A young Russian woman working for a British lawmaker is facing deportation after security services detained her on suspicion of espionage, the Sunday Times reported on Sunday.
The paper reported that Katia Zatuliveter, 25, secretly worked for the Russian intelligence as a “sleeper” agent.
She had been working for Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock who sits on parliament’s defence select committee which examines defence policy but has no access to secret material.
Hancock, who is also an MP for Porstmouth in southern England where there is a large naval base, denied his research assistant had done anything wrong.
“She is not a Russian spy. I know nothing about espionage, but she has been subjected to a deportation order,” Hancock said in a statement. He said she would appeal moves to deport her.
The lawmaker said that the domestic security service, MI5, had never raised any concerns about her with him.
“No one has ever said to me under any circumstances whatsoever that she has been involved in anything like that,” he said. “It is now in the hands of her lawyers. I am sure that in the end she will be proved to be right.”
Hancock told the BBC in an interview she was arrested on Thursday morning and taken to an immigration detention centre in London, before being moved to another centre where she is being held and putting her appeal together.
“Nobody has shown me any evidence to support the view that she is any way a threat to the United Kingdom,” Hancock said.
He said his assistant, who had worked for him for close to three years, had passed strict security vetting procedures to work in parliament.
The paper said her removal was approved by Home Secretary (interior minister) Theresa May after being briefed about her activities.
The Home Office said it could not comment on individual cases or confirm deportation orders were in place. London’s Metropolitan police referred all queries to the UK Border Agency, who was not answering calls.
The Russian embassy in London could not be reached for comment.
A security source told the Sunday Times Zatuliveter’s presence was not “conducive to national security”, and the intention was to “show her the door”.
The paper said it was the first time since the end of the Cold War that someone working in parliament had been accused of spying for the Russians.
Toronto Sun
A young Russian woman working for a British lawmaker is facing deportation after security services detained her on suspicion of espionage, the Sunday Times reported on Sunday.
The paper reported that Katia Zatuliveter, 25, secretly worked for the Russian intelligence as a “sleeper” agent.
She had been working for Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock who sits on parliament’s defence select committee which examines defence policy but has no access to secret material.
Hancock, who is also an MP for Porstmouth in southern England where there is a large naval base, denied his research assistant had done anything wrong.
“She is not a Russian spy. I know nothing about espionage, but she has been subjected to a deportation order,” Hancock said in a statement. He said she would appeal moves to deport her.
The lawmaker said that the domestic security service, MI5, had never raised any concerns about her with him.
“No one has ever said to me under any circumstances whatsoever that she has been involved in anything like that,” he said. “It is now in the hands of her lawyers. I am sure that in the end she will be proved to be right.”
Hancock told the BBC in an interview she was arrested on Thursday morning and taken to an immigration detention centre in London, before being moved to another centre where she is being held and putting her appeal together.
“Nobody has shown me any evidence to support the view that she is any way a threat to the United Kingdom,” Hancock said.
He said his assistant, who had worked for him for close to three years, had passed strict security vetting procedures to work in parliament.
The paper said her removal was approved by Home Secretary (interior minister) Theresa May after being briefed about her activities.
The Home Office said it could not comment on individual cases or confirm deportation orders were in place. London’s Metropolitan police referred all queries to the UK Border Agency, who was not answering calls.
The Russian embassy in London could not be reached for comment. A security source told the Sunday Times Zatuliveter’s presence was not “conducive to national security”, and the intention was to “show her the door”.
The paper said it was the first time since the end of the Cold War that someone working in parliament had been accused of spying for the Russians.
SUMMARY: WIKILEAKS – DECEPTION AND DISINFORMATION?
Perhaps more attention than is deserved is being given by government and the media to the release, by Wikileaks, of alleged “secret” diplomatic communications.
In this “letter to the editor” on the Wikileaks matter to Stratfor.com (Strategic Forecasting, Inc., a company comprised of intelligence professionals that uses human intelligence and other sources to provide unique, independent, non-ideological analysis of political, economic, and military developments), I suggest that the Wikileaks disclosures may be classic “deception and disinformation” tradecraft.
As discussed in the article, this argument is bolstered by comments in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on December 1, 2010 by a former Reagan administration official saying that release of these documents hurts the authoritarian regimes – friend and foe – that the U.S. seeks to influence far more than it adversely affects U.S. interests.
Interestingly, the Wikileaks principal is (according to numerous commercial news sources) hiding in London of all places. The U.K. has an Official Secrets Act that permits prosecution of those who disclose classified information, even such information obtained legally. Indeed, the U.K. and other nations have criticized the U.S. for not adopting such a law. (It probably would be impossible for the U.S. to adopt such a law in light of First Amendment jurisprudence.)
