Pages

Showing posts with label gordon brown war criminal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gordon brown war criminal. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Brown Peddles State Controlled Web Under Auspices of 'Social Justice'


Our rulers are slick. They know we will not stand for an outright takeover of the internet, so they are cloaking the effort under a thin veneer of “social justice” and broadband for all.

Gordon Brown in Britain is leading the charge:

Every home in the UK will have access to “super-fast” broadband by 2020, according to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The government has already pledged to offer super-fast internet connections to 90 percent of the country by 2017, as part of the Digital Economy Bill, paid for by a ‘broadband tax’ – a £6 per year levy on telephone lines.

Now, Brown has revealed it will take just three years to ensure the remainder of the country also has access to the service.

Nice. The average Brit will pay to have the internet stolen from him and turned into a control mechanism.'

Read more...

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The DNA of a Police State



Brown notes that the DNA database has helped to effectively prosecute offending criminals. As with any technological development, such a tool can be used for good or for ill. The problem lies not in the use of the technology itself, but in the strong-armed monopoly of force wielding the power; aka the government.

A free-market based on voluntary endorsement and association would be most effective at regulating against unjustifiable usages of technology. Any breach of contract in such a circumstance would be much less devastating to the overall welfare of the populace, due to the dynamic nature of a competitive economy. A forceful monopoly offers no such refuge.

Friday, March 05, 2010

Brown Defends Basis for Iraq War


The Prime Minister said today that Britain made the "right decision for the right reasons" to go to war in Iraq.

Opening his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry, Gordon Brown expressed his sadness for the loss of life in the conflict.

But he insisted that it had been necessary for the international community to confront Saddam Hussein.

"I think this is the gravest decision to go to war," he said. "It was the right decision and it was for the right reasons."

Mr Brown paid tribute to the "sacrifice" of the British troops who had lost their lives in the conflict while acknowledging the scale of the civilian losses.

"Any loss of life is something that makes us very sad indeed," he said.

Unlike Tony Blair when he appeared in January, Mr Brown entered the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, where the inquiry is being held, by the front entrance.

Only a small knot of protesters had gathered to mark his arrival.

Mr Brown said there were three areas he particularly wanted to raise with the inquiry panel.

He said it was vital to have "proper structures of decision-making" in Government for fighting wars, to manage conflicts better and to improve how states work together in conflicts.

Mr Brown said: "There will be interventions in the future, and international co-operation has got to be far greater than it was.

"Global problems require global solutions, and I would particularly draw attention to the importance in all this of the strongest possible relationship between Europe and America, something that I am determined to build up and continue to make stronger in the future."

Mr Brown told the inquiry that terrorists and "rogue states" were the "two risks to the post-Cold War world" and had to be tackled.

He said he was involved in Cabinet discussions before the invasion and was convinced that Iraq posed a threat.

"I met the intelligence services on a number of occasions during the course of 2002 and early 2003," he said.

"I was given information by the intelligence services which led me to believe that Iraq was a threat and had to be dealt with by the actions of the international community."

But he told the panel that he had wanted to secure international agreement to avoid war.

"What we wanted was a diplomatic route to succeed," he said. "Right up to the last minute, right up to the last weekend, I think many of us were hopeful that the diplomatic route would succeed."

Mr Brown said he told Mr Blair in mid-2002 that money would be no object if Britain launched military action against Saddam Hussein.

The former chancellor said he understood that some options for a war were more expensive than others, but pledged to fund whichever option was "right for our country".

Mr Brown said he was involved in discussions with then-defence secretary Geoff Hoon about a possible conflict with Iraq from June 2002.

He told the inquiry: "I said immediately to the prime minister that the military options that were under discussion, there should be no sense that there was a financial restraint that prevented us doing what was best for the military."

He added: "I told him that I would not - and this was right at the beginning - I would not try to rule out any military option on the grounds of cost, quite the opposite."

Mr Brown insisted that throughout the build-up to war, the Cabinet had been kept fully informed of developments.

"I cannot see the argument that says the Cabinet were not informed. We were informed fully about the process of the negotiations," he said.

He said that throughout the discussions, he had been adamant that military action should only be a last resort.

"I was very clear that we had to exhaust all the diplomatic avenues before we could conclude that it was inevitable or impossible to avoid a decision about war," he said.

However, he said that he did not see private correspondence between Mr Blair and US President George Bush.

"I would not expect to see private letters between Mr Blair and the president," he said.

Mr Brown conceded that he had "regrets" over not being "more successful" in convincing America of the need for better post-conflict planning.

"It was one of my regrets that I wasn't able to be more successful in pushing the Americans on this issue - that the planning for reconstruction was essential, just the same as planning for the war," he said.

He said there had been a Cabinet meeting in March 2003 that discussed "reconstruction issues".

Mr Brown told the inquiry that he had offered to "prepare a paper" to send to the United States on the issues that would have to be faced in post-war Iraq.

But he spoke of his frustration that dealing with the problems of the war-torn country were not dealt with "more quickly" after the initial invasion.

