other props, including a vial that, he said, could hold enough anthrax to shut down the United States Senate.
The invasion of Iraq began on March 19, 2003 — the early hours of March 20 in Iraq — when Mr. Bush ordered missiles fired at a bunker in Baghdad where he believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding. Within weeks, with a “coalition of the willing” and disputed legal authority , the United States quickly toppled Mr. Hussein’s government, despite fierce fighting by some paramilitary groups. The Iraqi leader himself reportedly narrowly avoided being killed in the war’s first air strikes. The Army’s Third Infantry Division entered Baghdad on April 5, seizing what was once called Saddam Hussein International Airport. On April 9, a statue of Mr. Hussein in Firdos Square was pulled down with the help of the Marines. That effectively sealed the capture of Baghdad, but began a new war.

Chaos and Insurgency:
The fall of Iraq’s brutal, powerful dictator unleashed a wave of celebration, then chaos, looting, violence and ultimately insurgency. Rather than quickly return power to the Iraqis, including political and religious leaders returning from exile, the United States created an occupation authority that took steps widely blamed for alienating many Iraqis and igniting Sunni-led resistance. They included disbanding the Iraqi Army and purging members of the former ruling Baath Party from government and public life, both with consequences felt to this day. On May 1, 2003, Mr. Bush appeared on an American aircraft carrier that carried a banner declaring " Mission Accomplished ,” a theatrical touch that even the president years later acknowledged sent the wrong message.
In the security and political vacuum that followed the invasion, violence erupted against the American-led occupation forces and against the United Nations headquarters, which was bombed in August 2003, killing the body’s special representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello. The capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 — the former leader was found unshaven and disheveled in a spider hole north of Baghdad — did nothing to halt the bloodshed. Nor did the formal transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people in June 2004, which took place a few months after the publication of photographs showing the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib had further fueled anger and anti-American sentiment.
In January 2005, the Americans orchestrated Iraq’s first multi-party elections in five decades, a moment symbolized by Iraqis waving fingers marked in purple ink after they voted. The elections for a Transitional National Assembly reversed the historic political domination of the Sunnis, who had largely boycotted the vote. A Shiite coalition supported by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite cleric, won a plurality, and put Shiites in power, along with the Kurds. Saddam Hussein stood trial, remaining defiant and unrepentant as he faced charges of massacring Shiites in Dujail in 1982.
A new constitution followed by the end of the year, and new elections in January 2006 cemented the new balance of power, but also exposed simmering sectarian tensions, as many Sunnis boycotted. In February 2006, the bombing of the Askariya Mosque in Samarra, one of the most revered Shiite shrines, set off a convulsion of violence against both Sunnis and Shiites that amounted to a civil war. In Baghdad, it soon was not unusual for 30 bodies or more to be found on the streets every day, as Shiite death squads operated without hindrance and Sunnis retaliated. That steady toll was punctuated by spikes from bomb blasts, usually aimed at Shiites. Even more families fled, as neighborhoods and entire cities were ethnically cleansed. Ultimately, more than 2 million people were displaced in Iraq, and many of them are still abroad to this day, unable or too afraid to return.
Arab and Kurdish tensions also ran high. In Mosul, a disputed city in the north, Sunni militants attacked Kurdish and Christian enclaves. The fate of Kirkuk, populated by Arabs, Kurds and smaller minority groups, remains disputed territory, punctured routinely by killings and bombings. After a political impasse that reflected the chaos in the country, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a little-known Shiite politician previously known as Jawad al-Maliki, became Iraq’s first permanent prime minister in April 2006.

At Home:
The messy aftermath of a swift military victory made the war in Iraq increasingly unpopular at home, but not enough to derail Mr. Bush’s re-election in November 2004. Almost immediately afterwards, though, his approval rating dropped as the war dragged on. It never recovered. By 2006, Democrats regained control of Congress. Their victory rested in large part on the growing sentiment against the war, which rose with the toll of American deaths, which reached 3,000 by the end of the year, and its ever spiraling costs. Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death just before the Congressional elections, and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned the day after the vote, widely blamed for having mismanaged the war.
In the face of rising unpopularity and against the advice of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan group of prominent Americans, Mr. Bush ordered a large increase in American forces, then totaling roughly 130,000 troops.
The “surge,” as the increase became known, eventually raised the number of troops to more than 170,000. It coincided with a new counterinsurgency strategy that had been introduced by a new American commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the flowering of a once-unlikely alliance with Sunnis in Anbar province and elsewhere. Moktada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric, whose followers in the Mahdi Army militia had been responsible for some of the worst brutality in Baghdad, declared a cease-fire in September. These factors came together in the fall of 2007 to produce a sharp decline in violence.
Political progress and ethnic reconciliation were halting, though, fueling calls by Democrats to begin a withdrawal of American forces, though they lacked sufficient votes in Congress to force one. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, an early opponent of the war, rose to prominence in the Democratic race for the nomination in large part by capitalizing on the war’s unpopularity. But by the time Mr. Obama defeated Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for the nomination in 2008 and then the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, Iraq hardly loomed as an issue as it once had, both because of the drop in violence there and because of the rising economic turmoil in the United States and later the world.

Bush Reaches for an Agreement:
At the end of 2007, Mr. Bush and General Petraeus had succeeded in maintaining the level of American forces in Iraq above what it was before the “surge” began. Mr. Maliki’s government, increasingly confident of its growing military might, expanded operations against insurgents and other militants that had once been the exclusive fight of the Americans. The militias loyal to Mr. Sadr, who had gone into exile, were routed in a government-led offensive in southern Iraq, though significant assistance from American forces and firepower was needed for the Iraqis to succeed. By May, the offensive extended to Sadr City in Baghdad, a densely populated neighborhood that had been largely outside of the government’s control.
American and Iraqi officials spent most of 2008 negotiating a new security agreement to replace the United Nations mandate authorizing the presence of foreign troops. Negotiations proceeded haltingly for months, but Mr. Bush, who for years railed against those calling for timetables for withdrawal, agreed in July 2008 to a “general time horizon.” That ultimately became a firm pledge to remove all American combat forces from Iraqi cities by the end of June 2009 and from the whole country by 2011. He also agreed to give Iraq significant control over combat operations, detentions of prisoners and even prosecutions of American soldiers for grave crimes, though with enough caveats to make charges unlikely.

Plans for Withdrawal:
The American military returned control of military operations to Iraq’s military and police on Jan. 1, 2009. The American combat mission — Operation Iraqi Freedom, in the Pentagon’s argot — officially ended on Aug. 31, 2010.
President Obama marked the date with a prime-time address from the Oval Office, saying that the United States had met its responsibility to Iraq and that it was time to turn to pressing problems at home.
The mission’s name changed from Operation Iraqi Freedom to Operation New Dawn, and the 50,000 remaining transitional troops were scheduled to leave by the end of 2011.
At the end of June 2009, also in keeping with the security agreement, the vast majority of American troops withdrew from Iraq’s cities, garrisoning themselves on vast bases outside. Mr. Maliki declared June 30 a national holiday, positioning himself as a proud leader who ended the foreign occupation of Iraq. But Mr. Maliki’s fanfare about ending the occupation rang hollow for Iraqis who feared that their country’s security forces were not yet ready to stand alone. A series of catastrophic attacks in August, October, December and January 2010 — striking government ministries, universities, hotels — only heightened anxiety and suspicion among Iraqis.

Iraq’s Fractious Postwar Politics:
Iraq’s latest parliamentary election was originally scheduled for December 2009, but was delayed for months by political bickering. A parliamentary commission with disputed legal standing disqualified more than 500 candidates on the grounds they were former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party or remained sympathetic to it.
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, hoping to build on his success in the 2009 provincial elections, sought to form a broader, cross-sectarian coalition that would include Sunnis, Kurds and other minority groups. Other parties followed suit, appealing for “national unity” in a country where it has rarely before existed, and only then a unity ruled by an iron hand.
They faced a formidable challenge from a coalition led by Ayad Allawi, a Shiite who served as interim prime minister before the 2005 elections. Mr. Allawi’s alliance, called Iraqiya, drew broader support across the country’s sectarian lines.
The pre-election turmoil unfolded against a backdrop of violence and intimidation, and a steady withdrawal of American troops. On Feb. 12, 2010, the Islamic State of Iraq, the insurgent group that now includes the remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, vowed to disrupt the elections. While the level of violence plunged from the shocking carnage of 2006 and 2007, suicide bombers continued to attack, seemingly at will, plunging Baghdad into chaos on a regular basis and undercutting Mr. Maliki’s claims to have restored security. Political disputes between Arabs and Kurds in the north continued to fester, prompting the Americans to intervene. Mr. Maliki’s use of the military and security forces to settle political disputes also raised alarms, and put the Americans in the awkward middle.
Election Day in March 2010 was marked by violence that left at least 38 dead, but that did not dissuade voters from turning out in large numbers. The vote counting process proved to be more chaotic than expected, with accusations of fraud by leading parties, divisions among highly politicized electoral officials and chaos in disclosing the results.
The initial results showed the coalition led by Mr. Allawi taking a slim lead over the slate of Mr. Maliki. Mr. Allawi, although himself a Shiite, benefited from a surge in voting by Sunnis, many of whom boycotted earlier elections.
Mr. Maliki vigorously challenged the results, but Mr. Allawi’s narrow lead survived a recount. Mr. Maliki also forged an alliance between his coalition and the other major Shiite bloc, a move that cleared the way for a Shiite-dominated government for the next four years. Together they were only four votes short of a majority, leading many in Iraq to expect that a deal could be reached with Kurdish parties, once the Kurds extract new promises of expanded autonomy.
But as weeks dragged on, the Shiite alliance had not agreed on a candidate for prime minister, as many of its members strongly oppose giving Mr. Maliki a second term. The leader of one Shiite faction, Moktada al-Sadr, an anti-American cleric, even met with Mr. Allawi in an apparent effort to increase pressure on Mr. Maliki to step aside. American efforts to have the two men share power also failed to resolve the issue.
On October 1 it was announced that Mr. Maliki’s party, State of Law, and another Shiite party with ties to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr shut out a third, the Iraqi National Alliance, and its contender, Adel Abdelmehdi, in negotiations within the Shiite bloc.
The Kurds, with 57 seats in the new 325-member Parliament, emerged as powerbrokers in the final talks, throwing their support behind Mr. Maliki in exchange for holding onto the presidency.
The Obama administration had for months urged Iraq’s quarreling factions to create a government that included all major ethnic and sectarian groups, lest the country descend into the chaos that consumed it in the worst years after the invasion of 2003.
Under the new pact, the county’s current president, Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader, remaiedn as president, solidifying the role of Iraq’s Kurds. The new government that will oversee the withdrawal of American troops on paper looked much like the one that has governed in the past four tumultuous years. But Mr. Allawi’s role in the new government was ill-defined.
Mr. Maliki was formally granted a second term on Dec. 21, when Parliament unanimously voted to accept the cabinet he had painstakingly assembled.
By the following summer, feuding between the two men had brought the government into a state of paralysis. Mr. Maliki and Mr. Allawi, who still refused to speak to each other, had not even been able to agree on choices for the two most important ministries, defense and interior.
Deadly attacks in August 2011 heightened political tensions as Mr. Maliki appointed a member of his governing coalition as acting defense minister. Sunni leaders criticized the appointment as reneging on the earlier political deal.

The Drawdown:
The protracted election turmoil, and the strengthened position of the fiercely anti-American Mr. Sadr, cast doubt on establishing any enduring American military role in Iraq after the last of nearly 50,000 troops withdraw. Given Iraq’s military shortcomings, especially in air power, intelligence coordination and logistics, American and Iraqi officials had long expected that some American military presence, even if only in an advisory role, would continue beyond 2011.
But strong opposition, especially from Mr. Sadr, complicated the question. Militias linked to Mr. Sadr produced a burst of violence against American forces in the spring of 2011, and he gave hints that he might renew such attacks if troops stayed on past the deadline.
Military experts and some Iraqi officials had said that U.S. forces should stay to help with tasks that included training Iraqi forces to operate and logistically support new M-1 tanks, artillery and F-16s they intend to acquire from the Americans; protecting Iraq’s airspace until the country can rebuild its air force; and perhaps assisting Iraq’s special operations units in carrying out counterterrorism operations.
But with the year-end deadline looming large because of the lead time the Pentagon needs to withdraw forces from Iraq, the combination of the political and logistical questions led to Mr. Panetta’s proposal for a 3,000-member training force, which analysts called a bare-bones approach.
But even that foundered in the face of the Iraqi decision to revoke legal immunity.
The departure of the soldiers is by no means the end of a large American presence. The administration had already drawn up plans for an extensive expansion of the American Embassy and its operations, bolstered by thousands of paramilitary security contractors. It also created an Office of Security Cooperation that, like similar ones in countries like Egypt, would be staffed by civilians and military personnel overseeing the training and equipping of Iraq’s security forces.
And the State Department was to assume responsibility for training the Iraqi police, a task that will largely be carried out by contractors. With no American soldiers to defuse sectarian tensions in northern Iraq, it will be up to American diplomats in two new $100 million outposts to head off potential confrontations between the Iraqi Army and Kurdish pesh merga forces.

2012-01-22T13:03:00.000-08:00

Collapse of the Celtic Tiger

A look at how a former beacon of booming development and social prosperity has been plunged into economic desperation.

Ireland has been one of the largest casualties in the global financial crisis, which began during the banking collapse of 2008 and has continued to impact markets and destabilise the developed world ever since.
Following a government guarantee to underwrite the country’s six major banks shortly after the crisis broke, Ireland’s population of 4.5 million was shouldered with an enormous debt of €400bn ($515bn), proportionately the highest per capita commitment in the world.
Yet with bank liabilities accounting for an eye watering 309 per cent of GDP, it quickly became apparent that Ireland would fail to find its own way out of the economic downturn. As a consequence, in 2010, the EU and IMF stepped in to offer Ireland a rescue package worth €85bn ($109bn) - then one of the largest bailouts in history.
How different it had been only a couple of years earlier. Then the country was riding high, revelling in its reputation as the ‘Celtic Tiger’.
With low interest rates, upwardly spiralling property values and seemingly inexhaustible lines of credit available from the banks, for a decade the Irish economy had seemed to be a pin-up for the new age of market deregulation. With money so easy to borrow and fantastic returns apparently offered by even the most speculative investments, property developers became the new heroes of the economy - lauded for their ability to magic profits out of thin air.
According to one of them, Simon Kelly: “We didn’t think we were borrowing it, we thought our businesses were borrowing it for the purposes of owning buildings or building hotels or doing commercial activities, which we all did.”

But it was not just the developers who were enjoying the boom; the country’s rapidly expanding middle classes felt richer too and enjoyed spending the money that seemed to flow so easily into their hands. With more consumers came more retail outlets, more hotels, more developments ....
Of course, like all bubbles, it had to burst eventually. And when it did the liabilities of Irish banks were so huge they threatened to take the whole economy with them - hence the government’s decision to prop them up.
The problem is that all this debt now has to be paid for, by higher taxes, reduced pensions and a shrinking public budget for things like social security, education, health and jobs.
The EU and IMF loans required the Irish government to hack public spending to the bone - by €12bn ($15bn) over the next three years. That may not sound like a huge sum of money in these days when international financial commentators talk blithely of trillions and quadrillions of dollars, but for a small country, with a population of only 4.5 million it is a huge sum.
And as the public sector has tightened its belt to meet these cuts, so the public sector has felt the pain too - businesses have closed, jobs have been lost and unemployment has soared. And inevitably the public mood has soured too.
In 2011, the Fianna Fail ruling party was comprehensively crushed in a general election dominated by angry recriminations over who was responsible for the crisis. But the problems facing Ireland have not gone away and as the years of austerity and cutback stretch out ahead, increasing numbers of young people are emigrating overseas, something that earlier generations of the Irish had been forced to do but which during the boom years had never seemed necessary.
Against this background, filmmaker Sinead O’Shea investigates how Ireland, once a beacon of booming development and social prosperity, could have reached such a point of economic desperation and asks whether the country can ever turn its fortunes around.

2012-01-19T01:32:00.000-08:00

10 reasons the U.S. is no longer the land of the free

By Jonathan Turley, Published: January/13/2012.

Barack Obama

Every year, the State Department issues reports on individual rights in other countries, monitoring the passage of restrictive laws and regulations around the world. Iran, for example, has been criticized for denying fair public trials and limiting privacy, while Russia has been taken to task for undermining due process. Other countries have been condemned for the use of secret evidence and torture.
Even as we pass judgment on countries we consider unfree, Americans remain confident that any definition of a free nation must include their own — the land of free. Yet, the laws and practices of the land should shake that confidence. In the decade since Sept. 11, 2001, this country has comprehensively reduced civil liberties in the name of an expanded security state. The most recent example of this was the National Defense Authorization Act, signed Dec. 31, which allows for the indefinite detention of citizens. At what point does the reduction of individual rights in our country change how we define ourselves? While each new national security power Washington has embraced was controversial when enacted, they are often discussed in isolation. But they don’t operate in isolation. They form a mosaic of powers under which our country could be considered, at least in part, authoritarian. Americans often proclaim our nation as a symbol of freedom to the world while dismissing nations such as Cuba and China as categorically unfree. Yet, objectively, we may be only half right. Those countries do lack basic individual rights such as due process, placing them outside any reasonable definition of “free,” but the United States now has much more in common with such regimes than anyone may like to admit.

These countries also have constitutions that purport to guarantee freedoms and rights. But their governments have broad discretion in denying those rights and few real avenues for challenges by citizens — precisely the problem with the new laws in this country.
The list of powers acquired by the U.S. government since 9/11 puts us in rather troubling company.

Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Indefinite detention
Under the law signed last month, terrorism suspects are to be held by the military; the president also has the authority to indefinitely detain citizens accused of terrorism. While the administration claims that this provision only codified existing law, experts widely contest this view, and the administration has opposed efforts to challenge such authority in federal courts. The government continues to claim the right to strip citizens of legal protections based on its sole discretion. (China recently codified a more limited detention law for its citizens, while countries such as Cambodia have been singled out by the United States for “prolonged detention.”)

U.S. President Barack Obama supports the killers in Iraq.

2012-01-14T14:40:00.000-08:00

Dirty Tricks and media manipulation.