These comments apply to the most current Wikileaks document release as well as previous releases. I publish this here because access to Stratfor requires a subscription.
WIKILEAKS – DECEPTION AND DISINFORMATION?
December 2, 2010
It seems, perhaps, that, as in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “the (government and
media) doth protest too much” regarding disclosures by Wikileaks of alleged
sensitive information. There has been insufficient consideration of the possibility that these disclosures are, at least in part, deliberate, and represent classic “deception and disinformation” tradecraft.
The U.S. intelligence community was crippled by the scandals and abuses of the 1960s and early 1970s, culminating in the community’s tangential involvement in Watergate during the Nixon administration. Subsequent administrations were forced to operate with their intelligence hands tied. The U.S. (and, by extension, other Western nations) were unable to engage in activities – however necessary or desirable, albeit unsavory – that offended the sensibilities of domestically free societies effectively governed by the rule of law. These politically correct constraints proved unrealistic in a world largely governed by Hobbes’ “state of nature.”
In 1982, Margaret Thatcher, recalling Churchill’s wisdom that, “the truth is so valuable it is often protected by a bodyguard of lies,” resurrected a vigorous deception and disinformation capability in the U.K. intelligence community. (This initiative, not surprisingly in the U.K., quickly became known as “dee dee.”) She successfully convinced Ronald Reagan and the U.S. intelligence community to develop comparable expertise. After all, it is often possible to achieve indirectly that which cannot legitimately be achieved directly.
As Paul Nitze observed in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (December 1, 2010), the documents disclosed by Wikileaks damage weak, authoritarian regimes much more than they damage the U.S. (to the extent that they damage the U.S. at all). Most of the Wikileaks documents simply confirm what any reasonably knowledgeable international affairs analyst already knew. In his concluding paragraph, Nitze – for the record – condemned the Wikileaks disclosures, but his condemnation rings hollow.
The possibility that the diplomatic cables disclosed by Wikileaks are simply part of a sophisticated disinformation campaign – particularly in the U.S., where “leaks” of sensitive information on domestic matters by politicians has become a legitimate public policy debate technique – should not be summarily dismissed.
The IRR News Service met up with three members of Foreign Architects Switzerland (FAS) who are challenging the Swiss ban on minarets.[1]
LIZ Fekete: You are in London, at the invitation of the Architecture Foundation, to speak at a forum on architecture’s political and social role in the context of the Swiss ban on minarets and the hysteria in the US over plans to site a new Islamic cultural centre in downtown New York City.[2] First, could you tell us a little bit about FAS?
Charlotte: We are a collective of architects from different backgrounds living in Switzerland fed up with the general passivity within the architecture profession who steer away from any controversy or political debate and adopt a low profile. Switzerland is often portrayed as a paradise, but from where we were standing there is a lack of innovation. So the whole purpose of FAS is to provide, often in a playful way, a platform for alternative ideas and projects that would never be considered in the brain-dead, incestuous architectural media of Switzerland. Oh, yes, and we are also friends. The Collective is a way for us to come together – we are only a few individuals and FAS is not our main occupation.
So how did you react when news came through that the Swiss People’s Party (SVP)[3] had been successful in its referendum to prohibit the construction of minarets?
Charlotte: When we heard about the minaret ban we felt very angry. We were angry because it was clearly discriminatory. The whole talk of Islamicisation was just crazy (there are only four mosques with minarets in the whole of Switzerland). And all that the referendum proved was the level of ignorance and fear that exists in Switzerland about a different culture, Islam. But we were also angry as architects. We felt this as an attack on us as architects, on our field. And despite this, the architectural scene was not responding. This also made us very angry. The only opposition came from civil society in the form of demonstrations, as well as a few individual acts, such as that of Guillaume Morand, the owner of a shoe company, who defied the referendum by extending the chimney on the top of his warehouse near Lausanne to give it the shape of a minaret.
So what did you decide to do?
Charlotte: We decided that if we were to address the situation we needed to take architecture and turn it into a weapon. We launched a counter- competition – to design an Islamic Centre. And for this competition we adopted the slogan ‘Save the Honor of Architecture, Save the Honour of Switzerland’.
