LONG AND WORTH IT POST
CAN ANYONE WRITE ANYTHING ANYMORE?
This is not to do with the al-Jazeera memo, the reason you are on this mailing list, but there was such an overwhelming response to the documents Craig Murray leaked over xmas [partly via this list and your good efforts] that Craig asked us to pass this information and the attached document on.The following can be read in one post here:
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/822
where all the documents are posted with links to the originals on Craig's site:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
the book is available to pre-order here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1845961943/qid=1139301733/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl/203-4915109-7329510
Book Burning: Craig Murray to Defy Foreign Office Threats, and Publish "Murder in Samarkand"
Many of you will be aware that Craig Murray has been involved in torturous negotiations with the Foreign Office [FCO] in attempt to get is forthcoming book "Murder In Samarkand" cleared for publication.As the process has dragged on it has become clear to Craig that the FCO is less interested in protecting National Security, than it's own embarrassment, and their intention is either to remove all content that might be of any interest to readers, or suppress publication entirely.Earlier this week, Craig served notice on the FCO, that if they continued to drag their feet, and kept coming up with more obstacles, he would abandon attempts to negotiate the content of the book and reach agreement, and go ahead and publish without their agreement.In the following email, he made this intention clear:
==================================
Feb 07 2006 From Craig MurrayTo Richard Stagg
Dickie,There is now an extensive correspondence over many months on my efforts to clear my book with the FCO for publication. You have had many months to deliberate.
In the ensuing discussions, I have made, as requested, the following very extensive amendments.*
I have removed two accusations that Colin Powell was lying*
I have edited out those parts of my conversation with the US Ambassador which had the quality of confidence, were indiscreet, or differed from public US policy on Uzbekistan*
I have removed the detail of two SIS intelligence reports*
I have removed the reference to GCHQ telephone intercepts*
I have removed completely references to the role of Research Analysts in intelligence anaysis*
I have made plain that Duncan does not support my recollection that he said Research Analysts were in tears over pressure brought over claims of Iraqi WMD*
I have changed the attributions of several comments made by Uzbek LE staff*
I have given false names to several Uzbek LE staff*
I have removed several references to my contention that the Embassy did not function well before my arrival*
I have removed the reference to an early hiccough in Andrew Patrick's career*
I have changed statements made by Matthew Kydd and Linda Duffield (frankly, I believe my original account was more accurate)*
I have reduced the gruesome detail of the aircraft crash body identification, and particularly taken out physical detail personal to Richard Conroy*
I have removed or toned down a number of personal observations on FCO staff*
I have taken out the reference to Frank Berman being appointed over David AndersonI believe the above, which is not exhaustive, is proof of a genuine willingness on my part to compromise to reach agreement.
I am deeply disappointed that, throughout this process, I have felt no urge on the part of the FCO to actually conclude this matter.
Past correspondence sets out the timescale and the FCO's continued invention of new points to prevent the process concluding.
I therefore give you notice that, should I not receive a definitive response from you by Friday 10 February, I shall be going ahead with publication.
In that event I will not feel obliged to retain all the above amendments, some of which I believe detract from the truth of the book and which I offered in response to your various requests, in the belief that we were seeking agreement.
Craig Murray
==================================
At the same time as Craig posted this email on his website, the book was listed on Amazon as available for pre-order.
This generated the following response from the FCO, where they make clear their desire to censor what they do not agree with:[See attached PDF]==================================
See attached pdf
08 Feb 2006 From Richard StaggTo Craig Murray
Dear Craig,
Thank you for submitting the revised text of your book, and for the amendments that you have made.
However, there are some important areas where you have not met the concerns we have expressed to you.
We therefore firmly believe it would not be right for you to publish this book.
This is nothing to do with debate and criticism and everything to do with a betrayal of trust.
We do not approve in any way of its contents or condone the fact of its publication.
I should put on record that we consider your book to be inappropriate and misleading.
It is inappropriate because you were a Head of Mission in the Diplomatic Service, in whom therefore particular trust and confidence was placed.
In publishing this book you will be breaching that trust.
The book is misleading because it remains in places factually incorrect and your criticism of your former colleagues is frequently unfair and unwarranted.
Your comments in this regard are distasteful and risk bringing the Service into disrepute.
In particular, I must makeit clear that we do not recognise the image you present of the operation of the Embassy in Tashkent before your arrival.
The allegations you make about the effectiveness of our representation there are untrue.
We do not accept them.
The account of your meeting with Research Analysts also contains serious and false allegations. Their publication on your website in September has caused considerable operational damage. These are two examples of specific issues that we have afready put to you and where, together with our more general comments about your text, we have continuing concerns.
I hope that you will reconsider these specific points (even if you decide to proceed with publication), and remain happy to meet you to discuss this more fully.
I am also advised that there are a number of passages in your manuscript which could well ground actions for defamation.
In addition, I must make clear that if the book is published, we will actively consider a claim for breach of confidence or of Crown copyright, and nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of the Crowns rights in this regard.
Indeed, I reserve fully the Crowns rights in relation to any publication.
Finally, I must specifically remind you of your continuing obligations under the Official Secrets Act.
C R V Stagg
Director General Corporate Affairs
==================================
On the back of this reply, which threatens action against Craig by 4 separate methods, Defamation (libel), Breach of Confidence, Crown Copyright and the Official Secrets Act, he has had meetings with his publisher [Mainstream Books of Edinburgh] and they have confirmed their intention to stand up and be counted, and their committment to publishing.