Mostly when I write my articles they come easily, except the ones like Pass me the spinach where I bare a little more of my soul than I would really like to, but find that it's just got to be done for clarity and maybe just a little closure. Some people can go through life happily with the usual milestones, birthdays, Christmases, engagement, marriage and of course children, but for whatever reason - I could get very philosophical here -that life just wasn't meant for me. I have a very different life to many people, it's not always been one of my choosing but it's what I have lived and unless someone invents a time machine in the very near future, there's no way that I can change what has already happened. But if they do invent a time machine and I can go back and avoid certain parts of my life in Iraq, believe me it will be the first thing I do. If however I am unable to change the facts of my life but just revisit as some sort of observer, I will do my utmost to get a signed, sworn statement from Uday Hussein and his father Saddam, attesting to the fact that I was Uday's fidai/body double, because after 20 years suddenly my story is at worst, fabricated and at best, highly exaggerated according to certain journalists. It really makes me smile! Of course I made it all up! Uday was a great guy! all the women loved him, he was such a looker that I had to pretend to be him to pick up chicks! NOT! He was an angel and anyone who ever sought refugee status outside of Iraq because he tortured them, raped them or murdered a member of their family is a liar! He was so innocent that the American soldiers who shot him, his brother and nephew to death at the villa in Mosul should all be court-martialed. I am of course being sarcastic, It's true I would have preferred to have seen Uday in court for his crimes and see him try to deny my story, but more on that at another time.

George W. Bush

You see, when I first left Iraq in 1992 and up until 2003 I was considered useful, whether I wanted to be or not, or whether I co-operated or not- which I didn't- my story backed up the American administrations desires to invade Iraq, unintentionally by writing my book in 1992 -the original Arabic manuscript- I gave them all the ammunition they needed to invade Iraq -except for W.M.D's I never had clearance for that kind of information- but they couldn't act on it then, they had to wait for the right time.
On September 11th 1991 George Bush Senior, then President of the United States of America gave his State of the Nation speech declaring his New World Order it took another ten years and a rigged election for his son George W. Bush to become President and the tragedy of the Twin towers for the dominoes to start falling.
What surprised everyone was that I was not a supporter of the war on Iraq, I was against the regime but I didn't want an invading force tearing my country apart, to this day I can't understand why people don't understand that.
I had always had a strained - we'll call it a- relationship with the CIA, they'd say " work for us", I'd say "NO", they'd say "we'll make your life hell!" I'd say "fuck you! do what you want!" and they have, I've been held in a covert prison, beaten and tortured, I have yet to attain citizenship from any country even though I lived in Europe for the past 20 years, Ireland for 15 of them, the last two of those I spent dying slowly while waiting on a hospital bed -I'm still waiting- so I could be fully diagnosed with whatever neurological disorder I have - it's "probable Multiple Sclerosis" but apart from the Brain lesions and the plaque on my spine ( which the Irish doctors tried to tell me and my wife "are within normal parameters") my neurologist here -here being my new home in Europe - is not finding things he thinks he should- still, at least I am getting treatment here, in Ireland it was left to my G.P. he did his best, but really all he could do for me without a diagnosis was just pain management. Strangely certain blood tests that he sent to the lab came back, destroyed/lost not once or twice or three times but four! Since leaving Ireland I have been diagnosed as a diabetic also, it seems that if I had stayed in Ireland much longer I may not have lasted much longer, maybe that was the idea?! Call me paranoid if you want, but when you have lived my life you know that there are no coincidences.

Wikipedia

So where am I going with this? Well how do you silence a person like me? I blog, I write books, I have my own website, I have my Youtube and Vimeo and now there's a movie based on my life story. These are all the ways people find me, with the birth of the internet the world opened up and you can find just about anyone, anywhere and because of this I have a loud voice in the world. What concerns the CIA is the support that people give me, they follow me on twitter, they are my facebook friends and they think about what I say, especially about the American administration, the CIA and Iraq, people ask me questions and are free to believe or not as the case may be. That's dangerous, they have spent the better part of the last decade trying to make sure that we only know what they want us to know and think what they want us to think on any given subject. So what are they going to do about me? They are going to try and discredit me, make me out to be some "Walter Mitty" figure -and that term has been used- they are going to try and convince you that I made it all up or that I have exaggerated my story -the truth of the matter is I haven't even told one tenth of my story- they want you to believe that I am telling you lies before I even open my mouth.
How do they do this? because there is no oversight in journalism anymore, people who call themselves journalists write articles, they don't really need any proof, they can use words like "source" "close aide to..." or "member of the Hussein inner circle" and try to make you believe that this person has "spilled the beans on me", ask yourself this, why now? Why after 20 years? More and more people are listening to me and less and less people are believing the shit that they are trying to feed us. They will try and imply that I have some sort of mental illness or syndrome, ironically, because let's face it how could I suffer from post-traumatic stress if I wasn't tortured?? If you need evidence of any of this just check out the Wikipedia page about me, I didn't set it up someone else did a few years ago, but just look at it... all you will find there is a brief history and then the allegations, backed up by the same two articles tagged repeatedly. Other editors have tried to remedy this by adding other articles by respected journalists like Marie Colvin, John Simpson, David Frost and Ed Bradley of CBS (RIP) to name a few, only to have those revisions deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be balanced, my page is not! I happen to like Wikipedia, I find it useful but Wikipedia only works when the people who upload and edit the material are completely unbiased, this cannot be said about my Wiki page and if you go into talk you will see the "chat" between two editors, one talks more than the other, interestingly the one who chats the most says "I left the page up only for the sake of poor saps who may be pulled in by this nonsensical claimsmaking in the future." I don't have a problem with additions to my Wiki page if they are accurate and balanced, everyone is entitled to their opinion but Wikipedia is not a place for opinion, it's a place for fact. Not one person in this world is liked by everyone that is a fact, I don't expect everyone to believe me either, but if you want to try and disprove my story bring me more than pimps who used to work for Uday, an ex- surgeon who was fired because it was found that he was stitching girls Uday had has his way with and who I had refused to help with his book and an ex- who hates my guts. You see that's all that they have, even after the fall of Saddam no-one found one document disproving that I was the double of Uday Saddam Hussein.

Dhafir Mohamed Jabir

There are no photographs of Haytham Adjmaya or Dhafir Jabir the "sources" in Ed Caesar's article because these guys know what they did when they were with Uday and know what would happen to them by the hands of Iraqis inside or outside Iraq if they were recognised.
A third Iraqi quoted as being one of "Saddam's bodyguards for several years" has also said that Uday didn't have a double, well, this "bodyguard" is none other than the guy who gave Saddam up, he gave Saddam Hussein his President up to the Americans for the 25 Million dollar ransom, to this day he hasn't received a penny of it! You see nobody likes a snitch, the Americans kicked his ass to Jordan and from there he was taken to the UK and now lives under protection, but is dragged out every now and then to 'make statements' I can only presume that he goes along with it in the hopes that if he's a 'good boy' he'll eventually get his money. Betrayal runs in his family, his cousin Fetah Al-Sheikh was in command of the interrogation of the suspects of the assassination attempt against Saddam Hussein in 1984 and Al-Djeil he killed 28 people during his interrogations but after the invasion of Iraq and his cousins handing over of Saddam, the Americans made him an offer. They told him he had two choices, he could be tried for the murder of the 28 people OR he could make a statement saying that Saddam had ordered the execution of the 28 and he was offered the position of Interior Minister in the post Saddam government, Fetah chose to become a witness against Saddam Hussein. During the trial of Saddam it was found that Fetah had cancer, knowing he would never make it to the courtroom a video tape was made of his evidence from his hospital room, it was shown on a big screen at the trail, Fetah's oxygen and medical equipment there for all to see.

Anyone who wishes to believe that I made this story up to sell books or make a movie - that would mean the I've spent the last 20 years waiting to make money that I'm donating to charity - here's a piece of advice, don't buy the books, don't go to see the movie or buy the DVD, everything I do is free of charge, you can read it here and make your mind up, if you don't believe me at least you may be entertained!

Eoin Butler

My body carries the scars and my mind carries the memories of the atrocities that I have witnessed and endured. In the past twenty years the only weapon that anyone has been able to wield against me has been the word of pimps and an ex, I especially liked the comment on Eoin Butler's - who wrote the article in The Guardian - website that accused me of being Bi-polar, something that my ex has been diagnosed with. Unlike Ed Caesar's article Eoin Butler's pieces are filled with his "opinions" and "gut feelings" he may not like me, that's his prerogative, but he really makes me laugh when he accuses other more respected and renowned journalists of not doing their jobs properly, his greatest coup was when my ex contacted him! His article in The Guardian is a prime example.
Ed Caesar wrote his article put it on his blog and left it at that, Eoin Butler on the other hand wrote an article about me in 2007 for a little known Irish magazine called Mongrel that was owned by an Irishman and a Palestinian, the Palestinian -who holds Irish citizenship- also worked supplying intelligence about other Arabs to the Irish Secret Service -there are only 11 people working in the Irish Secret Service, they need all the help they can get- Eoin then set about adding the article about me to his website, but he kept revising it, so what you read now is not the originally published article, he then continued writing articles about me, so far he has made me a weapons dealer, human trafficker, he has cast doubt on my education and generally called me a liar. Why have I not sued him? Well, you can't get something from nothing and really he's not worth any more of my time than what I am writing here. Eoin usually writes "fluff pieces" for whatever paper takes his work, the Irish Times and The Guardian being two, but his favourite subject is me and it's usually the stories about me that get him published, investigative journalist he's not, well maybe he is, he investigates pubs. Eoin's greatest achievements are going for Mayoman of the Year, trying his hand at stand-up comedy and sticking links to his articles especially The Guardian one everywhere so that hopefully someone will actually read them. Eoin thinks he's a journalist when really he is just another tool of the system.

No matter how many people are bought, I will never give up fighting for my rights in this world against corrupt governments, the Irish department of Injustice and the CIA.

This is Eoin Butler doing his stand-up comedy, I'm sorry, I didn't have time to subtitle it in English.

2012-01-13T10:52:00.000-08:00

Double trouble: Actor Dominic Cooper plays both Uday Hussein and his body-double, Latif Yahia, in "The Devil's Double." Below: Uday Hussein was notorious for his mistreatment of women while his father, Saddam, ruled Iraq. Uday (along with his brother Qusay, and Qusay's son Mustapha) was killed by U.S. forces in a house in Mosul, Iraq, on July 22, 2003. (C) FILMFINANCE VI 2011 — ALL RIGHTSRESERVED

Author Latif Yahia sends a warning to the West

Bearing witness to brutality in 'Devil's Double'

Friday, Jan. 13, 2012

By GIOVANNI FAZIO

Special to The Japan Times

"Should I ask him whether it's true or not?" That's the question I had for my editor regarding my interview with Latif Yahia, the Iraqi exile whose story about being the lookalike body-double for Saddam Hussein's psychotic son Uday has been parlayed into a best-selling book and a movie. "Probably," said the desk, "since there's been some controversy around that."

I needn't have bothered asking. The first thing Yahia says as he eyes me warily — even before he lights up the first of many chain-smoked cigarettes — is that he'd done some research, and why did The Japan Times run a piece in which it printed that he "claimed" to be Uday's body-double? What follows is a long diatribe against the pimps, paid agents, bitter ex-girlfriends, security services, and various other nefarious forces out to sully his reputation — which sounds quite paranoid unless, of course, you're in Yahia's shoes.

Allow me to back up a bit. Yahia, who fled Iraq in 1992, is back in the news because "The Devil's Double," a feature film based on his time living amid the Husseins as Uday's body-double, is in the theaters. The film is directed by Lee Tamahori, best known for his explosive urban Maori film "Once Were Warriors" in 1994. It features an impressive dual performance by Dominic Cooper, who plays both Yahia and Uday. The film chronicles the impunity with which Uday could rape newlywed brides and torture men on cocaine-fueled whims, while Yahia had to stand by stoically, and worse, pretend to be this monster in the eyes of others. Saddam's family hired many of these body-doubles for security reasons.

On the one hand, the release of the movie is a long-awaited achievement for Yahia, who was offered a deal from U.S. cable-TV network HBO in 1996, but declined because he insisted on no American financing for any film. As he puts it, "I don't want people to think I sold myself to America."

While "The Devil's Double" has brought Yahia's tragic story to a wider audience, it has also raised doubts. British journalist Ed Caesar, in particular, has questioned whether any of Yahia's story is true, and other journalists have repeated those claims verbatim; Yahia is clearly on the defensive these days.

While any movie "based on real events" obviously takes its fair share of poetic license, I ask Yahia how much of the film rang true for him. "Maybe 60 or 70 percent," he replies, "but like you said, it's a movie." Despite the fact that the English-language production must have distanced it from any real events to some extent, Yahia recalls how "the first time I watched it I took six or seven tabs of Valium to calm down, and I still smashed the bottle of water I had. My wife was sitting beside me and she said, 'Calm down, it's only a movie.' And I said 'No, I feel the torture. I still carry the scars from that.' After that, for three days, I didn't sleep."

Wouldn't it be better, I suggest, to put these traumatic experiences behind you at some point, and move on, rather than re-living them in books and films?

Living witness: Latif Yahia wrote "The Devil's Double" in 1992 about his experience living life as a body-double for the son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. (C) FILMFINANCE VI 2011 — ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

"I can't dismiss it," says Yahia. "It's a part of my life, and a hard part; it's not like I can choose to just press delete. It's still in my head; still I'm carrying the scars. To forget that ... no way, I'll take this with me to the grave."

Yahia goes on to describe how, when he originally wrote his book (in Arabic) in 1992, "I didn't write it as a book, just as memories, all these things, so I don't forget it. Names, dates, all that. I never thought it would be a story that I'd carry up to this day I am sitting with you."

Note: 1992. And in Arabic. And certainly not as a screenplay. Those are points worth remembering, says Yahia, when detractors like Caesar accuse him of making up the story for personal profit, which sort of assumes ex post facto that this personal memoir was always destined to be a cinematic cash-cow. Yahia bristles at the suggestion, saying "I didn't do this story to sell it. I did it for a couple of reasons: One, to tell what's happened to me as a human being. Two, to tell Western governments to stop supporting all these dictators. Three, to tell everyone, don't let anybody rule your life.

"I've been victimized by Saddam's regime; I don't want somebody else to go through that. Maybe now we'll start hearing stories similar to mine from Libya, from Tunisia, from Syria. All these sons of the presidents and kings behave like Uday."

He continued: "People accuse me of making money, say that I'm a multimillionaire because of the book. But if you read my book, what do you see?" He proffers a copy, and sure enough, the front page states that all profits will go to a children's charity.

Since the book was conveniently bandied about as anti-Saddam propaganda in the runup to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, one may wonder why it's only now that Yahia's crediblity is being questioned. Yahia claims that he was recruited by Western intelligence services and asked to train with Iraqi opposition forces in exchange for a British passport. He refused, and when he spoke out against the invasion, his troubles began. The cake-taker seems to have been an interview with a British daily right after Saddam had been captured. "The reporter asked me, what do you think Saddam would be thinking, sitting in his cell now? I said his cell is missing two people: Tony Blair and George Bush. Because the three of them are murderers of the Iraqi people. The day it was published, five hours later, I was deported."(Yahia currently lives in Ireland.)

The case against Yahia, as presented by Caesar, is based on the testimony of some dodgy members of Hussein's inner circle. They claim that Yahia was never Uday's body-double, but merely an opportunist who used his resemblance to Uday to impersonate him, in order to pick up women and gain favors. After being caught out, this version has it that Yahia was imprisoned by Uday, before somehow managing to flee the country.

We're entering "Rashomon" territory here (crossed with the film "Kagemusha," no less), but this version has a few problems and Yahia is quick to point them out. For one, not many people who crossed the Hussein regime lived to see the light of day again after being jailed. Furthermore, Yahia's book contains details that only a palace insider could know, many of which were confirmed after U.S. forces occupied the palace. "Was I psychic?" asks Yahia sarcastically. "How did I know these details if I wasn't one of them? Even the paintings, or what the rooms looked like." Yahia goes on to accuse his main detractor as being one of Uday's pimps, a man who will do anything for money, and who has been paid to smear him because of his vocal antiwar views.

And vocal they are. Despite his hatred of the Hussein regime, Yahia — like many Iraqis — is equally angry about the war that has ruined his homeland. "Saddam, you know, he didn't kill 1.5 million people in 35 years, but since the invasion up till now we have had 1.5 million killed. And 5 million refugees left Iraq. George Bush and Tony Blair must be hanged exactly where Saddam was hanged ... I was laughing the other day when (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri) al-Maliki was in Washington meeting with (U.S. President Barack) Obama. How can the president stand in front of the media and say 'We leave Iraq with our heads held high and we leave Iraq as an established country with an elected government.' Is he on drugs or something? I'll send him a private plane and tell him to go to Baghdad for two hours, free. Good luck." [Note: the antiwar group Iraq Body Count put the total number of casualties from the war at 114,236 as of Jan. 2, 2012.]

One thing neither his success as an author nor the overthrow of Saddam has brought him is a ticket home. When I ask Yahia whether he ever hopes to return to his homeland some day, he laughs bitterly: "I am in a lose-lose situation. During Saddam's time, I was a traitor. And now during this puppet-government time, I am a collaborator. I love my country, I love my people, but I don't want to return to a country that has been completely damaged, where the people have completely changed, y'know? And even if I die, I told my wife, don't bury me in Iraq."

"The Devil's Double" is now playing in theaters nationwide. Read Giovanni Fazio's review on today's Re: Film page.

2012-01-08T04:51:00.000-08:00

Unlucky Bastard, Teaser for the forthcoming Documentary

FIRST They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You, Then They Fight You, THEN YOU WIN.
The new teaser from the documentary Unlucky Bastard, Latif Yahia talk's about his life now, home life, family and his views on the world today.

2011-12-28T06:11:00.000-08:00

THANK YOU AMERICA!