Lorenz: We chose a site which has a traditionally Swiss landscape. It’s a visitor’s centre up on a hill, with lots of churches and a leisure lake. You have to visualise this. In the middle of a residential area, directly adjacent to a Greek Orthodox church, swimming facilities and an active bar scene. It would be impossible to camouflage a mosque on such a site. The counter-competition asked entrants to come up with a design that would, in the words of the competition tender, ‘promote interaction and dialogue in the community’. You also have to understand that the site, the Kronenwiese along the Limmat River was already controversial. Homeless people and a soup-kitchen had been evicted from the area to make way for a new housing development. So the counter-competition was in itself a political statement, asking the profession to re-evaluate its priorities and raising pertinent questions about multiculturalism in Switzerland.
Jesse: We invited architects to submit a design which would not only give Muslims a place to pray and meet, but provide an open meeting point between cultures. The design would include a mosque, a hamam, an Aula, space for lectures, exhibitions and a theatre, multipurpose rooms for men and women, offices, library, coffee shop and restaurant, as well as a public park and playground.
And what was the reaction?
Jesse: Well, in terms of the general public the reaction was small. But the most important thing was that we actually got entries. Architecture if rather non-political and this is one of the reasons we founded FAZ. And we got so many really thoughtful entries which helped us achieve our aim – to catalyse a much needed discussion within the architectural community about cultural differences.
Charlotte: Some of the entrants challenged stylistic norms, others went so far as to suggest that religion, as well as architectural style, is bound to evolve in a changing cultural climate. From these entries we picked out three which addressed different issues of design. The first was very open, the second quite aggressive, challenging codes on mosques and the third rather tongue-in-cheek, with a minaret. And through this we really did achieve our aim to catalyse discussion, which we also did via our facebook page and our fanzine that we sent to about 250 architects, university chairs, architecture organisations and publications in and outside Switzerland.
Did you get much reaction from the Muslim community?
Jesse: The Muslim community are very under-represented in Swiss society and were very scared. They were placed in a difficult position; they found it difficult to come out. Ours was an act of solidarity.
Charlotte: You have to understand that we are representative of what we are – middle-class architects with a few Muslim friends. I had an intern from Kuwait at that time and she was very shocked by all this. The only way she could understand it was to explain it as some kind of misunderstanding. You find often in discussions people like to minimise the issue, talk about it in rational terms and suggest it must be the result of a misunderstanding.
You clearly feel that architecture has the power to convey positive messages about cultural interaction and it saddened you to see how it was being manipulated.
Jesse: Yes. The architecture of cities are where ideas come together. We tried to get the architecture profession to react, but largely because architects are apolitical, we were disappointed. It seemed to us an obvious thing that you can’t outlaw the mosque, or indeed the right to practice one’s religion. The minaret ban was all about pushing things to their limits. It’s a symbolic thing. And what the minaret ban did was to set forth a symbolic war, one that has been fabricated. It is a fictional narrative. Look at the imagery – minarets are bayonets attacking the land – this is a fictional narrative. They are making use of architecture to make a political statement against Islam. In this way, they conceal their racism. Racism does not have a face. The landscape – architecture – buildings give it a face. And this is precisely why we feel architects had a duty to speak out against the ban. Architecture is a manifestation of social relationships. Architects are responsible for the form of the city, for the urban landscape which organises social relationships. Architects could promote constructive, creative dialogue – if they dare to speak up.
A lot of the original arguments in favour of the ban seemed to rest on the idea of protecting the traditional landscape from foreign cultures. Why was this such a powerful factor in Switzerland?
Jesse: You have to understand that Switzerland is a country where an unusual emphasis is placed on the power of the built environment. This is a country which regulates everything from cast shadows and noise pollution to where you can and can’t hang out your laundry – this is the level to which the Swiss are concerned about their neighbourhoods. It just seems that this is one of the main ways in which xenophobia expresses itself in Switzerland. For me, it seems something very specific to the Swiss. It seems to me that here in the UK xenophobia is much more linked to the fear of terrorism, whereas in Switzerland xenophobia manifests itself around issues of the built environment.
Charlotte: Yes. In Switzerland, the argument is that the landscape is attached to our identity as a nation, and the identity-building aspects of that landscape were depicted as threatened by Islam.
And is this what the SVP exploit?
Lorenz: Yes, but the SVP is adept at exploiting any insecurity. They generate a fear of people and they use that fear to gain votes. In fact, at the moment they have issued another referendum to expel foreign nationals who commit crimes.[4] The one thing we all agree on is that the people who are racist and manipulate these fears are not stupid.
But that’s what’s so fascinating about you three. You describe yourself as middle-class people with limited interaction with Muslims. Other people in your social position were falling over themselves to support the ban. Why did you see things differently?