"I wish it had been possible to follow it through much more quickly in the aftermath," he said.

Mr Brown admitted that one lesson of the war was that spy chiefs had to be "more sure" about the nature of the intelligence they receive.

Claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that he could deploy within 45 minutes were discredited when thorough searches after the invasion failed to discover any such devices.

Mr Brown said he received five "very full" intelligence briefings about Iraq's alleged WMD in the lead-up to war, on March 4 2002, December 9, December 13, February 6 2003 and February 24.

He said: "The information I was given was that there was evidence that was known to many countries, not just our country, about the weaponry that the Iraqi government held.

"And, of course, at that time there was a greater certainty amongst the intelligence community that this weaponry was there.

"I think we have learned that intelligence can give us insights into what is happening, but we have got to be more sure, as people have recognised, about the nature of the intelligence we were receiving from certain people."

The inquiry heard that Mr Brown was not shown an "options paper" drawn up by the Cabinet Office in March 2002 to outline various choices for dealing with Iraq, from continuing sanctions to launching regime change.

The Prime Minister said: "I don't recall seeing that paper. My main involvement in looking at the options started from June."

He added: "I don't think I needed to see every paper."

Previously, the inquiry heard evidence from former No 10 communications director Alastair Campbell that Mr Blair had pledged to America that Britain would "be there" in the event of an invasion - several months before the decision was made to go to war.

Panel member Sir Roderic Lyne asked a "yes or no" question about whether Mr Brown was aware of letters Mr Blair had sent to US president George Bush indicating Britain's support.

Mr Brown responded: "I had regular conversations with Tony Blair and we talked about those issues but I do not have copies of those letters and I don't know the exact conversation - and he wouldn't expect me to."

Mr Brown acknowledged that he had not been present at a number of key meetings held by Mr Blair in the build-up to the invasion, but insisted that he was kept fully informed.

"I didn't at any point (feel) that I lacked the information that was necessary," he said.

"My role in this was to second guess military decisions or options. My role in this was not to interfere in what were very important diplomatic negotiations.

"My role in this was, first of all as chancellor of the exchequer, was to make sure that the funding was there for what we had to do."

Mr Brown insisted he and other senior Cabinet members were kept fully informed about developments in the months before the invasion.

He said: "There is no sense in which I felt that I had inadequate information.

"Obviously, the intelligence information has had to be re-assessed as a result of what we have now learned.

"But there was no sense in which we were denied information that was necessary for us making a decision."

The Independent

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Don't Mention Our Record in Power, Labour Orders Election Activists

Labour is telling its workers not to campaign on the party's record in power, a leaked document showed yesterday. The revelation came ahead of today's launch by Gordon Brown of Operation Fightback, at which he will tell activists to wage a political scrap for survival.

Mr Brown wants to use the launch rally to give Labour some momentum after months of dire economic news and setbacks. But the leaked document is an astonishing admission that voters have little to show for 13 years of Labour rule.'

Read more...

Saturday, January 30, 2010

One Billion Dollars to Pay off the Taliban

Our criminal government is proposing a plan is being considered to pay up to $1bn to Taliban fighters to persuade them to lay down their arms.

In advance of an international conference in London to discuss Afghanistan’s future on Thursday, Japan, the United States and Britain are said to be leading the proposal.

The scheme would offer cash, jobs and other incentives to the Taliban and fighters in other armed groups.

“The sum could be as much as between $500m and $1bn over the next five years”, Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from London, said.'

Read more...

Friday, January 29, 2010

Brown Accused of Cover-up: PM Under Fire as Key Papers on Iraq War are Kept Confidential


Gordon Brown was accused of 'gagging' the Iraq inquiry last night as it emerged the Government is blocking the release of secret documents about the war.
Senior MPs from all three main parties said the decision bore all the hallmarks of an official 'cover-up' and made a mockery of the Prime Minister's pledge of a fully open investigation.

Read more...

Sunday, January 03, 2010

False Flag Event in Detroit a Pretext to Invade Yemen



The UK PM Gordon Brown called for an “emergency summit of world leaders last night to stop Yemen becoming a new terror center,” reports The Sun. Brown declares the poverty-stricken country — increasingly described as a “failed state” by government officials and the corporate media (the same way Afghanistan and Iraq were deemed failed states before they were invaded) — represents an “evolving threat” threat and an “incubator” for terrorism.'

Read more...

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Britons Shun Gordon Brown’s Roadshow to Promote Britishness

Gordon Brown’s national roadshow to promote the concept of Britishness has turned out to be an expensive flop.

The public, councillors and even ministers have declined to attend events organised to determine if there is a case for a full British Bill of Rights and duties, or a written constitution.

The Conservatives say ten members of the public turned up to the first event in Leicester in December 2007, which cost £37,000 and was hosted by Jack Straw. They say that after that embarrassment, his Ministry of Justice restricted attendance at Governance of Britain events to people selected, and even paid, by the ministry.'

Read more...