There have been a lot of people over the last twenty years of my life who have told me that I should say those words, others only hoped I would and more still believed that I never would.
But here I am with them writ large as the title, you see, they are just words and it will only become clear as you read through this exactly how I mean them.
Let me just say for clarification,( because I've had a few people recently tell me that I tar all Americans with the same brush, which I don't) that when I say America, I do not mean every man woman and child that lives on the continent of America, I mean the Administration (and whomever happens to be the picture in front, presently it's Obama) with special mention to it's foreign policy.
As the last troops pull out of Iraq to KUWAIT (so far away) but leave behind the biggest US Embassy in the world in Baghdad, you can't help but see that it's all just words. Recently when the Iraqis made comment about the 3,000 staff and 21,000 security that the American Administration were leaving in the Embassy in Baghdad they were told that if they didn't like the US Army as security for the Embassy they (the US) could replace them with civilian staff (mercenaries). Somehow, somewhere, someone misinterpreted the whole idea of "leaving". Leaving is everybody leaving, not 24,000 staying. But then, I have said it before, America never goes somewhere and leaves, look at Germany and Japan for instance it's 66 years since the end of the Second world war yet they still have a presence in those countries.
Sometimes I really do just sit and wonder, this isn't news, so why do we not care? Why is it okay for America to get on it's high horse about Human rights in other countries when compared to Europe for instance it doesn't really have any and the great irony is that America never signs into Human rights legislation. Why have we let America become the police of the world? Historically America has never attacked a country that it knew could really fight back, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, it's military capabilities and population were severely weakened after 13 years of sanctions, Iraq was a soft target, but I am proud to say not as soft as the American's first thought. So after 8 years in Iraq they are "leaving" they have "installed a democracy" that's a misnomer in itself and after all their drum beating about Iran have left them in charge of Iraq! If you don't believe me, just the other week when Noori al-Maliki visited the graves of US soldiers, something I might add that he has never done for the soldiers of Iraq, instead of flying straight back to Baghdad he flew to Tehran to discuss what he did in the States and get the "Okay".
So Thank You America for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and replacing him with an Iranian government, and 300 members of Parliament who all want to be Saddam and act accordingly.
Thank You America for finding, training and supporting Saddam Hussein in Egypt in 1958 just so you could oust the socialist President of Iraq.
Thank You America, for being in Iraq for 8 years, leaving 24,000 soldiers and staff behind at your embassy and moving next door to Kuwait.
Thank You America for not rebuilding Iraq, leaving it to the new assholes in charge who haven't built a wall, let alone an infrastructure, Iraqis are very happy that they don't have water, electricity or proper sewerage.
Thank You America, because of the invasion of iraq in 2003 there are nearly 1.5 million Iraqi deaths, Saddam didn't manage that in 35 years. We have 5 million refugees around the world of which only a few thousand are actually in America because America only takes the Iraqis who worked for them in Iraq as refugees, Europe has taken the brunt. We have over 1 million widows and orphans, another 3 million refugees inside Iraq's borders because of the civil war that no-one acknowledges because it would "look bad" on America.
Thank You America, for bringing democracy in the shape of men who sat in the UK , US, Canada, Sweden, France, Germany, Ireland and other countries, lived on social welfare, swore allegiance to that country and upon their return to Iraq bought votes with blankets, generators and white goods.
Thank You America, for finding the weapons of mass destruction that were such a threat to your homeland that you needed to travel halfway around the world to defend yourself.
Thank you America for showing me the true meaning of "Human rights" when the CIA had me imprisoned and tortured for ten and a half months in Vienna because I wouldn't co-operate.
Thank you America for making sure that I have remained stateless since my flight from Iraq in 1991. Just like you promised, you're certainly true to your word in this case.
Thank You America for letting Al-Qaeda into Iraq, we never had them before.
Thank You America for supporting and training Osama Bin Laden, he did a great job against those Russians in Afghanistan, it makes you wonder why he turned against you?
Thank you America for making Terrorism the disease of this century, you will have plenty of "terrorists" to fight as you have created laws that make people who speak out against "America" terrorists, what happened to the "freedom of speech and Democracy" that you go around liberating other countries in the name of?
Thank You America for getting the media so "on-side" that we only really see and hear what you want us to, the only Free speech is the speech you decide is Free.
Thank You America for dragging the rest of the world into economic chaos, you try to arrest the 99% and leave the 1% free to do as they please that's definitely democratic. More liberties are lost through the ballot boxes than they are by tanks!
Thank You America for creating all the Dictators of the last century and today, we know you've been having great fun going around liberating us.
Thank You America, you've really outdone yourself this time!

A special thanks to Mr. Obama the President of America, during his speech in the White House with Noori al-Maliki who was visiting, he said the following:

2011-12-11T05:21:00.000-08:00

From Arcanum Media Group.

Limited edition, signed, personalised copy of The Devil's Double by Latif Yahia.

Signed, personalised copy.

Due to an overwhelming demand for signed copies of Latif Yahia's book The Devil's Double, we have arranged with Mr. Yahia himself to sign a limited amount of copies for you. Each copy you purchase will be signed by Latif Yahia and made out to your name or the name you give us, if you are not buying the book for yourself please send us an email immediately or fill out the comment box in "contact us' on our website telling us who you would like the book made out to.

You may or may not be aware that Mr. Yahia is donating his royalties from all sales of the book, to the Iraqi children Orphaned by the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent war.
Best regards,
The AMG team

www.arcanummediagroup.com

2011-12-01T13:38:00.000-08:00

The Devil's Double has been released

The Devil's Double €19.99 in stoc

Dear friends,

I have just been informed by the publisher that they have cleared all of the pre-orders! Thanks to all of my friends and family who have supported me. Thanks also to everyone who bought a copy of the Devil's Double I hope you enjoy reading it, if you did, why not leave a comment on Arcanum's website? www.arcanummediagroup.com
Best regards to all,
Latif Yahia

2011-11-28T07:58:00.000-08:00

I want your opinion!!

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

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

Elliot Collier

Elliot Collier lives in Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA.

• Al-Rashid 8/March/2011

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

After I posted a photo on my Facebook page and on Twitter that I received from a Solider in the American Army today, he sent me this message.

American Democracy in Iraq!!

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

Here is my answer to Mr. Collier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good day Sir.

2011-11-22T09:11:00.000-08:00

Dominic Cooper In 'Motor City': 'Devil's Double' Star Bags Role

The Devil’s Double (2011) Blu-ray/DVD

Following his standout job playing two roles, Dominic Cooper has booked one really big gig.
Cooper starred in this summer's Iraqi war drama, "The Devil's Double," playing both Saddam Hussein's psychotic son Uday and his body double, Latif Yahia. At one moment blustery, irrational and maniacal and then subtle, pained and just, the role won him major plaudits and put him on the leading man radar screen of some of Hollywood's top directors.
Amongst those impressed with his talent was Albert Hughes, "The Book of Eli" director who, according to Variety, was so wowed that he sought Cooper out for the lead role in his next film, the revenge flick "Motor City." And so, Cooper will now play a newly freed ex-con that seeks out to find and punish those that framed him for the crime that landed him in prison.
The film will follow two new big projects Cooper is soon debuting; he has supporting roles in the Michelle Williams-led "My Week With Marilyn," and "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," the Benjamin Walker-starring adaptation of the Seth Grahame-Smith zombie history book.
For more, click over to Variety.

The Devil’s Double (2011) Blu-ray/DVD

to those who missed the chance to watch The Devil's Double in the cinema, the DVD and Blu-ray are released today

2011-11-19T04:46:00.000-08:00

Oscar Watch: Dominic Cooper

Dominic Cooper

By Jarett Wieselman

November 18, 2011

www.theinsider.com

While there is still a month and a half before the qualifying period for Oscar eligibility ends, there are already a handful of names being bandied about as "locks" for Best Actor.

George Clooney for The Descendants, Leonardo DiCaprio for J. Edgar, Michael Fassbender for Shame, Ryan Gosling for Drive and Brad Pitt for Moneyball are just a few of the more notable names -- but I'm here to make sure Dominic Cooper's name A) becomes and B) stays a part of the conversation.
This year, he blew me away in The Devil's Double, an unfortunately little-seen movie where he plays dual roles: Uday Hussein, son of Saddam, and Latif Yahia, a doppelganger hired by the family to masquerade as Uday at various public functions.
The performances are so singularly unique, I was even more amazed that he would jump back and forth between the two personas throughout filming -- a fact this behind-the-scenes documentary on Movieline revealed to me.
Watch the snippet below and be sure to pick up The Devil's Double on DVD (out November 22) so you will understand why I plan to spend the next few months talking about Dominic's Double.

2011-11-14T01:31:00.000-08:00

I was Saddam's Son.

This is a Teaser for the forthcoming documentary I was Saddam's Son. The documentary is set for release in 2012.

2011-11-11T03:59:00.000-08:00

The Devil's Double, Sold exclusively here only @ AMG

Dear customer,

We had printed a limited run of 185,150 copies of The Devil's Double, due to high demand for the book on pre-order it has sold out. So we are going back to press to bring you a further 50,000 copies, if you wish to secure your copy, please buy now on pre-order and your book will be delivered to you before Christmas.
We will not be supplying any other bookstore or website with this book, it is being sold exclusively here on Arcanum Media Group so if you have pre-ordered from Amazon etc please contact them for a refund.
Best regards,
The A.M.G team.
www.arcanummediagroup.com

2011-11-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

The Devils Double

Book will be re-released at the end of this month.

THE DEVIL'S DOUBLE, Book.

Dear friends, be aware that the Devils Double book will be re-released at the end of this month, please DO NOT try and buy this book through Amazon or another book site, the publisher will not be supplying any other website with the book it will be available exclusively through Arcanum Media Group. This is also where you will be able to find my other books.
Please share this link with all your friends so that they too know not to buy or pre-order the book on any other site except Arcanum Media Group as they will not receive it and may not get a refund either.
Best regards,

here is the link

www.arcanummediagroup.com

4 - 7 Working days IRL/UK : 10 - 14 working days Rest of World.
Released on 20/November/2011

ISBN-10: 0955419131
ISBN-13: 978-0955419133

2011-10-28T06:49:00.000-07:00

Sleeper cells, continued.

Mehidi Army in New Iraq?

Where to begin? Some years ago I wrote an article about Iranian sleeper cells, their function and goals. It was widely ignored, especially by the Irish Intelligence services, nonetheless with the recent attempted assassination of The Saudi Ambassador to the US, people may be starting to pay attention. In the first few articles that came out about the attempt, the American Intelligence services were saying "what are the chances that a used car salesman is an assassin?" well, isn't that how sleepers work? They live as very, very, everyday, normal, don't do anything to draw attention to themselves, "beyond reproach" people. Why wouldn't a used car salesman be a sleeper? That's the kind of cover they need, invisible.

America made it's perfect excuse to go into Afghanistan and Iraq when it fabricated Al-Qaeda (see my other blog), but it also gave Iran it's perfect means of spreading its Jaysh al Quds (Army of Jerusalem) Refugees. I am not saying that all refugees are sleepers, that would be far too much of a generalization, what I am saying is that some refugees, especially those from Iraq, were not even Iraqi never mind true refugees, Iran used the Iraq/Iran war to send out it's first wave and the "War on Terror" to replenish their numbers (it is hard to stay ideologically pure when surrounded by temptation)

I think that the time is right to explore why people become "extremists" what drives someone to be a suicide bomber for instance? Well, obviously there are the fanatics, religious or otherwise that believe their way is the only way and are who willing to sacrifice their lives and yours for their cause.
Then there are the people who started out without any particular convictions, who, during the course of their lives witnessed and suffered such cruelty and injustice that they lost all hope and were taken in by fanatics, these people are victims, their pain and suffering is taken and twisted by the true fanatics, they are given an enemy, someone on whom the blame can be placed and sent off to do the fanatics bidding. They are damaged people and they are used in the worst possible way.
Please, please do not believe that fanatics are confined to the Muslim faith, there are Christian, Jewish and many other types too. Recent events in Norway have proved this.

Before I continue I will make this statement again, just in case you haven't read any of my other articles and also to explain.
I am not anti-Shia, while growing up in Iraq we did not have such a divide, everyone celebrated whatever it was with whomever, Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Turkmen, Christian, nobody bothered.
For those that don't know or understand the differences between Sunni and Shia for example, the Sunni came first, Sunnis are followers of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) the Shia or Shi'ite came later when Hussein the son of Prophet Ali was killed in Kuffa, Iraq,(which is why you will see them slap themselves, it is to cleanse them from the sin of his and his families murder) they follow the teachings of Ali, whom they believe should have received the miracle of the Q'uran instead of Prophet Mohammed although Ali was nine at the time, when the Angel Gabriel came down to give the news to Prophet Mohammed that he shall bring the Q'uran to the world, he was sleeping in Ali's bed.

I suppose it is similar to the difference between Catholic and Protestant and with just as much divisiveness these days. I think the true test of any religion is when you don't have to kill in the name of it.
There is also a difference between Iranian Shia and Arabic Shia, when I use the term Shia or Shi'ite I am referring to the Iranian Shia that follow the Ayatollahs, A lot of Arabic Shia were opposed to the war of 2003 and supported Iraq.

With regard to Saddam Hussein and his regime, he was an equal opportunity employer ( he employed Sunni, Shia and Kurd etc) and an equal opportunity killer, if you committed a crime against Iraq/Saddam it made no difference to him what creed your name came under.

No organisation would be able to function without a network, so in the next paragraph or two I will give an example of how the "wrong" kind of people can claim asylum in your country. I'm using a case in Ireland that I have made the authorities aware of but they have done nothing about.

Pre-2003 there were three Mosques in Dublin, the very large one in Goatstown, a smaller one on the South-Circular road and a Hussainiya at Dundrum Bridge.

Hussainiya at Dundrum Bridge

Al Hussain House,Dundrum Bridge, Dundrum road. Dublin, Ireland.
The Sheikh or Imam at the Hussainiya is called Abu Hassan originally Ali Al Saleh a Shia from Saudi Arabia, he started out as a Doctor but changed his image from suits and ties to Djellabas and Imama (a sheikhs turban). This was quickly followed by a trip to Iran and Saudi Arabia to set in motion the funding of a larger Shia presence in Ireland, the Sunni Saudis had already built the large Mosque in Goatstown. The Shia Saudis funded the Hussainiya at Dundrum bridge, headed by Abu Hassan. So with cash in his pocket Abu Hassan built the larger Hussainiya on land that had once belonged to a foreign student, when the student had finished his education he returned home, Abu Hassan seized the opportunity, he bribed a solicitor and had the deeds changed over to his name.
The Hussainiya also houses small rooms upstairs where he homes refugees and bills the Irish State. Over his years here Abu Hassan has built up a relationship with many refugees and Irish politicians, some of those refugees have become translators in the Department of Justice. Abu Hassan has also become the "go to guy'" for the Irish intelligence service and the Special Branch, his character reference is enough of a guarantee for them.

Ali Al Saleh , Abu Hassan

With Abu Hassan's help people from Bahrain (who speak Arabic with an Iraqi accent) and Saudi Arabia claim asylum as Iraqis, Abu Hassan makes his translator friends in the Department of Justice aware that they will be in for interview and to back up their story or correct them while they are in the interview.
It is a big part of the Shia culture to be able to cry, they cry very openly at religious festivals etc and are able to use this to great effect in their interviews. In the Shia religion anything that you do in "an infidels/non-believers country" is okay, you may. lie, cheat, steal, sleep with their women, anything to get what you want because they are unbelievers and God will punish them anyway.
If the interviewer still isn't convinced Abu Hassan also has connections in Iraq to provide him with whatever forged document that the refugee needs, the prices for such services range from 250-500 euro depending on the document. 1,000 euros for the forged deeds to a house in Iraq.
There are now more than thirty Husainiyas in Ireland, each person that attends a Hussainiya pays a tithe equivalent to a percentage of their wages/social welfare. There is so much money flowing to Abu Hassan from Iran, Saudi and the Khumus(tithes) that he doesn't know what to do with it, except maybe buy more property and expand his Hussainiyas. In these times where a lodgement of over 5,000 euros is questioned does no one ask Abu Hassan where his money comes from? Or has the recession hit so hard that they don't care as long as he's bringing it into the country?
I have proof of this and the address of every house that he owns.
Abu Hassan's property portfolio since the fall of Saddam in 2003 stands at, 95 houses, the asking price pre-recession was between 280,000 euros up to 900,000 for one he owned in Ballsbridge. He owns restaurants, Barbers a limousine company, dry cleaners and properties in Dubai. Most of these properties and businesses are in other people's names, with the business name taking a 10% cut for running the business.
The newest addition to the services that the Hussainiyas provide is Mutha. Mutha is a marriage for a short time, so that the participants may engage in martial-sex and then divorce afterwards. The fee is 200 euros, payable to the Hussainiya, unless the woman is a virgin and then the "husband" is obliged to pay 5,000 euros. Those wishing to participate may choose a partner from pictures in an album, supplied by a woman whom I won't name but is known to the Irish authorities and works as a translator in the Department of Justice. The proceeds of Mutha are divided 60/40 to Abu Hassan and 40 to the woman. Many Irish women who have converted to Shia through the Hussainiya have been duped into putting their photos in this book in the hopes of finding a husband, they do find one but never longterm.
Brothels may be illegal in Ireland, but through Religious Freedom it seems the red lights shine.

As with Abu Hassan and the case below, I and other like minded people have been watching these people who bring shame to the Nation of Iraq and Islam. Even though I am not religious. We decided that giving information to the Western governments as they are already aware but choose to do nothing is pointless. So all the information that we have about Abu Hassan and people like him here in the west, is being used for the future. When Iraq is a true Nation once again, these people will be sought so that Iraq may reclaim the money taken from it, that it may be put to use rebuilding Iraq and giving aid to the people who truly need assistance.
These examples are just from Ireland, there are many others like these men in Canada, America, Sweden, France, Germany, Britain and Australia etc.

One interesting refugee actually from Iraq but with a false asylum claim is General Muttar Hameed Jabir al-Mohamedawi born 01/07/1957 and married to Intissar Anwar Daoud born in 1961 a Christian who converted to Islam. In his asylum claim Muttar says that two of his sons were killed in Iraq and that he was a "High Ranking" Ba'ath party member and therefore cannot return to Iraq for fear of being killed, he has provided the Irish authorities with documentation to support his claim, but in a country that is now built on fraud should anyone really believe them?