Charlotte: Maybe it’s a question of sensibility. For me I was always uncomfortable with the post 9/11 anti-Muslim drive. I just can’t understand how people don’t link the minaret ban to other forms of discrimination, particularly what happened to the Jews. It freaks me out.
Jesse: I think it comes down to contact and proximity with other people. In our professional life, certainly as architects, we come into contact with people from different cultures all the time. It is the nature of the job that we travel. We have worked in Vienna, in India, all over the place, and we have lived alongside people from the former-Yugoslavia. In many ways I just don’t get it. I can’t understand why people have difficulties with Islamic cultures – after all Islam and Christianity both have Abrahmic roots. I mean the differences are minute.
Charlotte: You must remember, that in the run-up to the minaret ban, people didn’t really mobilise. The opinion polls were all saying that the ban would have no chance. I have many international friends and I wanted to make a sign.
Lorenz: I agree that it’s a question of sensibility – towards fairness, justice. The ones who want to kick people out just don’t see the injustice of it all.
[1] On 29 November 2009, Switzerland became the first country in Europe to vote to curb the religious practices of Muslims when a referendum banning the construction of minarets on mosques was backed by a strong majority. As a result, Article 72 of the Swiss Federal Constitution regulating relations between the state and religion was amended to include the statement: ‘the construction of minarets will be forbidden’. For more information see IRR Briefing Paper No 1, February 2010, ‘The Swiss referendum on minarets: background and aftermath’. [2] Faith in the City: the mosque in the contemporary Urban West was a two-day event organised by the Architecture Foundation in partnership with Openvizor and Arts Council England’s Arts & Islam programme. More information from www.architecturefoundation.org.uk [3] The ‘People’s Initiative Against the Construction of Mosques’ was launched by the SVP and the small ultra-conservative Federal Democratic Union. An SVP poster in favour of the ban depicted a woman wearing a burqa against a background of a Swiss flag upon which several minarets resembling missiles were erected. [4] On 29 November, Swiss voters approved a plan for automatic deportation of foreigners who commit serious crimes or benefit fraud, despite warnings that people who had lived all their life in Switzerland, married Swiss citizens and had children but never obtained Swiss passports, would be unusually hard hit by expulsion. Some 52.9 per cent of voters backed the SVP proposal. 47.1 per cent of voters were opposed.
The Institute of Race Relations is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.
RELATED LINKS
The image above, used in FAS’ presentation, was inspired by a video campaignby the Federal Democratic Union (EDU).
The Architecture Foundation
Foreign Architects Switzerland
Arts and Islam
IRR is not responsible for the content of external websites. Inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Please contact us if you come across a broken link.
, 1 December 2010
DEGERLİ ÜYELERİMİZ, TURKISH FORUMU YAŞATAN MEDYA VE ÇALIŞMA GURUPLARIMIZ
Turkish Forumu Yeniden Doğuş Operasyonu başarı ile tamamlandı. Bu normalden de üstün başarıyı siz Turkish Forumun yaşamasına öncelik tanıyan ve fedakârlıktan kaçınmayan dostlarımıza borçluyuz. Turkish Forum yeni bir web tasarımı ile ve çok kaliteli Yazarlarla yeniden hizmetize girdi.
Emniyet programlarına gelince, tümüyle upgrade edildi (güncelleştirildi) , fakat devamlı üzerinde çalışmak ve yeni programları devreye sokmak gerekmekte. Bu çok masraflı çalışmada Uzmanlar ve arkadaslarımız tarafından aralıksız devam etmekde.
Avrupa’daki operasyonlarımız genişlemekde. Merkezi Almanya olacak olan Turkish Forum EU yu harekete geçirdik. Yapılanma safhasındalar. İngiltere hariç Tüm Avrupa operasyonlarımızı, Avrupa’daki Ülkelerde, Siyasi ve seçimlerle ilgili çalışmalarını Turkish Forum EU ya bağlamak bugünki planımız.
Turkish Forum İngiltere ise ingiterede ki derneklerin müşterek çalışmalarında bir katalizör rolü oynamakla çok büyük bir yol aldı. İngiltere çok iyi gitmekte. İngiltere gurubumuz Turkish Forumu Facebookda yönetmekde, Türk gençlerine ve Türkiyenin dostlarına, Egitmenler yönetiminde,Türkçe öğretici enteraktif sayfalar açıldı ve Web sitemizde Tüm bilgileri içine alacak DOCs (Elektronik kütüphane) çalışması başlatıldı. Turkishforum İngiltere Face Book bağlantıları:
Turkish Forum Sayfası
Turkısh Forum Grup
Turkish Forum İngilizce Öğrenme
DOCs ( Elektronik Kütüphane)
Turkish Forum EU yönetiminde yer almak isteyen tecrübeli arkadaşlara ve DOCs sayfalarına. Önümüzdeki nesillerimiz için. bilgi birikimlerini deposit etmek isteyen arkadaslara ihtiyacımız var, lütfen temas kurunuz. Turkish Forumun sizlere ihtiyacı çok Büyük.