Craig has replied to the FCO, throwing down the gauntlet, and challenging them to back up their allegations.
==================================
09 Feb 2006
From Craig MurrayTo Richard Stagg
Mr Richard Stagg
Director General Corporate Affairs
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
London
Dear Dickie,
Thank you for your letter of 8 February about my forthcoming book, Murder in Samarkand.
Let me respond to the points which you have made.
Firstly, allow me to note that, over a period of many months, you have consulted exhaustively with all the FCO staff, past and present, named in the book.
Let me then relate that to the question of libel.
In your letter you state that you are “Also advised that there are a number of passages in your book which could well ground actions for defamation.”
Let me be quite plain.
I have no desire to libel or defame anybody.
So I urge you now to disclose to me those passages in the book which you have been advised may be defamatory, so that I may consider if I believe there is that danger, and remove or amend any accidental defamation.
I make this offer in all good faith, that we may avoid the publication of defamation.
If you choose not to take up this fair offer, and subsequently the FCO or its employees attempt to block publication through court actions for defamation, it will be evident that this is not an attempt to avoid defamation, but a ruse to block publication of the book as a whole through vexatious and unnecessary litigation.
I repeat I have the strongest desire not to defame anybody.
I know the terrible mental anguish that unjust defamation can cause.
You will recall that I was myself outrageously defamed and accused, quite groundlessly, of appalling things like being an alcoholic and offering visas in exchange for sex.
Of course, in my case it was the FCO which was defaming me.
The complete story of why and how this happened is in fact the substance of my book.
Which is why you are so keen to identify and reserve possible legal avenues for the government to block publication.
It is not falsehood which scares you, but truth.
It is plain from your letter that you object to the whole concept of my publishing this account. Nowhere in the months of negotiation between us to date did you propose any such fundamental objections as now surface in your letter.
Rather you asked for a series of specific amendments, the vast majority of which I made.
I am sadly reinforced in my view that this lengthy process was an effort on your part to stall publication, rather than a discussion in good faith.
On the specific points you raise, you claim that the publication on my website of material in September caused operational damage to Research Analysts.
There has been numerous and frequent correspondence and personal contact between us since September.
I am puzzled as to why you mention this now and have not done so before.
The material in question featured on my website for 24 hours and has not done so since.
You requested me to remove material from the book which you believed was misleading on the role of Research Analysts and could cause operational difficulty.
I immediately removed that passage from the text in its entirety.
The only point still at dispute, is that I have in the text that a member of Research Analysts told me that people in that Department were in tears over pressure put on them to go along with claims of Iraqi WMD.
You tell me that the officer, still in your employ, now denies telling me this.
I have noted in the book that I say he told me this, and he apparently says he did not tell me this.
People can draw their own conclusions.
I cannot see why this is such a huge problem for you, or would lead you to want to ban a book.
Similarly, I formed a strong impression that the British Embassy in Tashkent was pretty inactive before my arrival.
You say that is not your impression.
Well, fine.
That seems to me well within the range of views that should be able freely to be published in a democracy without political suppression.
I note your point on Crown Copyright.
Again, I am genuinely concerned to act in a legal fashin and I should be most grateful if you would explain to me how my book differs from Christopher Meyer’s in this regard.
You told me that you had personally played a major role within the FCO in supervising the preparation of the “Dirty Dossier” on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I am afraid that one consequence is, that when you try to lecture me on truth, I am sorely tempted to laugh at you.
I have lost my livelihood through all this.
You have lost something infinitely more precious.
Finally, you threaten me with the Official Secrets Act.
I am confident I am not breaking it.
And if you really want to ask a jury of twelve honest citizens to send me to prison for campaigning against torture, good luck to you.
Yours Sincerely,
Craig J Murray
==================================
The establishment's attempts to silence Craig are a matter of record, I am posting these documents to put that record in some sort of context.
Craig has been up front from the word go that he has a personal incentive in publishing this book, he has said both in private and public that he 'needs the money' - he has a family to support.
This has been used by his detractors to condem his campaigning and the publication of this book as a cynical money making exercise and nothing more.
He has been accused of leaking confidential information for personal gain, and worse.
Usually by people who cannot fault the arguments, so take a swipe at the man making them.
Whilst I accept that the book is a commercial venture, I don't see any conflict between this and what Craig has been trying to tell us for the last couple of years.
The book is an intrinsic part of that.
I would point out that information Craig has leaked, or confidences he has broken have been very specific, and only in relation to the relationship between the UK and Uzbekistan goverments and the use of information obtained by torture.
Given the nature of Craig's career before his posting to Uzbekistan, it is clear that he has had access to privileged information for a number of years.
If his intention was simply to sell secrets for cash or kudos, then he has a lifetime's career in the Foreign Office to draw upon.
He has not done so.
It is clear that Craig has a story to tell, and many of us view it as a story that should be heard. The UK government seem intent on preventing this.
We would ask that anyone in a position to posts these documents, and does what they can to publicise the forthcoming book and the UK Government's attempts to suppress it.
Craig follows up here:
Dan [ringverse]-- www.blairwatch.co.ukps
We have a couple of interviews you might find of interest, one with Dahr Jarmail about reporting from Fallujah, [20 mins] and another with Hugh Miles, author and journalist about al-Jazeera [20 mins].
Both were recorded at the al-Jazeera Forum we attended in Doha a couple of weeks ago.
We also did an interview for Democracy Now on the subject of the al-jazeera memo.
No comments:
Post a Comment