Muttar Hameed Jabir al-Mohamedawi

Muttar received his title of General in the Iraqi Police from the Mehidi Army (who are backed and funded by Iran) it was an honour bestowed upon him, something that would never happen if he was Ba'ath party. Also Muttar travels back and forth to Iraq through Syria using Iraqi passports, the reason for his travel is business, the business of detaining people in his Iraqi Police cells and keeping them there until their families pay up. No one is released until he returns to Iraq from Ireland.
He is also responsible for organised kidnappings, when he is unable to return to Iraq the money is lodged to his various Irish bank accounts via Dubai by his brother-in-law, from his "business" he receives hundreds of thousands of euros a month. Muttar has also openly admitted that he has killed seven people, all from the same family, a Father, three children, two cousins and one other male relative, the reason? They allegedly killed one of his cousins. I passed this information to the Irish Intelligence service about a year ago, their reply, well.. it'll take some time... In the meantime he was granted refugee status.

Before 2003 there were maybe three Shia channels on Iraqi Television, now there are hundreds, all preaching that they (the Shia) are victims. That under Sunni rule they were killed, had no religious freedoms and were subjugated. Under Saddam's rule which I mentioned earlier he killed anyone, he outlawed the practice of whipping yourself which the Shia do during Ashur and many new festivals they have now, because the body is a temple and should not come to any harm especially by one's own hand. Some Muslims won't even pierce their ears. As for subjugation, well the whole of Iraq was under his hand wasn't it?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Israelis??

You may like to consider the above an exaggeration, but if you go to Iraqi history and delve into the regime's role-call and Ba'ath Party register you will see that over 75% of the members of the Iraqi police, the Prison guards, Fidayeen Saddam the Militia run by Uday Saddam Hussein but who after the fall of Saddam swapped their black uniforms for black Mehidi Army uniforms, General's, all of the higher echelons of Iraqi society had more than 50% of Shia participants.

Iran, it's followers and sleepers have already invaded the West, since 1979 when the Shi'ite Islamic revolution happened the Mullahs put their plan into action. Their goal, that the world convert not just to Islam but to Shi'ite. Iran told America 'If it wasn't for us, you couldn't put one foot in Iraq!' and it is true that without Iran, America couldn't have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan. This rhetoric from America that Iran is part of "the Axis of evil" is just that, America, Iran and Israel are holding hands in an attempt to conquer the Middle-east. Infiltration is the preferred method. Three or four years ago Iran tried to infiltrate Morocco, the government became wise to their tactics and closed the Iranian Embassy there and turned it into a public toilet.
After the fall of Mubarak they tried to invade Egypt also, they started supporting a publisher and printer in Dumyiat that printed Shi'ite literature, the Egyptian government were alerted and they deported all the Shi'ite that had already arrived and have made it very hard for Iranian shi'ite to enter.
During the Invasion of 2003 and the following years, 80% of the refugees that America took in from Iraq were Shia, if the Shia were not working with or for America why should they take them? Iraq was and is under Shia control, Saddam was over, why should they be refugees?

Al Hussain House in Dublin Not Iran.

2011-10-25T12:29:00.000-07:00

We are the 99%

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

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

2011-10-16T07:40:00.000-07:00

If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.

From Talk Radio Europe, Your Voice in Spain.
by: Steve Gilmour
THURSDAY 13TH OCTOBER 2011.
In Iraq, where political leaders have traditionally been the targets of assassination, there exists an institution called fidai(body double). Latif Yahia, who bore a remarkable resemblance to Saddam Hussein's oldest son, Uday, was pulled out of the front lines during the Iran-Iraq war and transformed into an exact likeness of Uday. From that vantage point he was privy to all the machinations and horrific excesses perpetrated on the Iraq people by the family and the government of Saddam Hussein. Latif is an Iraqi born author, blogger, Ph.D in International Law and former military officer. His book ' 'The Devil's Double' has now been made into a major motion picture.

2011-10-14T05:05:00.000-07:00

Malta the diamond in the Mediterranean.


Malta.

I have travelled a lot in my 40+ years on this planet, some, especially my Mother, would say too much but whether it was for business, pleasure or out of a desire to "FLEE" I think that I have managed to see just about every country there is. Thankfully in recent years the desire to Flee has subsided, and more and more my travel is more business than pleasure, so when I go somewhere on business and find myself having a wonderful time it's a bit of a shock.
A few weeks ago I went to Malta to do interviews and promote the movie The Devil's Double, I had been to Malta every other week during the filming but had been either on set or in the Hotel, filming days were long and when you are in that kind of situation the film crew and talent become like family, you don't really look too much outside. This time Malta for me was like finding a Diamond in the middle of the sea, I was no longer in the bubble of the film crew, I was in the hands of the Maltese themselves and they were wonderful. From the moment I "checked in" on my Air Malta flight I was treated with the utmost respect and care, not in a forced or fake way but in a truly heartfelt way, and that treatment continued for my whole week in Malta. Now, it may be easy to say, well you are famous etc, but believe me that can be just as much of a hindrance as a help, I am sure that Malta has seen it's fair share of Celebrities (Gladiator among other movies was shot there), it hosts many movies and many of the Maltese people work in the film industry, make up, hair, camera etc, not to mention that all the extras, the schoolgirls and Uday's mother Sajida in the movie are all Maltese actors. What really struck me was the honest care for my well-being, everyone wanted to make sure that I was okay, I had everything I needed etc but not in a pandering way, in a concerned familial way. I was invited to peoples homes, friends that I had made while in Malta and through Facebook came to see me, and all the time I understood that really I wasn't getting any special treatment, this is how the Maltese are, they care, they care about you no matter what you have in your pocket, who you are, where you come from. I was truly touched by their openness and generosity of spirit. They are the kind of people that if they only had a loaf of bread and saw you hungry on the street would give you half and smile.

Press Conference Malta 2011.

I can't really say enough about them, they gave me a renewed sense of ease in this world, I had become cynical and was truly beginning to believe that the good hearts of this world had been taken over by greed, but thanks to the Maltese people I still hold hope.
I suppose I feel a kinship with the Maltese because of their language which is like a hybrid of Arabic, Italian and I'm not sure what else thrown in, but I can understand at least half of what they say, their alphabet on the other hand is something else. Being in the middle of the Mediterranean as they are they had to have been influenced by the trade that passed, also they were conquered more than once which accounts for the fact they the are also fluent in English, but up until recent years were made to learn Arabic at school. The Maltese Prime minister was the first in Europe if not the world to support the opposition in Libya and condemn Ghadaffi's regime, even before NATO or the UN, even though Malta sits only a few hundred miles off the coast of Libya and in easy range of missiles if Ghadaffi should decided to send them a few.

XARABANK Maltese TV.

The country is truly beautiful, in the past the Maltese used to live in the center of the country to protect themselves so cities like M'dina were built, it is a walled city with narrow walled streets, there are only doors, those doors lead to courtyards and then houses. Valetta is also very beautiful, actually all of Malta is, if you get a chance really you should visit. A surprise for me was a small little cove on the coast away from the main towns and cities, it was where the film Popeye was shot, it is the little town that they built as a set, it still stands and is a small tourist attraction, very colourful and unexpected.
I would like to thank everyone at Xarabank, Air Malta and the Radisson Blu Hotel for taking such good care of me, I had a wonderful time, made good friends, spent some time with good friends I already had and felt for once in a long time that I belonged.
Thank you Malta.

A very special thanks to the following:
Xarabank Production Team:

Presenter: Peppi Azzopardi
Production Manager: Norman Vella
Producers: Fabian Demicoli, Rebekah Grima, Catherine Aquilina, Claire Preca Taroum, Joe Julian Farrugia, Deborah Azzopardi, Melanie Casha Sammut and PJ Mintoff Vassallo
Video Editors: Olwyn Jo Saliba, Aaron Attard and Mandy Micallef Grimaud
Production Secretary: Katia Desira
+ Director Mark Vassallo and all the camera people and crew of Where's Everybody

TVM News:

Journalist: Keith Demicoli
Head of News: Dr. Natalino Fenech
CEO: Anton Attard
Chairman: Joe Mizzi

Air Malta

Radisson Blu Resort, St. Julian's

KRS Film Distributers
Maltese Police Force

Here is my interview on "Xarabank"

2011-10-13T10:39:00.000-07:00

Amnesty International seeks George W. Bush's arrest.

Same shit different ass, they both have Damaged the World.

The human rights group Amnesty International called on Canadian authorities Wednesday to arrest former President George W. Bush when he attends an economic summit in the province of British Columbia next week.
The group accused Bush of “responsibility for crimes under international law including torture.”Amnesty International asked that Canada either prosecute or extradite Bush for violations that they allege took place during the CIA’s secret detention program between 2002 and 2009. The organization wrote a 1,000 page memorandum addressed to Canadian authorities to make the case for human rights violations by the 43rd president.“Canada is required by its international obligations to arrest and prosecute former President Bush given his responsibility for crimes under international law including torture,” Susan Lee, Americas Director at Amnesty International, said in a statement. The Canadian government responded to the request with critical words for Amnesty International. “I cannot comment on individual cases… that said, Amnesty International cherry picks cases to publicize based on ideology. This kind of stunt helps explain why so many respected human rights advocates have abandoned Amnesty International,” Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney told POLITICO, noting that Amnesty International had never sought a court order to bar Cuban dictator Fidel Castro or Tongolese dicator Gnassingbé Eyadema from Canada. “Perhaps this helps to explain why Salman Rushie has said that ‘it looks very much as if Amnesty’s leadership is suffering from a kind of moral bankruptcy,’ and why Christopher Hitchens has written about the organization’s ‘degeneration and politicization,’” Kenney added. Bush cancelled a visit to Switzerland in February after facing similar public calls for his arrest by the other human rights groups. Amnesty International said that Canada was obligated to arrest Bush under its commitments to the UN Convention Against Torture. The human rights organization objected to the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” and violations they characterized as “cruel, inhuman and degrating treatment and enforced disappearances.” “A failure by Canada to take action during his visit would violate the UN Convention against Torture and demonstrate contempt for fundamental human rights,” said Lee.

2011-10-12T12:39:00.000-07:00

Iraq War Lessons Learned? Keep Rumsfeld Away From All Things Defense.

by: Dina Rasor, Truthout | Solutions

Last week, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld strolled into town to advise the Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee on how to prevent more cuts in the Department of Defense (DoD). The members of the committee lapped it up because they, according to the National Journal, "are on a crusade to protect the military's accounts from further budget cuts." There have been numerous other writers who have gone into great detail about the damage Rumsfeld did to our country in selling the Iraq war and in allowing torture and other outrages in the war, but many don't know how badly he messed up the invasion of Iraq and the logistics of the war. He had a grossly unworkable plan for the Iraq war which overrode much of the planned logistics. And personnel gave us the debacle of KBR's $45 billion and still growing logistics contract and a new war service industry whose excesses will plague the military and suck the US Treasury dry every time we have troops overseas in the future.

I saw much of the damage done by Rumsfeld's theories and plans when I was researching my book, "Betraying Our Troops," on how the private contractors were used in the Iraq war in a way and number that was never done before. Profiles of troops and contractor employees showed how the troops suffered and the military mission was compromised. Many of these contractors, especially KBR, which was, at the time, a division of Halliburton, did not have the same urgency to keep the troops supplied on the edge of the battlefield and later in fighting the insurgency, while running up costs and charging for work not done. This resulted in troops away from the safe bases without the basics of food and water and vital parts to keep their equipment going.

This was not a short-term problem. One unit that was parked at the border between Iraq and Iran was so isolated because KBR would not go out and supply them that they didn't even know that President George W. Bush had landed on an aircraft carrier and declared, "mission accomplished" until three months after the event. They were living on scarce food and water, and part of their daily routine was to try to keep their trucks working so they could go out and scrounge food from the local villages while many of their general officers were being treated by KBR to desserts made by expensive pastry chiefs at the major bases, including former palaces of Saddam Hussein.

The roots of how the military ended up with this expensive but broken logistics disaster can be placed directly on Rumsfeld and his build up before the war. For my book, I interviewed the two generals, Gen. Paul Kern and Gen. Wade McManus, who were responsible for the logistics during the build up of the Iraq war. Logistics is not as exciting as strategy, planes and tanks in war, but can be the most decisive and important to our troops for their mission and their lives. Rumsfeld's actions during the build up of the invasion guaranteed that there would not be enough logistical supplies and would set a politically connected company loose in the battlefield to run up costs and drain the money for the war effort, no matter how much money the Congress threw at the war.

Rumsfeld did two things that laid the groundwork for this debacle. First, he decided to limit the number of troops that could be used in the invasion to a level that was 200,000 troops fewer than the military asked for and relieved the commander who said that we needed more. This didn't just mean that we had to have fewer troops who were actually fighting, but also meant that there were not enough troops to do the heavy laden logistics of our modern Army. When Gen. Paul Kern was presented with the fact that he did not have enough troops for the logistics in the war, he, in desperation, pulled out a small contract the Army had with KBR to supply bases around the world and exploded it. KBR's contract, called LOGCAP, was around $60 million a year to take care of the logistical needs of 25,000-50,000 troops in a non-combat setting around the world. General Kern was forced to explode the contract to cover over 200,000 troops in dangerous warfront areas in just a few months before the invasion. The Army also didn't have the personnel to do oversight on this new contingency contract with open-ended funding, and KBR moved in and took advantage of the situation to run up costs as fast as they could while not delivering the necessary logistic to the troops in dangerous areas.

They did that because they didn't have to produce. In past wars, when the Army controlled its own logistics with its own people, troops would be put in jail if they refused to run supplies to the troops near the front line. Because KBR was a civilian company with civilian workers, they could refuse to do the work if they thought it was dangerous, and their workers could quit anytime and go home. The commanders, who never had to deal with so many contractors in a danger zone didn't know what to do because they had little power over this contractor other than filing breach of contract in an administrative action back in the US. KBR was in the driver's seat and they took full advantage of it.

When the insurgents began to blow up large KBR truck convoys and kidnapped an American truck driver who was seen captured on television, many of the KBR civilian truck drivers just quit and went home. The supplies piled up on the Kuwaiti border to such an extent that even the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that was set up by the US to try to govern chaotic Iraq were forced to ration their food in Baghdad, while the Army desperately tried to find troops who had driven trucks in civilian life to replace the missing KBR drivers. That was just one example of how using a contractor this close to a war area was one of Rumsfeld's big failures in the war. My book outlines many more.

The second mess that Rumsfeld directly caused in the initial run up to the war was to throw out the carefully laid logistics plans of the Army to put in a better "business" model. The Army, knowing that logistics during a war can be very chaotic, had a logistics plan that would requisition supplies and parts and have redundant supply backups in what was known as "just in case" type planning. Rumsfeld thought this was wasteful and changed the system just months before the invasion. He decided to do the "just in time" style of logistics that many companies used in the US where they did not have warehouses full of products, but used Federal Express and other delivery services to get their products or parts just in time. In what seems an obvious hitch to this idea was that wars are chaotic and it is very unrealistic to believe that you could use a civilian delivery system to deliver the supplies far away from the battlefield and expect that KBR, with their civilian truck drivers, could get this vital equipment to the troops.

By changing the logistics system right before the war, Rumsfeld guaranteed more chaos because, in the rush to war, some of the commanders were not aware of how the new system worked. They were assured that everything was in control and supplies would be pushed to the troops "just in time." It quickly became apparent that this business model that works in peacetime was a logistical nightmare during the war.

What made this a longer-term problem was that Iraq did not "welcome us as liberators" and the insurgency made most of the country unsafe to deliver supplies. So, between a new and dysfunctional logistics system and using civilian contractors to drive the trucks through fluid and dangerous areas, the situation was dire for much of the first part of the war. Rumsfeld's "business acumen" and mantra that private contractors could do anything better than the military helped fuel the years of quagmire in Iraq. Rumsfeld, as early as 2003, wrote a memorandum to Paul Wolfowitz, Gen. Peter Pace and Doug Feith, his fellow travelers who promised a quick and efficient war, that it "is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long hard slog." We are still in that slog, eight and ten years later because of his policies and his theories on how wars should be fought, while the troops were let down by the Pentagon and had to drink polluted water and even face electrocution because he set KBR loose with little oversight.

Besides the danger to the troops, this long slog has caused this KBR contract to explode to over $40 billion to date with unscrubbed and bloated costs promising to be the new baseline of what it takes to support our troops in the future. And the soaking of the taxpayers is not over for this KBR contract. As we transition troops out of Iraq as required by treaty with the Iraqi government at the end of this year (we hope!), KBR's LOGCAP contract will be turned over to the State Department to supply the new Vatican-size embassy and the 5,000 private military contractors that the State Department plans to have as the troops leave. With these bloated costs becoming the base for all logistics in the future, KBR promises to continue to soak us under the State's umbrella for years to come.

The long term consequences of these policy disasters will be seen in the future, because having as many or more contractors as troops has caused a new war service industry to get entrenched with political power. The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) is happy to make weapons and let them rust because they know that we will continue to build weapons whether we have a war or not. In fact, the MIC is not particularly fond of these messy, low-technology wars because the logistics and increase in troops takes away from the weapons procurement budget.

However, this new war service industry, because they don't manufacture anything but instead service the troops in war, need a hot war or occupation to continue to rake in the money. So, now we have a new and powerful military industry, which hires many officers and troops when they retire and has billions of dollars of contracts to help fund the lobbyists to keep them in contracts. This is an industry with an incentive to keep us in war or long-term occupation for their growth and even existence and is a scary new paradigm on our foreign policy.

The solution? It is not an easy one, but we can start by making sure that every time that Rumsfeld comes into town to advise anyone connected to the military, that the press and advocacy groups remind the public that he didn't just fail at the foreign policy and torture aspects of the war, but that he massively failed at running the basics of the war. He has been away for a decent interval, but is trying to come back, hoping that people forget that he didn't know what he was doing and cost us lives and money.

As for the long-term aspects of the war service industry, as we wind down in Iraq and hopefully in Afghanistan, we need to dismantle the contractors' model of doing logistics in war zones and draw a line in the sand where contractors cannot be used. We also need to go back to the KBR and other contractor bills for these two wars and scrub the numbers so that their running up costs to justify bloated new contracts will not work and that we don't get beholden to them in the future. This war service industry will try hard to keep their place with the US military and encourage us to police the world to keep their money flow, but they aren't as entrenched as the MIC, so we still have a chance to do something about it.

2011-10-10T12:34:00.000-07:00

And the threats continued once Ali Taleb and his family were in Sweden. They received threatening telephone calls from Iraqi numbers and on one occasion Ali Taleb was attacked and stabbed in the street.