Günlük yayınlarımız seçeneklidir, Türkçe-İngilizce-Almanca ve Rusça üzerinden yapılmaktadır. Buna Fransızcaö İtalyanca ve İsponyalcayı ilaveye çalışmaktayız ve yakın bir tarihte ilave edeceğiz. Bu devre içinde çeşitli konularda kampanyaları sizlerden gelen istek ve katılımlarla başarı ile tamamladık. Mühim olan sizlerin maddi ve manevi desteği ve istekleriniz.
Turkish Foruma vermekte devam ettiğiniz değer, mesuliyeti taşıyan gönüllü arkadaşlarımızın enerjilerini an be an arttırmakta ve arkadaşlarımız, yazarlarımız. Medya guruplarımız, Danışma ve Yönetim kurullarımız yorulmadan koşmaya ve size en iyi hizmeti sunmaya devam etmekte. LÜTFEN DESTEĞİNİZİ HER BİR SAHADA DEVAM ETTİRİNİZ ve görev almak istiyorsanız, ilgi sahanızı belirtiniz. Önümüzdeki bahar içinde ve TUZUK kurallarımız dahilinde. yeni yönetimi seçecegiz. BU ÖNEMLİ SEÇİME AİDAT ÖDEMELERİ GÜNCEL OLAN ÜYELERİMİZ OYLARI İLE KATILACAKDIR. gerekli atamaları HEP BİRLİKDE yapacagız. Bu safhayı gerçekleştirmek için seçime girecek adayları belirleme devresindeyiz.
Bu sene hakikatten çok çalışmamız ve yeni bir çehre almamızın senesi olarak başladı. Çalışmalar aralıksız olarak sene sonuna kadarda bu şekilde devam edeceğe benzemekte. Geçtiğimiz hafta yönetim kurulumuzun almış olduğu karara istinaden YENİDEN DOĞUŞA DESTEK VERMİŞ ÜYELERİMİZE KURUCU ÜYE SERTİFİKALARI E-MAİLLE ULAŞTIRILDI. Lütfen aşağıdaki listeyi kontrol ediniz. Şayet kurucu Üye statüsü Şartlarına uydu iseniz ve isminiz yoksa lütfen haber veriniz. Yanlarında * işareti olan kurucu üyelerimizin e-mail adreslerinden emin değiliz, ONLAR SERTIFIKALRINI ALMADILAR. Kurucu üye iseniz, Lütfen bu adrese e-mailinizi Kurucu Üye sertifikanızı size ulaştırabilmemiz için bildiriniz.
Kurucu Üyelerimizin isimleri Turkish Forum Ana Tüzük kuralları dahilinde, Turkish Forum Ana Tüzüğünde ilelebet muhafaza edilecek ve Turkish Forum web sitelerinde isimleri Turkish Forum Yasadıkça post edilecektir.
Aidat ve bağışlarınızı kredi kartı veya banka havalesi ile yapabilmeniz için https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/bagislar-ve-uye-aidatlari/sayfasında emniyetli sistemler ve alternatife methodlar ayrıca geliştirilmiştir
Hepinize başarılar dolu bir devre daha dilerim
Dr. Kayaalp Büyükataman, Baskan
Turkish Forum * Dünya Türkleri Birliği
NOT: Turkish Forum 250 kişiye yaklaşan danışma kurulu ve 300.000 kişiye yaklaşan abone sayısı ile merkezi Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde bulunan, Dünya üzerinde pek çok ülkede örgütlenmiş bir düşünce kuruluşudur. Turkish Forum kar amacı gütmeyen, vergiden muaf kuruluş statüsündedir. Tüm Türk ve Türk dostları üye olabilirler.
=================================================
kurucu uyelerin ve danisma kurulumuzun ve yonetim kurulumuzun listesi icin tiklayiniz
1* öRNEK üye sertifikası (Büyütmek İçin Tıklayınız)
Üye Aidat Ve Bağışlarınız
Şayet Turkish Forum (Docs) Doküman ve Arşivlerini kullanmak isterseniz üyeliğinizin güncel olması gerekmektedir. Aidatınızı ödedikten sonra, isteğiniz üzerine, size TF özel sayfalarına giriş bilgileri (şifre) gönderilecektir
TURKISH FORUM MEMBERSHIP : AKTİF VE TAM ÜYELİK
Turkish Forum 250 kişiye yaklaşan danışma kurulu ve 300.000 kişiye yaklaşan abone sayısı ile merkezi Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde bulunan, Dünya üzerinde pek çok ülkede örgütlenmiş bir düşünce kuruluşudur. Turkish Forum kar amacı gütmeyen, vergiden muaf kuruluş statüsündedir. Tüm Türk ve Türk dostları üye olabilirler.
PAYPAL SİSTEMİNİ KULLANARAK ÜCRETSIZ OLARAK BANKANIZDAN TURKISH FORUMA TRANSFER YAPABİLİRSİNİZ VEYA KREDİ KARTINIZI AYNI GAYE İLE KULLANABİLİRSİNİZ.
Türkiye de banka transferi :Hesap sahibi: Turkish Forum Inc.
Çek ile : TurkishForum , Po Box: 1104 Marblehead, MA 01945 USA
PayPal ve Kredi Kartı ile : Dünyanın pek çok ülkesinde banka hesabınızdan veya kredi kartınızdan aşağıdaki tuşa basarak güvenli ödeme yapabilirsiniz.
4. PAY PAL S’STEMİ VEYA KREDİ KARTINIZ VASITASI İLE
PAYPAL SİSTEMİNİ KULLANARAK ÜCRETSIZ OLARAK BANKANIZDAN TURKISH FORUMA TRANSFER YAPABİLİRSİNİZ VEYA KREDİ KARTINIZI AYNI GAYE İLE KULLANABİLİRSİNİZ.
…………………
1-Liste Üyeliği – ÜcretsizArzunuz üzerine günlük aylık veya haftalık bültenlerimize üye olabilirsiniz
Web’de post edilmis tüm bilgileri okur, kampanyalara katılır, ve yorumlarınızı makalelerin ilgili kısımlarına post edebilirsiniz.
2 -Akademik Üyelik – 60 USD/Sene
TFde post edilmis tüm bilgilere (Şifreli veya Şifresiz) erişebilme Hakkı; TF arşivlerine ve Docs sayfalarına girme hakkı; Liste Üyelerine verilen Tüm haklar. TF sayfa ve Bültenlerinde Makale ve Tezlerini yayınlama hakkı (Üniversite mesupları – araştırma yapan talebe ve yazarlar için).
Kredi Kartı (Paypal) Cekhesabınız * Charge Card .
Check Account via paypal or paypal account could be used
3- Tam Üyelik – (100 USD/Sene) Akademik Üyelere verilen Tüm Hak ve Yetkiler; Yönetim kurulunda ve komitelerinde Görev
Alabilme Hakkı, Seçme ve seçilme Hakkı. Özel olarak Hazırlanmış TF Üye Sertifikasını alma hakkı.
4/a- Çırağan Klüp Özel Üyeliği – (250 USD/Sene)
Tam Üyelere verilen Tüm Hak ve Yetkiler.Seçkin Çırağan Klüp Üye sertifikası , Tüm TF Kitap satışlarında 10% Tenzilat.
TF Danışma Kuruluna (Advisory Board) aday gösterilme hakkı
4/b- Dolmabahçe Klüp Özel Üyeliği – (500 USD/Sene)Çırağan Klübü Üyelerine verilen Tüm Hak ve Yetkiler.
Seçkin Dolmabahce Klüp Üye sertifikası ,
Tüm TF Kitap satışlarında 20% Tenzilat.
TF Kurresel Calısma Gurublarında (Global Think Tank) Yer alma hakkı
4/c- Topkapı Klüp Özel Üyeliği – (1.000 USD/Sene)
Dolmabahce Klübü Üyelerine verilen Tüm Hak ve Yetkiler.Mütevelli heyeti (Board Of Trustees) UyeliğiMütevelli Heyeti Seçkin Üyesi Sertifikası
4/d Şirket Tesilciliği Üyeliği – (2.500 USD/Sene)
Topkapı Klübü Üyelerine verilen Tüm Hak ve Yetkiler.Şirketler Gurubu Üyeliği ve Seçkin Üye sertifikasıŞirketin TF sayfalarında ÜcretsizTanıtılması
Reklamlarının Hazırlanması ve dağıtımında 60% İndirim.
5 – LifeTime Donor – 5.000 USD Corporate Donor avantajlarına ek olarakYaşam Boyu üye sertifikasıYonetim Kurulu toplantilarinda yer alma hakki
Bağışlarınızı ABD ve Türkiye içinde vergi matrahınızdan düşmek mümkündür. Kuruluşumuzun Türkiye vergi numarasi 8710506391’dir. ABD’de ise 501-3-C numara ile vergiden muaf kar amacı gütmeyen kuruluşuz.