Journalist to be deported despite death threats.

The Swedish Migration Board has decided to deport a well-known Iraqi journalist and documentary maker back to Iraq. This is despite Ali Taleb having received death threats following his film about the notorious Iraqi paramilitary force, the Mahdi Army.

Ali Taleb

The decision to deport Ali Taleb from Sweden has been strongly criticised by Reporters without Borders. Urban Löfqvist is the head of the Swedish section:
“Our assessment is that Ali entirely fulfils the criteria for asylum, partly because he has been threatened in his home country of Iraq and partly because he has had threats made against him in Sweden. The migration board has been bloody-minded in its interpretation of many of the facts in this case.”
Freelance journalist Ali Taleb fled with his family to Sweden three years ago and sought asylum. In Iraq he had received numerous death threats and his wife had been injured in a bomb attack. The reason was Taleb’s film about the Shia Mahdi militia, which in the past have fought against the US presence in Iraq and are also accused of murder and abuse against Iraqi civilians. After the film was aired on television, several of those who appeared in it were arrested. It was then that family members of those arrested started to threaten Taleb and his family.
“I received several threats, first via phone and then in the post. At first, I thought the purpose was just to scare me, but then I realised that they were out to kill me and my family,” says Taleb.

Swedish Migration Board

Despite this, the Swedish Migration Board judged Ali Taleb’s grounds for asylum to be insufficient and his application was turned down.
“When I received the decision of deportation I was shocked,” says Taleb. "I sought protection in Sweden as a journalist. I would have been better treated in many other countries. How can they treat me like this in Sweden?”
Cecilia Gylling Lindqvist at the Migration Board’s legal unit refuses to comment on any individual cases, but says that the situation in Iraq has improved, even for journalists.
“The security situation in Iraq has improved considerably of late and there are numerous newspapers and TV stations that are blossoming.”
Urban Löfqvist of Reporters without Borders does not agree:
“It is extremely difficult for journalists in Iraq. What we have seen, as an organisation, is that the number of attacks against journalists in the country is once again on the rise.”
Ali Taleb is currently in a migration detention centre outside of Stockholm awaiting deportation back to Iraq. Reporters without Borders believes Taleb’s life will be at risk if he is sent back. Ali Taleb himself says he shall continue the fight for him and his family to remain in Sweden.
“Let them bear the responsibility it they deport me. I intend to fight against it,” he told Swedish Radio International.
Here is the link for the full article, you can listen to the article as it was on radio, pay particular attention to the Swedish authority figure saying that Iraq is considerably safer and TV and newspapers are flourishing, yes the ones owned by the Shia clerks and Militias. Ali Taleb will be murdered if he is sent back to Iraq, do anything that you can, post this article on your Facebook, tweet, text, anything! we need to use our power to stop this kind of madness. I urge all of my friends in Sweden to show their support for Ali Taleb, because today it is Ali, tomorrow it may be you!

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=4734594

This is my answer to the authorities in Sweden and Western governments.
Ali Taleb is my friend, when he called me, as a humnan rights campaigner I called everyone that I could think of to help. I said to Ali, "Be strong, this is the face of the western governments, they don't really care about people or Human rights, just about money, power and contracts."
The Swedish government or any other Euorpean state welcomes the murderers, militia men and thieves because they bring with them the millions that they have stolen, an example of that is the Iraqis who moved from Malmo to Stockholm, in Iraq they were not the victims but the agressors, Mahdi militia and Badr brigade that is funded by Iran. Ali knows me very well, for the past twenty years I have tried to find a country to call home, but what I have found is that most of the European countries do not like people who are educated or with opinions, they like the criminals and thieves because they know that these people can be bought, bought by the country's social welfare payments and housing. The puppets in Iraq who have signed this "return" document have forgotten when they themselves were "refugees', now because of the contracts and the money they are all blinded and have forgotten the humanity they once called for for themselves.

2011-09-25T06:09:00.000-07:00

Uday Hussein's body double

As the body double for Saddam Hussein's son, Latif Yahia suffered several assassination attempts. Having escaped to Offaly, the controversial figure is now seriously at odds with his adopted country.

This article was first published on 26th of April 2007 in HOT PRESS, the journalist Jason O'Toole is one of the handful of Irish journalists that I have found to be fair and balanced. The rest all write for their editors or owners political agenda.
I am posting this so that you can read what I was saying four years ago about Ireland and ask "what has changed?" The answer is nothing, the government has changed but the civil service stays the same, same shit different ass, as they say. The system is still corrupt, Government, Garda (Irish police) and justice system ask any Irish person and they will tell you the same. So after all my years trying, I have finally found a lawyer with enough balls to bring the state of Ireland to the European court, I have said many times over the years that Ireland doesn't have an European government, it has an Iraqi one just with Blond hair and Blue eyes.
As you may or may not be aware I lodged my third and last application for Irish citizenship in September 2007, it is now September 2011 and I have yet to receive a decision on my case. In the past four years I have written over 105 emails and letters to the various Ministers for Justice and their office asking for status updates and any other news as to the progression or processing of my case, the answer is standard " your case is being processed" so no matter which political party the Minister for justice belongs to or how New he is to the job the response to my case is the same. Nothing. I wonder how long they can process it for? According to the Dept of Justice website the average processing time is 23 months, but then I'm anything but average!

By: Jason O'Toole, 26 Apr 2007

The former body double of Saddam Hussein’s sadistic son, Uday, is now living in (of all places) Offaly. Latif Yahia’s account of his time serving as the dictator’s son’s double would make a Hollywood screenwriter salivate.

Indeed, the 42-year-old recently sold the rights to his two autobiographies, I Was Saddam’s Son and The Devil’s Double, to the film company Pâté, with pre-production work already underway on what will certainly make for a fascinating insight into the demi-monde of Saddam’s regime.

Latif came to notice as a possible double, or ‘Fidai’ as they are referred to in Iraq, when he first met Uday in school.

He insists that he only agreed, reluctantly, to undertake what was a deadly dangerous role when the regime’s cronies arrested him and threatened to rape his younger sisters. Latif suffered several assassination attempts and was shot 11 times, with the last bullet lodged in his right shoulder coming from the gun of Uday himself. He states categorically that Uday – who he describes as “pure evil” – murdered his father.

Perhaps there’s an even better film in how Latif managed to abscond from Saddam’s clutches to a suburban housing estate in Daingean, County Offaly. He tells it like this.

Aided by the CIA, he was transported to Austria. Placed in a refugee camp there, he became incensed by conditions and took a policeman hostage to negotiate better living conditions. He alleges that the CIA then kept him incarcerated illegally for 10 months, as they attempted to pump him for confidential information about Saddam. Later, in Norway, Latif was so upset by the conditions in another refugee camp that he threatened to burn the place down.

Eventually, Latif, who has a PhD in international law, opted to come here. He relished the thought, he says, of settling down and living a mundane life in rural Ireland. But this dream has since been shattered by, he alleges, sinister CIA agents who vowed to crush him for refusing to co-operate and become a spy.

Since he rejected their offer, Latif says that his request for Irish citizenship was rejected – despite the fact that his is married to a Dublin woman, with whom he has a child.

Recently, a fabricated story alleging that he was an international arms dealer appeared in the tabloid press, and he successfully sued one Sunday paper for printing this story. Latif is adamant that both situations can be traced back to his refusal to cooperate with the CIA.

Throughout our conversation, he speaks passionately. You can sense that he is volatile, and much of what he says may be deemed to have the ring of the fantasiscal about it. But that may be a misreading. Latif Yahia has some deadly serious things to say…

He admits to arriving in Ireland under a bogus passport…

“I was in Austria with my real name and I had two assassination attempts. I went to London and I had an assassination attempt. At this time, Saddam was still strong,” he says. “In the end, I found out that my ex-partner was passing on information to the intelligence service. I left her and I came here and applied under a false name – not because I am doing fraud, not because I want to do something wrong, just so nobody knows where Latif Yahia is. Just to disappear. Because there was no Iraqi embassy here. I am safe here.”

Alleges he was beaten up by a Gardaí

“There is no justice in this country,” he states. “If I do this to you (shows photograph of his badly beaten face), what happens to you, do you go to court? I was beaten up by a Garda. They (the Gardaí) wrote to the Department of Justice, saying, ‘(We) believe that Latif Yahia is a terrorist.’ To cover themselves. I wrote and complained to the Commissioner of Police and he is not going to trust Latif Yahia, a foreign piece of shit who came in hunger from his country. But I am not hungry. My father was the third (richest) millionaire in Iraq. I come for political reasons. They think each one coming to this country is hungry, and is coming to take the Irish money. In the end, after two months, I received a letter from the head commissioner, saying I was harassing the Gardaí.

Why would the Gardaí pick on him?

“This Garda, I don’t want to mention his name, was the boyfriend of my ex and one day I came down and I saw him with my ex, and they did this job to me (points to photograph). He holds me and she puts a glass in my face. I get 46 or 47 stitches. You can see the scar on my face. After that I went to the Garda to make a complaint, but they didn’t want to take it. They said, ‘You are going to lose your citizenship.’ They used exactly these words: ‘We are going to fuck you. We are going to deport you back to where you came from if you open your mouth.’ I am not the kind of person to take a threat. I fought Saddam Hussein.”

On plans to leave Ireland…

Michael McDowell the Saddam Hussein of Ireland

“I applied for citizenship in 2001. I was the longest case in this country to be processed. In the end they make an excuse, after five years of waiting, because I started talking in the media. Michael McDowell – I call him Michael McFool – will refuse citizenship even if you have a parking ticket. I don’t even have a parking ticket. I am not staying in this country. I

left my country because I couldn’t find justice, and I came into another Iraq! Michael McDowell is the biggest racist in this country. I have been refused citizenship in this country which, I am sorry to say, is a shame on Ireland. There are four European countries that all offer me citizenship. I am leaving to go to Germany for a couple of reasons. I have a son there and I think Germany is a country of law, no no matter what colour you are.”

On Shannon Airport…

“America doesn’t need Shannon,” he argues, “but they want to show the world that there is a lot of countries supporting them. I am taking these words straight out of a big politician in this country, who is my friend for eight years. He told me when he met George Bush, Bush threatened him and said: ‘We have 24,000 Irish persons living in the US that don’t have green cards. We can deport them back to Ireland.’”

Ireland is now a legitimate target in the eyes of Islamic extremists…

“Ireland is not neutral,” he says. “Ireland is one of the big targets. Irish people are going to have a hard time, like the American people. If you go to Shannon, I don’t think you will see one Irish civilian there, it is an American base. Even if Islamic extremists don’t attack Shannon, Ireland is still going to be targeted – by even America! They are going to make something to blame on Islamic terrorists. The have got to do something to make believe that Islamic terrorists are coming to Ireland.”

Iran has suicide bombers, or “sleepers”, living in Ireland.

“A long time ago Iran trained suicide bombers to come into the West,” he states. “Since 1988, the Iranians have been building themselves up in the West. They send over refugees, which are the intelligence service for Islamic jihad. They have been told to claim asylum and get citizenship in these countries. There are a lot of them in Ireland. They are going to harm Irish citizens. They are going to blow up any part of Ireland that can hurt the Irish and damage the economy of Ireland. They are going to put a bad name on Ireland to not bring any more investors.”

He informed the Special Branch about the possibility of attacks within Ireland.

“I told the Special Branch that something is going on in this country,” he recounts. “They didn’t believe it, they said I was talking bullshit. I talked to the Special Branch, you know what his answer to me was? ‘I don’t give a fuck. In eight months time, I’m retired.’ I don’t want to see this country harmed, because this country is a beautiful country. I am Irish more than the Irish!”

On the CIA operating in Ireland

“The CIA have a small prison in Shannon,” he claims. “This is how they exchange the prisoners to Guantanamo Bay. A lot of innocent people have been exchanged through Shannon. The Special Branch don’t have a clue. Any intelligent Irish person realises that Ireland is a state of America. Last December, the CIA contacted me and said, ‘Look, Latif, we can give you citizenship in Ireland. We control a lot of things here. We can make you happy and a multimillionaire again. Or, we can,’ – they said exactly these words – ‘we are going to fuck you and fuck your mother.’ I tell them, ‘I don’t work for you and fuck Bush. And get out of this house.’ After three weeks, I received a letter from Michael McFool and he refused my citizenship. Before that they had sent me a letter saying don’t contact this office until the middle of 2008 – three weeks after kicking out the CIA, I got the letter.”

He is calling on the Irish government to stop the usage of Shannon by the American military and to apologise to the Arab world. Only this, he says, will prevent the deaths of innocent Irish citizens.

“There is no chance,” he observes, “that Ireland would have been targeted (if Shannon was not used by American military). Now, when you say Ireland, the Arab world thinks, ‘American arse, or American state’. This is the picture now. If they close Shannon (to the US army), they still have time to apologise and make this country become neutral again. I don’t think the government here have a clue about what is going on. Plus, they don’t care about Irish people, they care about their pockets. They don’t care about the next generation.”

On allegations of him being an international arms dealer…

“One of the articles said I was a weapons dealer,” he laughs. “I don’t think a weapons dealer would live my life. Weapon dealers have six/seven citizenships around the world. If I am a weapons dealer, how come I don’t have any citizenship?”

On censorship in Ireland…

“My new book is not available in Ireland,” he complains. “It sold 24,000 copies around the world, but it is ‘banned’ in Ireland because I talk about the CIA. I am writing something against America and the CIA. When I say America, I mean American government and foreign policy. They don’t want it read here. This is why, I say to you, the Irish media wasn’t fair to me, because I think the government controls the papers here. I was never humiliated by the media, except here (in Ireland). I would be absolutely shocked if this interview is published accurately.”

On Osama Bin Laden.

“After September 11, one newspaper wrote a small article on the front page that the double of Saddam’s son is the right hand of Bin Laden in Ireland!” he recalls. “I don’t know how they come up with that! Bin Laden, he drink Guinness? I never met Bin Laden. I don’t believe (in) Bin Laden. Bin Laden is the son of America. I don’t believe (in) Al Qaeda. If a freedom fighter in Iraq hits an American (solider) he is a freedom fighter. To hit any civilian is a terrorist. This is what I want to pass to the media but they don’t want to listen.”

Corruption in Ireland...

“The Irish government say this is a free country, but I don’t think Ireland is a free country,” he says. “At Christmas, somebody called me from the Department of Justice, and he said to me, ‘You hand me €50,000 and you have your citizenship, because we deal with these things here. I can write the report to give you citizenship, or I can write the report that you never get it.’ If you go to the Gardaí (about this), the Gardaí is full of corruption. Where do you go?”

On Latif Yahai, peacemaker…

“In the Irish media, they never talk about Latif Yahai as a peacemaker,” he says bitterly. “I have a title and I am recognised by the United Nation as an ambassador of peace. The last peace mission I did was a 5,800 walk from Jerusalem to Tripoli, in 32 days. The UN was behind that. With the last tsunami in Asia, I helped; why do they not mention that? I donated money and I donated medication. I never did fundraising, (it was) always my money. With all my books, I never put a cent in my pocket. This (new) book, the profits go to the children’s hospital here. Not one paper has mentioned my peace missions, not one paper.”

On Saddam Hussein…

“I met Saddam nearly once a week for four-and-a-half years,” he discloses. “He was a great President and suitable for the Iraqi people because, look at America, they can’t even control a small area of Iraq now. I am not pro-Saddam. I fight for 15 years against his government, but I never had a problem with Saddam Hussein as a person. I met him, I sit with him, we even exchanged jokes. He was a funny guy. I tell him joke about what the people say outside about him, and he laughing. Plus, he was very religious, but the people here don’t know that. He would pray. The problem was the people around Saddam fed him with false information. It is exactly like Michael McFool. The people around him – the Gardaí, the Special Branch – feed him with wrong information. The problem with Saddam was that he trusted the people around him. I was against his regime…”

On Saddam’s son, Uday.

“Absolutely evil,” he spits. “Uday tortured me. He shaved off all my moustache and eyebrows with his own hands. This is how I left Iraq. When I left Iraq, he shot me himself in my right shoulder. I had 11 assassination attempts. I have a couple of bullets in my body. He killed my father. They poisoned him. I can’t forget or forgive myself (about that).”

George Bush Jr and war crimes…

“He is a murderer and he must be brought to justice,” he argues. “He must be hanged. I am against the death penalty because I am a member of Amnesty International. But I want to see George Bush hanged in the same place as Saddam Hussein.

How his mother was refused asylum in Ireland.

“I paid $22,000 to smuggle my mother and my niece and nephew out of Iraq, to Ireland,” he confesses. “They were refused straightaway as asylum seekers. I don’t know who gets asylum here if my mother doesn’t! Again – Michael McFool. After two weeks – this was one-and-a-half year ago – they refused her, before even the immigration Gardaí do their investigation. She was refused and we went to a tribunal and the tribunal says, ‘Who’ll prove this is your mother?’ Do you think I would bring a 67-years-old woman and two children and pretend they are my family? They sent me for a DNA test. I paid (for it) from my own pocket in Blackrock Clinic and the result came in 99.7 she is my mother. Nobody is educated in the civil service. They sent me a letter asking why isn’t the DNA 100%! I showed it to my solicitor and he laughed. Is anybody 100% in this world? In an Irish court, 99.4 is acceptable. This is why I am leaving, because there is no chance here for my mother to stay. A tribunal should give you an answer within a maximum of eight weeks, but this is seven months I am waiting. I call them and they make excuses.”

Plans for legal action against Irish state.

“I am bringing Ireland, as a state, to the European Court,” he announces. “I have two files against the state of Ireland – human rights and about my case. Because I can’t get justice here, I think I will get it in the European Court. The government here are the losers, I am moving.”

Why he is being discriminated against in Ireland.

“If I say tomorrow that I agree with Michael McDowell,” he believes, “and Ireland must open Shannon for America because they are going to liberate Iraq, and if I say George Bush is a great man and Tony Blair is doing a great job – if I say all this, I guarantee you next week I get Irish citizenship – if not an American passport. If I shut my mouth I get everything. My problem is that I won’t shut my mouth. This world is not for honest people anymore.”

Latif Yahai’s latest book, The Black Hole, is available from
www.acanum-publishing.com

2011-09-24T01:57:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair wrote to Gaddafi 'to suggest investment projects'

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


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

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

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

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

Tony Blair with Colonel Gaddafi in 2007

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

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

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

2011-09-14T03:46:00.000-07:00

CIA files depict Malta as Libyan terrorist hub between 1988-1991.