HEP BERABER, DAHA NİCE ORTAK BAŞARILARA İMZA ATMAK DİLEĞİ VE ÜMİDİYLE�
DR. KAYAALP BÜYÜKATAMAN , BAŞKAN
TURKISH FORUM – DÜNYA TÜRKLERİ BİRLİGİ
Americans dismissed ‘bureaucratic’ Foreign Office concern that Lebanese Hezbollah suspects might be tortured
Richard Norton-Taylor and David Leigh
RAF Akrotiri at Limassol, Cyprus. WikiLeaks cables claim the US brushed aside British objections about secret spy flights from the base Photograph: Matt Cardy/Getty Images
American officials swept aside British protests about secret US spy flights taking place from the UK’s Cyprus airbase, the leaked diplomatic cables reveal.
Labour ministers said they feared making the UK an unwitting accomplice to torture, and were upset about rendition flights going on behind their backs.
The use of RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus for American U2 spy plane missions over Hezbollah locations in Lebanon – missions that have never been disclosed until now – prompted an acrimonious series of exchanges between British officials and the US embassy in London, according to the cables released by WikiLeaks. The then foreign secretary David Miliband is quoted as saying, unavailingly, “policymakers needed to get control of the military“.
Ministers demanded a full “audit trail” of covert operations, codenamed Cedar Sweep, amid growing public concern in the UK about unacknowledged CIA rendition flights and alleged UK complicity in torture. The planes gathered intelligence that was then allegedly passed to the Lebanese authorities to help them track down Hezbollah militants. In the past, such flights have also been carried out on Israel’s behalf by the Americans.
As the 2008 row escalated, the US rejected the British concerns over torture in unequivocal terms, with one senior official at the embassy in London baldly stating in one cable: “We cannot take a risk-avoidance approach to CT [counter-terrorism] in which the fear of potentially violating human rights allows terrorism to proliferate in Lebanon.”
The cables disclose that as well as the Lebanon missions, U2s from Akrotiri were gathering intelligence over Turkey and northern Iraq.The information was secretly supplied to the Turkish authorities in an operation codenamed Highland Warrior. The British protested that “in both cases, intelligence product is intended to be passed to third-party governments”.
On 18 April 2008, Britain demanded the US embassy provide full details of all flights so ministers could tell whether they “put the UK at risk of being complicit in unlawful acts … This is a very important point for ministers”.
A US diplomat, Maura Connelly, cabled: “We understand that these additional precautionary measures stem from the February revelation that the US government transited renditioned persons through Diego Garcia without UK permission and HMG’s [her majesty’s government’s] resultant need to ensure it is not similarly blindsided in the future.”
She complained to Washington that the demands were “burdensome” and “an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy”.
Will Jessett, then director of counter-terrorism at the ministry of defence, had sent a letter warning that “the use of UK bases for covert or potentially controversial missions” on behalf of Lebanon or Turkey meant it was “important for us to be satisfied that HMG is not indirectly aiding the commission of unlawful acts by those governments”.
The letter warned that other states, particularly Cyprus, might well object should they find out. Ministers therefore wanted the US to submit each time “an assessment of any legal or human rights implications”.
On 24 April, the embassy sent a cable to Washington entitled: “Houston, we have a problem”. It stated: “HMG ministers are adamant.”
The embassy “pushed back hard” on demands for a full “audit trail” of spy flights. But in what appears to have been a heated dispute, the British responded by detailing other US “oversights”.
“Contacts cited instances in which operations Highland Warrior and Cedar Sweep had been conducted from the UK sovereign base areas of Akrotiri without the proper ministerial approvals … In addition, Highland Warrior had raised tensions with the Cypriots, jeopardising the UK’s hold on Akrotiri.”
There were “other lapses that proved embarrassing to HMG (ie renditions through Diego Garcia and improperly documented shipments of weaponry through Prestwick airport)”.
The US used Prestwick in 2006 as a staging post to ship laser-guided bombs to Israel, causing British protests. The Israelis wanted the munitions to attack Hezbollah bunkers in Lebanon.
The US embassy concluded: “A new element of distrust has crept into the US-UK mil-mil relationship.
“The renditions revelation proved highly embarrassing for the Brown government. The British proposal … may be disproportionate but is almost certainly an indication of the Brown government’s sensitivity … at a time Brown is facing increasing domestic political woes.”