Lockerbie campaigners unimpressed.

Abdelbaset al Megrahi who had been found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing, with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, one of the sons of the Libyan leader, after arriving back in Tripoli. Mr al Megrahi was released from the Scottish prison on August 20, 2009.

Malta was a “primary launching point” for Libyan intelligence and terrorist teams transiting Europe, according to a recent compilation of declassified CIA cables dating between 1988 and 1991.
But campaigners for justice in the Lockerbie bombing case have slammed such claims, describing the CIA’s main informant as a “money-grubbing fantasist” who led the CIA by the nose.
The informant quoted extensively in the 255-page document (taken predominantly from declassified CIA cables released in 2008 and compiled by an international organisation) is Abdul Majid Giaka, whose testimony, as an informant, was pivotal in convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing, despite the court having cast doubts on Mr Giaka’s credibility and reliability as a witness.
According to Lockerbie campaigner Robert Forrester, the recently compiled cables are so heavily redacted that any effort to corroborate the veracity of intelligence is impossible.
“Giaka was showered with US tax dollars in return for nothing of substance,” he told The Times.
Mr Forrester – who forms part of a group of Lockerbie victim family members who believe Mr al Megrahi was wrongly convicted – also criticised the CIA for showing no indication of having tried to independently corroborate any of the “so-called intelligence”.


The CIA are behind all the dictators and terrorists across the world.

“It really does look like [the CIA] swallowed it all, hook, line and sinker, until it finally dawned on them that he was worthless,” he said.
“These additional papers detailing the CIA’s relationship with Mr Giaka, add little to what is already known and to the doubts which have always hung over this case... Malta has absolutely no reason to think that these documents taint the island’s good name any more than it has been.”
However, he added that it is up to the Maltese government to take “concrete steps” to lift the cloud of Lockerbie which hangs over the island.
“The evidence is there which proves that there is no evidence to support this conviction.”
The connection with Malta and subsequently with Mr Al-Megrahi was made when police recovered from the wreckage items of baby clothing bearing the label ‘Yorkie’ made by a Maltese company. The clothing, traced to a Sliema shop, was found in the suitcase believed to have been carrying the bomb. Though the courts decided that the bomb left from Malta, another theory was that it had been placed on board a London-bound plane at Frankfurt airport before reaching the Pam Am jet that was bound for New York. Some still believe Iran, and not Libya, was behind the bombing.
Mr Giaka, the informant who is also referred to as “P/1” in the intelligence reports, was a Libyan working for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta who decided to cooperate with the CIA in 1988 because he wanted to be relocated and given money to start a new life with his Maltese wife.
In return for months of information gathering and supplying intelligence, he got the CIA to help him get mock-surgery to exempt him from military service back in Libya.
One of the intelligence reports claims that Maltese immigration and airport officials helped Libyan intelligence agents “monitor suspected Libyan oppositionists” in exchange for regular gifts. (Names are not being published for legal reasons.) They were “especially helpful” in helping officials and contacts of Libya’s External Security Organisation (ESO) travel from Malta to Libya without a trace, it was claimed.
Meanwhile, a Libyan living in Malta was used as a conduit to “Maltese Labour Union (a likely reference to the Labour Party) leaders and influential members of the Maltese Nationalist Party”.
The CIA first described Mr Giaka as “intelligent, serious and fairly well composed” as well as committed and capable of passing terrorist-type intelligence on a timely basis.
But the CIA later began to question Mr Giaka’s commitment, saying his financial situation became a major motivating factor in meeting. “[His] procrastination beyond reasonable limits is testing patience,” one report comments.
In his meetings with the CIA, Mr Giaka spoke about the visits to Malta of Mr Al Megrahi and other suspicious Libyan agents. He also speaks about orange-coloured explosives which arrived in Malta while Mr Al Megrahi was here, which were kept stored in a drawer at a Valletta apartment.
In 1991, he was described as “shattered”. He is quoted as having bluntly noted that the Maltese would do anything for money and those at the top of the current government would gladly turn him over if it meant making some cash.
Ultimately, Mr Giaka is described as “a defector from a sensitive position who has served faithfully since his walk-in in 1988” and the CIA concurred that staying in Malta would be very dangerous.
The cables also quote an anonymous Libyan businessman who says the Libyan intelligence presence in Malta would increase significantly in 1989, including personnel within both the ESO and the Libyan military intelligence service. The ESO had recruited a Maltese national employed as a vendor at Luqa airport to assist in acquiring information on persons of interest to the Libyan service, according to the cable.
“This individual prepares biographic and assessment information on personnel of interest to the ESO and forwards his reports to ESO headquarters in Tripoli via a Libyan Arab Airlines courier.”

2011-09-10T05:38:00.000-07:00

The Devil's Double, Amsterdam Premiere, September 5th 2011

The Dutch Premiere of The Devil's Double, Amsterdam September 5th 2011. My special thanks to Corrino Media Group , Staccato and A-Film who organised the event, well done to all a great evening and the best premiere so far!

Vanaf 8 september in de bioscoop: The Devil's Double (NL)! Van James Bond regisseur Lee Tamahori komt deze knallende actiefilm over de dubbelganger van de zoon van Saddam Hussein! Ook wel de Scarface van het Midden Oosten genoemd dus deze film mag je niet missen!

Mooie vrouwen in gouden bikini's, de aanwezigheid van de internationale cast en regisseur, een stormloop op Tuschinski en meer dan genoeg BN'ertjes die deze film niet wilden missen: alle ingrediënten voor een geslaagde première waren aanwezig. Maar het meest bijzondere was toch wel dat de echte Latif Yahia acte de presence gaf met zijn familie. Inderdaad, de man die gedwongen werd de dubbelganger van Uday Hoessein te worden; een sadistische en totaal ontspoorde dictatorszoon.

2011-08-23T06:07:00.000-07:00

Meet the real Devil’s Double: A conversation with Latif Yahia

By Jenn Schanz

Could you live with the devil for five years? How about become him?
At only 23-years-old, Iraqi military official Latif Yahia faced both dilemmas, as the psychotic eldest son of Iraq's notorious dictator brought him to the edge of hell and back with a job offer.
Or rather, a job assignment.
To be a fiday, a double…
Adapted from Yahia's autobiographical book, the 2011 Sundance film "The Devil's Double" directed by Lee Tamahori and starring Dominic Cooper as both Yahia and Uday Hussein, is being called a "must-see summer movie" and the "Scarface of Arabia."

Latif Yahia

While Yahia praised the film and Cooper's performance, stating that "no one has played him [Uday] as well as Dominic….great performance," it's apparent that nothing about the film's inspiration was glamorous.
For five years Yahia, now a Ph.D and well respected author, endured torture, forced plastic surgery, and psychological torment at the hands of a man he calls "completely erratic" - Uday Hussein.
Yahia and Hussein became classmates in their adolescence but it wasn't until the closing of the Iran-Iraq war that Yahia was called summoned to undertake what would become the most heinous and disturbing task of his life.
Becoming Uday Saddaam Hussein.
Yahia recalls the emotional chords struck by certain scenes in Tamahori's film: "The scene that affected me the most was the torture scene where Uday is whipping me on the bench. It reminds me of all the torture that I suffered at his hands. The scene where he tries to have me kill the father of the raped girl, not just because I refused and slit my wrists but because, although the movie doesn't show it, Uday actually took the gun as I was bleeding and shot the man anyway, right there in his office."
Forced to duplicate Hussein's mannerisms, demeanor, and even dental alignment, Yahia assured me that Uday, as crazed and powerful as he was, never truly took hold of who he was.
"I never lost myself, if I had I would have given in to Uday's lifestyle and psychotic behavior as his "friends" did," Yahia says. "Always in the back of my head I would say "I am Latif Yahia, my father is Yahia, he raised me to be a strong and true man."
Reflecting on the most difficult aspects of his experience as a body double, the now husband and father recalled the anguish of witnessing Uday's treatment of women.
"Uday would find them anywhere and everywhere, if they didn't come willingly he had them abducted. He had his pimps bring groups of girls around and he would choose, whomever was leftover the pimps could have…. I believe they should all rot in hell."
While discussing film, which has not been shown in Iraq, Yahia also notes the sociopolitical impact "The Devil's Double" had on the Muslim world, and why U.S. involvement in Iraq has destroyed a connection to his homeland.
"Iraq has been brought back a thousand years, thanks. The Muslim people all know what their leaders are and how they behave, in Iraq we had one Saddam and one Uday, now we have hundreds, every Ministers' son acts in the way Uday did."
He continues, "Anyone who says Iraq is stable is lying, delusional, corrupt and/or working for the American government. I have no feeling for a country that is run by Iranians and occupied by American forces."
In 2003, Uday Saddam Hussien was killed along with his brother Qusay and nephew Mustapha during a U.S. Task Force 20 confrontation. Yahia was less than satisfied at hearing the news.
"I was FURIOUS! Not because he I liked him! I wanted justice! I wanted to see him in court, I wanted to stand in front of a judge and say ‘Look what this madman did to me,' I wanted the Iraqi people to get Justice, killing him was the easy way out. No one got closure or justice that day."
What is justice?
After reading Yahia's book and seeing the film, I am moved by the power of individual resilience and personal character, even when the world is trying to rip it away from you. Perhaps justice is the ability to propel forward, unscathed by the evils of one's past.
Having spent the last 15 years in Ireland, despite 105 letters to the Ministry of Justice in Ireland, Yahia still awaits to hear back from his third citizenship application. His previous two were denied.
"I will never give up my fight for free speech, freedom, and justice…I work for peace around the world, with people who believe in peace and humanity." Yahia is now working on what he refers to as a "controversial" documentary film, and seems to be following the promise made on his personal website.
"As my dearest friends and family say ‘I don't have a filter' but for me it's easy to talk about these things, I don't have a political party to toe the line in, I'm not affiliated to anyone or anything. Therefore I can speak the truth and the only one that will pay the price will be me. If I survive the release of the documentary."
Although Latif Yahia is still in search of a homeland, 19-years after the darkest chapter in his life, it seems that he is, in some way, at home with himself.

For more information on Dr. Latif Yahia's story or the film "The Devil's Double" visit www.latifyahia.com

2011-08-20T16:53:00.000-07:00

The Devil's Double Book.

My dear friends, I promised you a new edition of The Devil's Double, here is the new cover of the book, it will be out before Christmas 2011, I promise and at a reasonable price, unlike the idiots on Amazon. I'm donating my royalties to the Iraqi Orphans, America does the damage and it's up to us to try and fix the country, I urge my American friends to tell the administration to stop supporting Dictators and "liberating" us from the Dictators that they support and have installed in our countries.
Best regards to all.
Latif Yahia

http://www.facebook.com/TheDevilsDoubleBook

2011-08-20T04:43:00.000-07:00

The Id of Mesopotamia

by: Michael J. Totten

A new film captures Uday Hussein and the regime he served in all their horror.

Hollywood has finally released a feature film that takes place in Iraq but isn’t about the Iraq War. Lee Tamahori’s The Devil’s Double tells the story of Latif Yahia, a young Iraqi officer from a privileged family who is forced to become the body double of Saddam Hussein’s psychopathic son Uday. The Iran-Iraq war is raging when the story begins, and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait takes place midway through, but these conflicts are in the background, off screen. The film, based on a book written by the real-life Latif with the help of Karl Wendl, is not about war but about the depravity of the palace.
Uday Hussein pushes drug abuse, sex, and impulsive violence to their extremes. He doesn’t just blow cocaine up his nose; he snorts it off the tip of a dagger. He likes to kill people when he gets drunk and even disembowels one of his father’s best friends at a party. We see him prowling the streets of Baghdad in his sports car and abducting young girls in school uniforms—including one still wearing braces—and taking them back to his bedroom to drug and rape them. He rapes another woman on her wedding day while she is wearing her wedding dress; a few minutes later, he is annoyed when she throws herself off a balcony. The man is pure id, scoffing at the Muslim saying “Allahu akbar” (“God is great”) and insisting that God never gave him anything. “Everything I want, I just take for myself,” he says. He sure does. “You should have been killed at birth,” his furious father says, holding him down and aiming a long curved sword at his genitals. You ought to know you’ve gone off the rails when Saddam Hussein is appalled by your behavior.
Poor Latif Yahia. Not only is he forced to become Uday’s body double; he must also effectively erase his identity and become Uday. The official story is that he was killed on the front lines in the war against Iran. Even his family believes this for a while. He undergoes plastic surgery so that he’ll look even more like Uday than he already does, and he’s expected to adopt Uday’s facial expressions, mannerisms, and tones of voice. Uday even wants him to kill, and Latif gets himself into serious trouble when he refuses. Presumably the only reason that Uday doesn’t kill Latif is that Uday desperately needs him to survive. He also seems to love Latif in a twisted sort of way—at least when he’s not beating and torturing him. Latif is seriously injured in an assassination attempt when the would-be killer mistakes him for the dictator’s son. (Of course, that’s the whole point of having a double in a place like Iraq.) The real-life Latif escaped from Iraq in the 1990s and spent years in therapy to soothe the emotional trauma of witnessing so much rape, murder, torture, and mayhem at the hands of the brutal man he had no choice but to serve. To this day, he says, he can’t fall asleep until five or six in the morning.
Dominic Cooper brilliantly plays both Uday and Latif. Despite the fact that the characters look the same, I never had any doubt which character was on screen; Cooper’s subtle shifts in body language and facial expression—a wild or soft look in the eyes, for instance—made it abundantly clear which role he was playing at every moment.
I don’t want to give anything away, but I can say at least that the film eventually departs from what took place in the real world to tack on an entirely fictional (though emotionally satisfying) ending. The writers presumably thought the departure made for a better story. Despite the modification, the film is well worth seeing for its vivid, accurate depiction of the viciousness of Uday Hussein and of the filthy regime he was born into.
The Devil’s Double is also blessedly free of even the tiniest anti-American jab, something that can be said of few feature films Hollywood has produced that take place in Iraq. (The only others worth watching are Three Kings and The Hurt Locker.) It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the film was made to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the American-led coalition. Latif doesn’t seem to be a fan of the war himself, for one thing. And though Uday Hussein did meet his end at the hands of American soldiers in Mosul in 2003, The Devil’s Double isn’t about the United States, even peripherally. Latif’s book was written before the invasion, and hardly anyone knew it existed until after the overthrow of Saddam’s regime. So few copies of the first edition were published that if you want to buy one from Amazon, you’ll have to pay $1,000, as of this writing. The most expensive copy costs over $100,000.
A story about Iraq written by an Iraqi is refreshing. Events in that country are far too often analyzed as though the United States were always at their center. Even during the darkest days of the insurgency, between 2004 and 2006, far more Iraqis were injured and killed by other Iraqis than by American forces. And many more Iraqis were killed and traumatized during the period in which The Devil’s Double takes place than after the American-led invasion.
If you’re inclined to view this film as a justification for the war in 2003, you’ll have a case. At least the invasion prevented Uday from ruling the country even more viciously than his father did. But the genre that the movie truly belongs to is Totalitarian Studies. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, which it did in the case of Saddam Hussein, what happens when a boy is raised with absolute power before he has a chance to mature? The Devil’s Double answers that question with the force of a punch to the stomach.
Michael J. Totten is a contributing editor of City Journal and author of The Road to Fatima Gate and In the Wake of the Surge. Visit his blog at www.michaeltotten.com.

2011-08-07T09:39:00.000-07:00

Saddam's demon seed

Uday Hussein’s many vices and wanton sadism appalled even his father. And one man was on hand to witness it all – Uday’s unwilling ‘body double’

By: Colin Freeman

Photo Of Uday Hussein In Military Uniform.

The siege of the Iraqi mansion lasted five hours, starting with a loudspeakered call to surrender and ending with the crash of missiles from a United States helicopter gunship. By the time it was over, half the house’s wedding cake-style facade was missing, affording the media a unique, through-the-rocket-hole tour when they were finally allowed near it.

Inside we found an elegant inner balcony splintered with bullets, and for anyone with a knowledge of gangster movies, one scene sprang to mind: the closing shots of Scarface, where Al Pacino’s drug baron makes his famous last stand.

“That film was mentioned a couple of times,” grinned Lieutenant Colonel Rick Carlson, commander of a unit involved in the raid, when I put this to him later.

So came the spectacular demise of Saddam Hussein’s notorious sons Uday and Qusay, whose lives resembled a real-life gangster flick, and whose deaths in July 2003 produced one of the few moments of universal good cheer in the ever-mounting gloom of post-war Iraq. For the US military, it was a much-needed morale boost in a steadily fraying mission, netting both the Ace of Hearts and the Ace of Clubs in the “Deck of 55” most wanted. For Iraqis, meanwhile, it meant the passing of two of the regime’s most feared men – in particular Uday, whose psychotic, unhinged brutality made his father look statesmanlike.

Yet as celebratory gunfire erupted over Baghdad, Latif Yahia, a 39-year-old former commando, was one of the few Iraqis who didn’t reach for his Kalashnikov. Not just because he was thousands of miles away in exile in England, where assault rifles are still frowned upon as party poppers, but because he didn’t want to cheer. He wanted to cry.

“The Americans should have taken Uday alive,” he tells me now. “I wanted him to face trial, so that I could tell the world what he had done, all the killing.”

Playboy, murderer, and sadist extraordinaire, Saddam’s elder son left no shortage of people with horror stories to tell in his wake. Yet for Latif, the trauma of his encounter with him was uniquely personal, one that still haunts him every time he looks in the mirror. For back in 1987, after noticing his striking likeness to Saddam’s son, Iraq’s secret service picked him to be Uday’s “fiday”, or body double, a job that involved becoming the living, breathing copy of the nation’s greatest hate figure.

Being the stand-in man on any occasion where Uday feared one of his many enemies might assassinate him was just one of Latif’s occupational hazards. Far worse was the window it gave him into the ruling family’s inner circle, attending Uday’s debauched parties, mixing with his entourage of pimps and thugs, and looking on as his doppelganger rampaged with impunity. And, to his ultimate horror and guilt, sometimes enjoying it.

“Until now, I haven’t slept properly because of thinking about him,” he said. “I am stuck with Uday for the rest of my life, and will probably take him with me to my grave.”