A month later Britain was still, according to the US, “piling on concerns and conditions” about human rights, saying that although junior minister Kim Howells was making the decisions, Miliband was being kept informed.
British officials warned that ministerial concerns “could jeopardise future use of British territory”.
US patience finally snapped when a Foreign Office official, John Hillman, passed on the message that “even the [US] state department’s own human rights report had documented cases of torture and arbitrary arrest by the Lebanese armed forces”.
Hillman urged the US to ensure the welfare of prisoners in Lebanon “if there were any risk that detainees captured with the help of Cedar Sweep intel could be tortured”.
At this point Richard LeBaron, charges d’affaires at the London embassy, cabled Washington that human rights concerns could not be allowed to get in the way of counter-terrorism operations. Britain’s demands were “not only burdensome but unrealistic”, he said, proposing “high-level approaches” to call the British to heel.
“Excessive conditions such as described above will hinder, if not obstruct, our co-operative counter-terrorism efforts,” he said.
Senior Bush administration official John Rood stepped in and the Foreign Office’s director general for defence and intelligence, Mariot Leslie, hastened to placate him.
The clash was “unnecessarily confrontational”, she told him. “Leslie expressed annoyance at the additional conditions conveyed by the FCO working level,” the cable states. “She had not been aware beforehand that such a message would be conveyed. In fact she regretted the tenor of the discussions had turned prickly, and underscored HMG appreciation for US-UK military and intelligence co-operation.”
She reassured him that US was not actually expected to check on detained terrorists.
“Ministers had merely wanted to impress upon the US government that they take the human rights considerations seriously.
“She noted that HMG ‘desperately needs’ [Cyprus] for its own intelligence gathering and operations and was committed to keeping them available to the US (and France).
“However, the Cypriots are hypersensitive about the British presence there, she said, and could ‘turn off the utilities at any time’. That, combined with the ‘toxic mix’ of the rendition flights through Diego Garcia, has resulted in tremendous parliamentary, public and media pressure on HMG.”
Leslie stuck to her guns on one point, saying the US embassy would still have to put in full written applications for future spy missions because “Miliband believed that ‘policymakers needed to get control of the military’.” The cable stated: “Leslie … was very frank that HMG did object to some of what the US government does (eg renditions).”
British ministers loyally kept these objections about the US to themselves, however, despite coming uinder repeated attack from the UK media for alleged complicity in the dispatch of Islamist prisoners to places where they would be tortured.
US use of Cyprus has always been controversial. Relations between London and Washington were strained at the time of the attacks on Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur war by Ted Heath’s decision to adopt a policy of strict neutrality. The then prime minister refused to allow the US to use Britain’s electronic intercept and air bases on Cyprus .
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-cyprus-rendition-torture, 2 December 2010
To everyone in the UK who feels concerned with the Human Rights situation in Iraq:
Please contact your MP and ask him/her to sign the Early Day Motion EDM968 – Human Rights Situation of Iraqi Turkmen
See:
80 signatures are needed.
Below are the names of the 20 MPs who have already signed :
HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF IRAQI TURKMEN 08.11.2010
20 signatures
EDM 968
Hancock, Mike
Blenkinsop, Tom
Bottomley, Peter
Clarke, Tom
Connarty, Michael
Durkan, Mark
Hemming, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Leech, John
McDonnell, John
Munt, Tessa
Ritchie, Margaret
Rogerson, Dan
Russell, Bob
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Virendra
Singh, Marsha
Williams, Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
That this House is concerned about the human rights situation of the Iraqi Turkmen, the third largest ethnic group in Iraq, who mainly live in the northern provinces, such as Kirkuk; condemns the ethnic cleansing and assimilation policy of Iraqi Turkmen by both Saddam Hussein’s government until 2003 andthe Kurds since 2003, who claim the Iraqi Turkmen lands which are rich with oil, gas sulphur, uranium and phosphorus; notes that the census in Iraq delayed for the third time since 2007 is now due to be held on 5 December 2010; worries that the inclusion of the questions on ethnicity and mother tongue in the census will divide Iraqi people instead of uniting them and might create new outbreaks of violence in this country; further condemns the treatment of the Iraqi Turkmen as the lower class in Iraq in comparison with the Arabs and Kurds; believes all ethnicities in Iraq should possess equal rights; welcomes the work of the Iraqi Turkmen Front to promote the human rights of Iraqi Turkmen such as the right to participate in the forming of the new government and the right to have justice, equality, fairness and an end to the discrimination and violence; and calls on the Prime Minister and the Government to raise the issue of Iraqi Turkmens’ human rights with the government of Iraq.