Now, though, 19 years after fleeing Iraq and claiming asylum in Europe, Latif has another chance to give Uday’s crimes an airing, and, hopefully, give his designer-stubbled, Ray Ban-wearing demon a final exorcism.

The Devil’s Double, released this week, is a film loosely-based on Uday’s early life – shot entirely from the point of view of his body double. Coming in the wake of Green Zone and the Hurt Locker, it is the first major Iraq movie to explore life in the ruling clan. And while Uday played no real role in the wider political drama of the war, he proves an illuminating focus point, being in many ways the personification of the regime’s dark side. Addicted to drink, sex and violence in equal measure, he was despised even more than his father – as I myself found when I was a correspondent based in Baghdad after the war.

On the hot July night that news emerged that he had been killed, the Iraqi capital erupted with so much gunfire that I thought a full-scale insurrection had broken out; by contrast, the celebrations when Saddam was caught five months later were more muted.

Iraqis used to tell me that their worst nightmare was Uday inheriting power, a fear that was not without justification, if the words that Latif claimed his employer once said to him are anything to go by: “Just wait till I’m president, I’ll be crueller than my father. You will often remember these words, and yearn for the days of Saddam Hussein.”

Starring Dominic Cooper as both Uday and Latif, the film is directed by Lee Tamahori, best known for his portrayal of violence within New Zealand’s Maori community in Once Were Warriors. The mayhem in that, however, is nothing compared to the savagery in The Devil’s Double. It applies the gangster movie blueprint to an entire country, replacing the Mafia with the Hussein clan, although Uday is far more crazed than anything Coppola or Scorsese have so far conjured up.

In one horrific scene, he uses a carving knife to stab to death Kamel Hannah, his father’s personal pimp, at a party attended by the wife of the recently-deposed Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak. The incident is entirely authentic, according to Latif, save for the minor detail that Uday actually used an electric rose pruner that he had at his side. Even so, Latif says the violence has been toned down.

“The movie shows 20 per cent of what really happened, at most,” he says. “On one occasion, in a jail back in ’91, I remember Uday dealing with a Shia prisoner who had been involved in the uprising against Saddam after the first Gulf War. He said: ‘I won’t kill you by the gun,’ and instead put a drill through his head. When he’d finished, he looked around and said: ‘This is what happens to those who stand up against us.’ They killed half the people in that jail, and put the bodies in among those still alive. Then they released the survivors, just so they could tell other Iraqis what they’d seen.”

Latif first met Uday in 1979, when the two were at the Baghdad College High School for Boys, the country’s answer to Eton. The Iraq of that time was a very different place: Saddam, newly in power, was still relatively popular, having used Iraq’s oil money to create one of the Middle East’s most developed countries, while Baghdad was the region’s party capital, full of bars, discos and nightclubs.

Even then, Iraq’s First Family were a law unto themselves. Latif’s teachers learnt this the hard way when Uday first turned up at school, surrounded by five bodyguards. Having turned a blind eye to his habit of throwing chalk at them during lessons, and parking his yellow Porsche in the school’s basketball court, one teacher finally protested when Uday brought a girlfriend into class. “The teacher told Uday this was forbidden in an all-boys school,” recalls Latif. “He was never seen again.”

A keen painter, Latif won Uday’s friendship after drawing a portrait of Saddam, but knew to keep his distance. When university beckoned, he even switched to reading law when learning that Uday had enrolled on the same engineering course.

Then, one day in September 1987, while serving at the front during the Iran-Iraq war, he was whisked by limousine to a palace in Baghdad, where Uday, sat in a white leather armchair and smoking one of his trademark Montecristo No 6 cigars, told him of the top-secret plan to make him his “fiday”. After all, his father had been using one for years. “I want you to be me. Everywhere, always,” he said. It was an order, not a request. When Latif at first refused, he was thrown for days into a blood-encrusted jail cell with no lavatory. When he still protested, Uday threatened to feed his sisters to his pet dogs.

Thus began his secret service-organised “training programme”. He and Uday already bore a sharp resemblance to each other, with the same round eyes, thick eyebrows and slightly curly hair. But nothing was left to chance. To start, there was cosmetic surgery – a cleft added to the chin, and dental treatment to mimic Uday’s bucktoothed grin, which even gave him Uday’s distinctive lisp as well. To be really convincing, though, he also had to study the unique Uday school of deportment, honing, as he puts it, a “supercilious, dictatorial arrogance”.

How to mimic Uday’s childlike giggle, cocky stride and slovenly manners, always sitting slumped rather than straight up. How to greet people with a studied stare, and make his point by gesturing with a revolver. How to cruise around Baghdad in a different Porsche, Ferrari or Lamborghini every day, which also had to match whichever loud designer suit he was wearing. How to cradle a Montecristo between middle and index fingers, and knock back vast quantities of Dimple, the unsophisticated Scotch that was Uday’s favourite. And how, when attending discos, to up the tempo by blasting a few gunshots into the ceiling. For Latif, though, the hardest part of the fakery was played on his own family. He signed a contract saying he would never, on pain of execution, tell anyone that he was Uday’s double; this included his parents, who were told he had gone missing at the front, and whom he was forbidden from seeing again.

At first, being Uday had benefits. Latif was billeted in a five-star apartment with four full-time servants, its own bar, and a wardrobe packed with Uday’s hand-tailored clothes. He was also introduced to Saddam himself, or a man he assumes was him: one scene in the film shows the Iraqi leader playing tennis with his own double, the two impossible to be tol apart. But the scales soon fell from Latif’s eyes as he saw at first hand Uday’s appalling behaviour, which was normally covered up by Iraq’s state-controlled press.

Saddam’s son ran his own dark empire in Iraq, controlling the lucrative underworld smuggling rackets that thrived during the years of UN sanctions. His vast wealth allowed him to buy hundreds of cars, stashed all over Baghdad in underground garages and torched once the US invaded so nobody else could own them. (Uday employed somebody just to scour the internet for photos of new or collectable cars, which were then placed in a ring binder. He employed his own fisherman and two lion-tamers, too.)

He also ran the Iraqi Olympic Committee – the only one in the world that had its own jail, where athletes who did badly in international contests would be tortured using increasingly elaborate methods Uday had found on the internet. Worst of all, though, was his penchant for kerb-crawling around Baghdad.

Like Uday’s request for Latif to become his “fiday”, proposals of a quick night of romance with the president’s son were not negotiable. Dozens of girls would be paraded before him at the Baghdad Boat Club every night, and most would end up in his bedroom. Those who refused were abducted by his bodyguards and raped, first by Uday, and then by his henchmen. (It’s said he never slept with the same girl more than three times.)

Latif chronicles several such incidents in his book I Was Saddam’s Son, including the events of one notorious night at Habbaniya, a resort in Iraq’s western desert. Spotting a woman on honeymoon, Uday dragged her up to his sixth-floor hotel room, where he beat and raped her.

“Afterwards, he comes grinning out of the bedroom, pours himself a brandy and goes on chatting as though nothing had happened,” Latif writes. “Suddenly, we hear a long shrill scream that goes on forever. I dash into the bedroom, and see the door open to the balcony… she jumped from the sixth floor because she couldn’t stand the shame. What could I have done? Uday’s bodyguards, who almost derived more pleasure from their boss’s acts of cruelty than he did himself, would have killed me.”

So what made Uday so crazy? The Devil’s Double doesn’t dwell on this too much, but Latif has theories of his own. For all that Uday’s childhood was spoilt and overindulged, he points out, it was also traumatic.

Saddam, he claims, inducted Uday into the ways of the “family firm” from a young age, taking him to his first public execution aged just five, and, aged ten, showing him videos of regime opponents being tortured. Living up to family expectations was also hard. After all, when your father has already grabbed the titles of President, High Excellency, and Conqueror of All Iraq, there is very little left to achieve.

“This evil man, this gangster, he would cry like a baby when he was drunk, and talk about how his father ignored him,” says Latif. “He was close to his dad, but after he murdered Kamel Hannah [the pimp killed with a rose pruner], Saddam started favouring his brother Qusay to take over from him. At that time Uday also got rid of all his professional bodyguards, and just had pimps and thugs around him. That made things even worse.”

Things got worse for Latif too, as anger over the gassing of the Kurds in 1988 and disastrous 1991 Gulf War defeat made the ruling family more unpopular. He suffered two assassination attempts during public engagements on his boss’s behalf, nearly losing a finger in a grenade blast. When he returned to Baghdad for treatment, however, Uday’s only concern was that he too may have to forfeit a finger if his double’s digit couldn’t be saved. The film eventually depicts Latif escaping Iraq with one of Uday’s former girlfriends, Sarrab, and as the closing credits point out, “the rest is history”.

Minus his double, Uday spent his final years paralysed from the waist down after being shot while out cruising for girls one day, although even that does not seem to have curbed his lust. When US troops searched his various hide-outs after the war, they reportedly found Viagra, porn movies and an HIV testing kit, as well as millions of dollars’ worth of fine wine and a heroin stash.

Latif, who now lives and blogs in Belgium, joined the exiled anti-Saddam opposition, although to this day, he insists the US-led invasion was a mistake, simply replacing one gangster clique with many. “I knew it would put Sunni and Shia and Kurd against each other,” he says. “Now you have lots of people all wanting to behave like Saddam and Uday.”

Nor does he wish ever to return to his home country, whatever rosy claims are made in the West about it now becoming a democracy. Because from his own bitter experience, the problem is not just the thugs who tend to hog power in Iraq, but the willingness of the people to follow them slavishly.

“The problem is not Iraq as a country, but the people. I am sorry to say this, but if you read the history of Iraq, you will see it has been like this for 7,000 years – that is to say,

a--holes, clapping their hands for anyone, and selling their mothers for money. It will take 50 years, maybe more, to change the place.”

The Devil’s Double opens in cinemas on Friday

2011-08-05T17:40:00.000-07:00

What a cad!
He shot to fame playing the romantic lead in the most successful British film of all time, but there’s a hint of menace about Dominic Cooper’s performances that could make him this generation’s most lovable Hollywood rogue, writes DONALD CLARKE

EVERY GENERATION needs a cad. Funny cads like Terry-Thomas. Brooding cads like James Mason. Smooth cads like George Sanders. The dangerous lover never quite goes away.

In recent years, Dominic Cooper, a dreamy Londoner with bandit eyes, has been shaping up to become the signature cad for this era. He is perhaps still best known for playing Amanda Seyfried’s boyfriend in Mamma Mia! , but he was superbly slippery as a classless conman in An Education . He did the business as an uncaring pop star in Tamara Drewe . Heck, I half expect him to swipe me across the face with a riding crop, fling me down the stairs and call me “a bally whore”. He doesn’t.

“Yes I suppose I have done a few cads,” he says. “They’re much more fun than your basic lover. I guess there’s a bit of repetition there. But I hope I find something more than what’s on the page each time.”

Next week, Cooper moves from moustache-twirling cad to out-and-out bastard. In Devil’s Double he delivers two quite stunning performances as Uday Hussein, deranged son of the late Saddam, and Latif Yahia, the soldier who was forced to act as the heir apparent’s double.

The film offers a series of technical challenges. Not only does he have to play two characters – a murderous psychopath with a toddler’s giggle and an ordinary bloke propelled into an extraordinary universe – he has to play one playing the other.

It was a busy set. Far from having hours to shift character, Cooper was often asked to move from monster to man in an instant.

“There was no time,” he says. “I managed it because I had established exactly who they were. I had worked out the basic tricks of creating two very different physical types. The vocal tunings were different. Uday somehow occupies more of the room than Latif.”

Cooper was lucky enough to have the real Latif Yahia as a resource. Since fleeing Iraq – the film speculates that he may have tried to assassinate Uday Hussein – he has written a few books. Until recently, he lived quietly in this country with his Irish wife.

“It was daunting when I sat down with him,” Cooper explains. “I knew immediately not to pry too much. He has serious scarring and I had to be careful not to ask too much about that too soon. Who am I to start interrogating this guy?”

The film depicts Hussein kidnapping school girls, enjoying video tapes of torture sessions and murdering a henchman at a heart-stoppingly vulgar party. He also has a creepily close relationship with his mother. Did Cooper come to any conclusion as to what turned him into such a deranged personality?

“Was it nature or nurture?” he muses. “It was hard to find anything to cling on to with that character. It’s so far from anything I could understand. But you can’t help but think who his father was. You just think how difficult that sort of relationship can be at the best of times. His father really did seem all-powerful to him. By all accounts, Saddam thought Uday was idiotic.”

Cooper, now 33, was raised in southeast London, the son of a nursery-school teacher who separated from his father when Dominic was a boy. Later in life, his dad revealed he had a daughter by another woman while still living in the family home. It all sounds very EastEnders. But Cooper insists everybody behaved in a mature fashion.

“After that, I had a stepdad, and he was lovely and great,” he says. “No, it wasn’t like a broken home, because there was no real animosity. It was very easy and calm. Everybody saw one another and got on very well. Looking back, it was a bit eccentric. I don’t know how it worked. But it just did.”

Cooper’s older brother is a music-video producer who arranged work for his teenage brother as a runner on his sets. Later, Dominic moved into editing, and while at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts he used this to support himself. “During the day I’d be pretending to be a dog, then at night I’d be digitising images and logging them into computers,” he says.

A good-looking guy with a crisp, clean voice and an ability to convey inner turmoil through the tiniest movement, Cooper has never been short of work. Soon after graduation, he secured a berth at the Royal National Theatre, where he appeared in the first production of Alan Bennett’s The History Boys. He later starred in the film version of that piece and remains pals with Bennett.

Coopermania stepped up a gear in 2008. He had, to that point, rarely been molested while buying his roll of Toffos and his pint of milk. But his turn alongside Keira Knightley in The Duchess brought him a greater degree of visibility. Then he starred in (honestly) the most successful British film of all time.

“I learned quite quickly that fame goes in waves,” he says. “If you are in a magazine, that week you are recognised. When it does happen it’s never aggressive. It’s very pleasant when someone refers to a play they’ve seen or the deep-rooted happiness that they got from Mamma Mia! ”

It’s hard to overestimate the impact of that mad, charming Abba musical. Everyone knew it would be a hit, but no sane person suggested it would take more than €400 million worldwide. Until Avatar came along, it was the most lucrative film ever at the combined UK and Irish box office, and it still holds the No 2 spot.

“It’s very touching. It’s very, very moving. I can’t believe the number of people who’ve come up and said: ‘We saw that at an important point in my late mother’s life, and that brought us all together.’ ”

Was he surprised to find himself in a musical? “I think so. I wasn’t sure what I was embarking on. I had never seen the show. That genre is not mine. I found it hard to cross the line of suddenly bursting into song. But, when I saw who else was in it, I thought, this could be either extraordinary or a disaster. I didn’t actually realise I could sing in that way. I’d always been in some sort of band, but those Abba songs are hard to sing.”

The success of Mamma Mia! coincided with a difficult time in Cooper’s personal life. He had been going out with Joanna Carolan, personal assistant to Harold Pinter, for 12 years. The relationship ended that year amid reports Cooper had begun dating Amanda Seyfried.

“We are still great friends,” he says of Carolan. “It’s an amazing experience going through a relationship that is longer than a lot of marriages. There was a sense of loss. I was so young when we got together: 16 or 17. But you realise that that person can still be a major part of your life. Work pulled me away. I just began travelling a lot, and that’s hard.”

One suspects Cooper is here to stay. Tabloids have tried to represent him as the new Colin Firth or the new Hugh Grant, but he has a sly energy all his own. Though he can play the romantic lead, there is a hint of menace about him that adds an edge to all his performances.

You can see that force at work in the current, surprisingly nifty superhero flick Captain America: The First Avenger . Playing Howard Stark, father to the future Iron Man, Cooper nods towards Howard Hughes with his portrayal of an eccentric engineering genius.

Later this year he will join a tasty cast – Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe, Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier, Julia Ormond as Vivien Leigh – in Simon Curtis’s My Week with Marilyn . Cooper plays the esteemed photographer Milton H Greene.

What with all this travelling, he must have trouble maintaining a normal home life. Has he found time to buy a proper house? Is there butter in the fridge? “No, not at all. I bought a shoe box at the top of a tree in north London,” he says, laughing. “I have barely been home this year. There are so many things to do. I keep meaning to buy a bed, but I haven’t got round to it. There are just so many choices.”

He’s laughing at the trivial nature of his problems. Cooper seems to have his head screwed on. Earlier he was talking about the horrible pressures that assailed Latif Yahia.

“He was acting, and he knew that if he got it wrong he could be killed.”

Well, that puts his job in perspective. “Yeah, yeah. It certainly does.”

The Devil’s Double is on general release from Friday

On the double

No challenge excites actors more than playing against themselves. It stretches their technical gifts. It allows them to experiment with vocal timbres. Most importantly, it ensures they keep as much of the limelight as possible to themselves. The history of the double-up performance goes back a long way. In 1922, Rex Ingram, a Dublin-born film-maker, directed what was already the third version of Anthony Hope’s The Prisoner of Zenda . Lewis Stone played the English gentleman who gets to impersonate a Ruritanian prince.

Subsequent versions of that definitive lookalike story followed, with Ronald Colman, Stewart Granger and Peter Sellers all playing both roles. Comics quickly saw the comedy potential, and, in 1921, Buster Keaton played virtually every role in The Playhouse. But the masters of this class of comic multitasking were Laurel and Hardy. They each played dual roles on three occasions. In Twice Two (1931) each, somewhat creepily, also played the other man’s wife. In Brats (1930) they played their own children. And in the superb Our Relations (1936) they played sober domestic pals and their dimmer, more dissolute sailor brothers.

If you really fancied yourself, you could, like Keaton, attempt a whole busload of characters. Peter Sellers managed three in the magnificent Dr Strangelove (1964): a blimpish English officer, the ineffectual president and the titular, Machiavellian scientific adviser. That array seemed insignificant when set beside Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949), in which Alec Guinness gave us eight members of the foolish and doomed D’Ascoyne family.

Such versatility deserves an Oscar. Yet only two actors have ever managed it. No, not Jeremy Irons as the twins in David Cronenberg’s masterpiece Dead Ringers (1988). Nicolas Cage failed to take a statuette for his split personalities in Adaptation ( 2002). But Frederic March triumphed in 1931 for playing both Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the best version of that story (then again, are they both the same man?). And Lee Marvin got a gong for best supporting actor for playing the drunken Kid Shelleen and the scary psychopath Silvernose in Cat Ballou (1965).

Mind you, the double-up performance can be as much a triumph for the special-effects boys as it is for the overworked actor. In The Social Network (2010), rather than hiring real twins to play Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, David Fincher asked Armie Hammer to submit to the digital photocopier. The effect was dramatic, but it looked a little like showing off.

The Devil's Double Official Trailer.

2011-08-03T19:36:00.000-07:00

This article has been published today in The Independent, please read the whole article and then my response at the end. I have copied the whole thing and put it here on my blog because they would not let me upload it to their website.
so much for "right of reply" and "freedom of Speech".

Is Uday Hussein's 'double' really just an impostor?

Critics claim a new film telling the 'true' story of the man who protected Saddam's son from assassins is based on a web of lies

By Jerome Taylor

They say some stories are too good to be true – although that has never stopped Hollywood. The Devil's Double is the latest blockbuster to stretch the limits of the phrase "based on a true story". But who cares, if it tells the gory tale of one of the most brutal psychopaths of the late 20th century?

Released in cinemas later this month, the film recounts the knuckle-whitening autobiography of Latif Yahia, the supposed body double to Saddam Hussein's psychotic younger son, Uday.

The British actor Dominic Cooper plays both roles and has won critical acclaim for his portrayal of a man who raped and murdered his way through Baghdad's high society – and also that of the poor sap who had to pretend to be such a maniac to protect him from the bullets of any would-be assassin. In recent years, though, growing numbers of Uday's inner circle have cast doubt on whether the story could be feasible.

With a strikingly similar face to Uday – who was gunned down by American special forces alongside his brother Qusay in July 2003 – Mr Yahia first emerged in Europe in the early 1990s with a remarkable claim that generated headlines around the world.

He told intelligence agents that he had lived a life of servitude as Uday's body double – and had turned on his master when Uday tried to kill him because a girlfriend had become overly flirtatious. Memoirs and international fame quickly followed.

There is little doubt that the tale Mr Yahia tells is perfect for the silver screen. According to his book, blog and media interviews, he was born into a wealthy family with close ties to Saddam's Ba'athist regime. Part of Baghdad's élite, he went to the same school as Uday, where friends commented on how similar in appearance he was to the Iraqi dictator's sadistic youngest son.

In September 1987 during the Iran-Iraq war, he was called back from the frontlines and told to go to Saddam's Baghdad palace, he has said.

"My superior had a distinct look of concern on his face when I entered the room," Mr Yahia later wrote. "I was taken from the front to my appointment, as I waited, my mind racing, questioning, never in my wildest dreams had it occurred to me the true reason behind my summoning."

Uday had decided to make him a body double. When Mr Yahia politely refused he was put in prison for a week and tortured. Upon his release he was told that unless he agreed to become Uday's doppelgänger his family would be killed and his sisters raped.

After rounds of plastic surgery, the transformation was complete. Mr Yahia said that between 1987 and 1991 that he was witness to some of Uday's worst excesses – his prowls through Baghdad at night looking for women to rape, his drug abuse, violent outbursts and penchant for torture. He also claims to have survived 12 attempted assassinations.

Mr Yahia thought of escaping only after Uday, angry that a girlfriend had started to openly flirt with the doppelgänger, tried to shoot him. Mr Yahia claims he fled to Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and later to Austria with the help of the CIA.

Yet some of those who were in Uday's inner circle at the time have poured scorn on Mr Yahia's claims. Haytham Ajmaya, a 48-year-old Iraqi expat living in London, is one of them. He defected from Iraq in 1998 with the help of the British Government in exchange for information on Uday's inner circle, within which he had served for more than a decade. "Latif may have looked like Uday and talked like him but he was never Uday's body double," he told The Independent yesterday. "It's a real shame that Hollywood has decided to make a film based on rubbish rather than a film that is true to Iraq's history."

Mr Ajmaya claims that at most Mr Yahia was someone who used his close resemblance to Uday to secure money and girls in Iraq and was in fact arrested by police for doing just that. In January, a writer from The Sunday Times tracked down a further three members of Uday's inner circle who cast doubt on Mr Yahia's claim, as well as Saddam's plastic surgeon, who said no operation had been carried out on a body double.

My Yahia did not respond to The Independent's requests for comment yesterday but when confronted earlier this year about the remarks by Uday's former friends, he said: "I was Uday's double. Uday didn't have friends; he had pimps, drug dealers, hangers on, etc. Either I am psychic to know about inside palaces, bunkers and all the rest of the places... or I was actually there. I know the truth."

Toby Dodge, a historian at Queen Mary, University of London who specialises in modern Iraq and has interviewed members of Saddam's regime, says that separating fact from fiction in Ba'athist Iraq is notoriously difficult. "The regime had always been shrouded in mythology," he said yesterday.

Meanwhile, Lee Tamahori, the New Zealand-born director of The Devil's Shadow, remains unfazed by the allegations. "Biopics are not my favourite movies because they always try to steer too close to the facts," he writes. "But the truth doesn't set you free in movies. Truth layered with fiction sets you free."

This is my response to the article:

To the Writer of this article, firstly I find the fact that you have written that Uday was the "Younger" son of Saddam Hussein hilarious, secondly you haven't even been able to get the title of the film right it is "The Devil's Double" not The Devil's Shadow unless Lee Tamahori was working on another movie with Dominic Cooper. Getting these two well known and important facts wrong, leads me to believe that you either did NO research, or just collated information and old articles that you found on the net.
You quote Haytham Ajmaya as a source in Uday's inner circle, a man who in the Sunday Times article admits to have being a Pimp for Uday , but says that just because he brought women to a man that he knew was Sadistic and violent and has sold himself to Britain as you openly say in your article, is trustworthy. You might find the Arabic meaning of his name Ajmaya (Iranian Woman) interesting. As for your other or should I say Ed Caesar's sources, I have tackled their credibility in a blog that I wrote last April you may find it on my website.
Any man that can sell women, then sell himself and his country can sell anything and anybody even if it is false, the British government have been paying Ajmaya for years and have made him a British citizen, (as far as I have seen over the past 20 years the West loves these kind of people) who is paying him now for this supposed information? If Haytham Ajmaya or any of the others that are relied upon had anything to say before, they didn't, my book was first published in 1994, I have written others, I have a blog, a website, why is it just now that they come out of the woodwork? Because there is a movie? Well then, since they were so close to Uday why didn't they get their story told? Maybe because the powers that be know the blood that is on their hands? What kind of story would they tell? Maybe they could tell how they brought women to Uday knowing full well what he did with them, or how they themselves murdered and raped girls.
As for Haytham's assertion that I was just impersonating Uday to get girls and make money, that at one time Uday found out and just laughed. Well, Iraq would have been a much nicer place if Uday had been so easy going! Does Haytham also assert that all the girls that came forward as rape victims of Uday are liars?, the football players?, the athletes that he tortured?, or is it personal?
As for Saddam's plastic surgeon, well he stitched the Hymens of the girls and did plastic surgeries on the wounds that they incurred if they survived a night in Uday's arms, he admitted it in one of his TV interviews, (he omitted to mention the hymens) Ask any ordinary Iraqi, they know he was fired from his position and prohibited from practicing medicine, once Saddam found out, which is why he returned to painting.
Am I surprised that The Independent has written an article like this about me? No. Why? because I included the owner of the Independent, Tony O'Reilly in one of my blogs recently, I really don't think that you can call the Independent, Independent.
I am not in hiding like my accusers, I have clean hands and am not afraid of the spotlight, unlike Haytham Ajmaya or Dhafir Mohamed Jabir.
As I have learned over the years from dealing with the Intelligence agencies, never trust information you pay for, because to keep the money coming they have to keep giving you information, in the end they make it up to keep the money rolling in.
As the Middle East is having it's uprising so it will spread across the world, because although the West has the illusion of Democracy, people understand more and more each day that they are being fed mis-information and the ideology of the newspaper owners, Murdoch himself has openly said, No political party could attain power if he and his media empire were not behind them. The same is true of Tony O'Reilly in Ireland, just ask Fianna Gael political party in 1997.
Was I contacted for a comment by the Independent? Yes my agent was, but knowing who they work for etc, I don't give comments or interviews to papers I can wipe my arse with. The same is true for The Sunday Times.
This reaction or comment may not be published under the original article on the Independent's website, so I am copying the article and my response and putting it all on my blog, because I'm a man not a coward like the Journalist and the Independent's owner, we will all see how long newspapers like these last, I think not so long.

My article last April: Click the Link

http://latifyahia2006.blogspot.com/2011/04/pass-me-spinach-font-face-font-family.html

http://latifyahia2006.blogspot.com/2011/07/bigger-they-are.html

2011-07-29T04:13:00.000-07:00

A special thanks for all my friends around the world

My Dear Friends, today is the day! The Devil's Double is released in the US! I want to thank everyone who was involved in making this movie happen, especially Michael Thomas for writing a brilliant screenplay, and Dominic who really put his heart and soul or should I say nearly lost his soul playing me and Uday. A special thanks for all my friends around the world for all their support for the past twenty years but especially for the past seven since we started this project.
Best regards,
Latif Yahia.

2011-07-26T12:46:00.000-07:00

HuffPost Review: The Devil's Double

By: Marshall Fine

Author and film critic, hollywoodandfine.com

Reality is what you say it is when you're the dictator tyrant who runs a country like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

That's a lesson that's quickly learned by Latif Yahia, who is a near-twin for Hussein's viciously rabbity son, Uday. As played by Dominic Cooper (An Education), Latif is a conscientious soldier in Hussein's army with no interest in either politics or serving the Hussein government anymore than he is forced to.

But in The Devil's Double, based on a true story, Latif is, in fact, coerced - nay, required, mandated, forced - to become Uday Hussein's double. The alternatives are dire - torture for him and, if he still refuses, torture and/or death for his parents. What can he do except agree?

Which becomes the moral crux of Lee Tamahori's viciously compelling film: Is there a point at which you become culpable for acts you are forced to witness, to participate in? If there is no escape other than death - or if even your death holds the promise of torture and death for your family and loved ones - can you be considered guilty for anything you do?

Looking smart: Cooper slipped into a trendy tuxedo suit teamed with silvery grey shoes and a quiffed hairstyle.

Even if the answer to that question is no, is there any way you can live with yourself if you are complicit in atrocities and murder? What is the toll on your soul just from being a witness to the horrifying treatment of others without offering protest?

These are issues that are never discussed in the course of Tamahori's film - but they will undoubtedly lodge in the mind of the viewer. The situation Latif faces in "The Devil's Double" is a nightmare, from which there seemingly is no escape. Yet he does attempt to escape, often with harsh consequences for himself.

The backdrop of the film is the period between the Iran-Iraq war, in which Latif fights heroically, and the first Gulf War. Latif is an eyewitness to the excess of Uday, who drinks and drugs to excess, cuts a sexual swath through the palace faithful, even as he kills enemies and perceived enemies with relish and on impulse. Latif is on hand to make public appearances for Uday when Uday needs to be in two places at once, or when he's too hung-over - or when there's a plausible threat against his life.

Latif becomes a believable double, learning to mimic Uday's speaking style, his idioms, his cocky posture and shoot-first mentality. But Latif is constantly looking for his way out - not to kill Uday and take his place but to simply escape from his servitude and status as wingman to a monster, to flee the country and have a life of his own.

The action in this film is bloody and unnerving, whether it is Uday gigglingly torturing and raping young women or shooting and stabbing his perceived enemies. He cackles like some Semitic version of Woody Woodpecker as he commits one horror after another.

Amazingly, Dominic Cooper plays both roles here, something I didn't realize until I looked at the press notes halfway through the film. He's so convincingly different as Latif - quiet, dignified, reserved, simmering - that, at first, you're convinced that you're watching two different actors. It's the kind of performance that can be showy and inauthentic; Cooper, instead, makes each character singular, even when Latif is consciously trying to imitate Uday.

Ice T and his wife Coco also came along to the premiere

Indeed, Cooper's work here is absolutely Oscar-worthy, a tour de force that should be remembered at year's end. Chilling, thrilling and hard to take at times, The Devil's Double" offers one of the great performances of this or any year - or is it two performances?

2011-07-25T04:46:00.000-07:00

The Bigger they are…..

By: Latif Yahia

It may take decades or even a lifetime to build an empire, but it seems relatively easy to tear one down. Or at least that appears to be the case with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. ranked number 13 on Forbes most powerful people in the world list, it looks as the days go by that more and more high ranking politicians and policemen will be dragged into Murdoch’s phone hacking scandal, both in the UK and America, there are now calls to see if any of the victims of 9/11’s phones were hacked. Are we surprised?

Rupert Murdoch??

Not really, to do business on the scale that Rupert Murdoch was doing it, there had to be people “on the take”, but do not be fooled into believing that he was handing them the brown envelopes personally, well, maybe a few, but the rest were passed on from those who were sanctioned to do so or saw it as a way of doing their job to the fullness of their ability. Yes Murdoch is corrupt, but he would not be the first or the last to use money to his advantage.

There are several ways of attaining information, it can be given freely, it can be bought or it can be stolen. Thankfully we have not yet come across the fourth, torture, but that’s not to say that any newspaper, magazine etc. has not used information that came from a torture subject, known or unknown.

At the moment the world may be vilifying Murdoch but he is not alone and not the first of his kind, if he ran a country we would call him a Dictator but because he runs a company we call him (until very recently) a Success.

He very possibly never wrote a Manifesto like Saddam or stood and gave a rousing speech to his workers about the strength of the country (News corp. operates on three continents) but with so many assets he has as many workers as a medium sized country and they all want to keep their leader happy, sorry, I mean keep their jobs.

Like all good dictators he has passed the crown onto his son and heir, the next natural successor, after all he didn’t work this hard for it to go to some elected fool! And his devoted workers all know what is expected of them, which is why all of his newspapers, magazines and TV stations take the same line, not necessarily because he told them to, but because they know what pleases him and again they want to keep their jobs and prove how good they are. That reminds me of someone else I once knew.

Don’t think that Rupert Murdoch is the exception to the rule, he is the rule.

Take Tony O’Reilly for example, once maligned by the likes of Conrad Black (who has also fallen off his pedestal) and Murdoch, he has an uncomfortable monopoly on the Irish media as he has a large stake in all but two of the National papers, a fact that rarely sees him criticized but famously helped him to swing the general election in 1997 from the prevailing party (Fianna Gael) to the opposition with the headline “ Payback time” and why? Because O’Reilly had personally demanded reform of the libel laws, a ban on below cost selling by British newspapers and exclusive MMDS licenses (a wireless cable TV system) and his demands were rejected. Tony O’Reilly in Ireland??

The government report of the meeting with his representatives said they were told “We will mount a full frontal assault on you, as a government, in the elections”, O’Reilly’s representatives’ version of the same meeting simply says “We said that they would lose INP (Independent Newspaper Group, now International News and Media) as friends and would mean any future administration would have a large bill to pay”.

Fianna Fail the opposing party who had a more sympathetic ear to O’Reilly won that election and stayed in power for another 12 years.

Sir Anthony (Tony) O’Reilly, has stakes in newspapers on three continents, not to mention the controversial oil and gas deals with Exxon for the licenses to blocks in the Porcupine Basin some 200Km of the West Coast of Ireland, which have now been portioned off to Chrysaor to develop, but still leaving his company Providence Resources formerly Atlantic Resources with a 30% share in whatever gets pumped out.

O’Reilly campaigned between 1987 and 1992 to have the tax rate, royalties and licensing with regard to oil and gas exploration and production lowered, although they were already substantially lower than those prevalent across much of the world.

Mike Cunningham former director of Statoil Exploration Ireland has said “No other country in the world has given such favorable terms as Ireland”, it is projected that if any of the blocks are produced, that the Irish State may receive as little or less than 7% of the estimated 20 Billion that the blocks are potentially worth.

But why share when you are of the belief that it is a “simplistic public notion that Irish oil and minerals belonged to the Irish people at large.”

Sir Anthony, as he has insisted that he is called, is known for his support of Irish Charities, Opera and the Arts and has acquired an art collection that he is obviously very proud of, since he has had a catalogue printed at a reported cost of 125,000 euros for 500 copies one of which has been reportedly sent to the Queen of England another to the President of Ireland.

Sir Anthony did indeed consult the Irish Government before accepting his Knighthood / Knight Bachelor in 2001 for “services to Northern Ireland’, as an Irishman cannot constitutionally accept any award or title bestowed upon him by a foreign country without getting their consent, but after 1997, who is going to say NO to Tony?

As one of Ireland’s six Billionaires, (although his status may have fallen over the years) he is in the majority of the five that do not pay tax to Ireland. Having said that there are wonderful comments made in the Irish press about him, how “ if you cut him, his blood runs green”. Tony is now in his 70’s and has done as all Emperor’s/dictator’s do, handed everything over to his son Gavin.

If you want to control a country or should I say countries, then you must have control of the media. We may elect our politicians but it is the media men who control what is and is not said about them, they are the puppet-masters. We only see and hear what they want us to, or at least that was the case.

With the birth of the internet the game changed, people like Murdoch, O’Reilly and Berlusconi were slow to recognize the power that the internet has, the fact that less and less people are buying newspapers and more and more are not only getting their news from the internet but from the blogosphere, where articles like this are unhindered by the journalistic need to please. Here, on the internet we are free enough to write without editor-ship, I don’t know how many times I have been interviewed by journalists who at the time of the interview are understanding of my position and clear on my views only to read the story in the paper or magazine and find that I have been “Screwed royally” because their Editor didn’t like the first draft or it didn’t fall in line with their “paper’s policy” meaning their owner’s policy.

Will there be a “phone hacking scandal” in Ireland? Maybe, but probably not, not because there was, or is no corruption in the system, but because if they were to openly investigate it would mean a revolution “French Style” because 80% of all the police and politicians would have to go.

When one man has enough power to have his newspaper, even a local one, write against the Shell to Sea campaign in County Mayo, Ireland, as opined by a columnist

“Shell has been scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these fellows” as “The rule of law has to be enforced, by apparently harsh measures if need be.”

This also tracks back to Tony’s own interests in Oil and Gas exploration.

If you are interested in Shell to Sea they have a website and are organizing a large protest on Friday 29^th July 2011 as Shell are starting to build their on land phase.