AWB sent millions of dollars in foreign currency to Saddam Hussein so he could build concrete bunkers, which AWB executives speculated might be used by the regime to bury Kurds.
The shocking email detailing the reinforced bunkers came on an extraordinary final day of the Cole inquiry in which a former AWB managing director broke down on the stand and new Trade Minister Warren Truss was drawn into the Iraqi kickback scandal.
But the extent of the scandal was revealed in the email by executive Daryl Borlase, who said Iraq wanted to build 2000 concrete bunkers, ostensibly to store grain, but "the bunkers will have cement walls and floors so they are actually designed for burying the Kurds – under the cement?"
"They intend to build them with fumigation capability so the mind boggles as to whether they are fumigating insects or any other pest that pisses them off," the email says.
It continued: "On a serious note, they will have cement flooring …"
Saddam is on trial in Iraq for the genocide of 182,000 people in a 1987-88 campaign against the Kurds.
The dramatic revelations came just hours after Mr Truss, who was sworn in as Trade Minister at 2.30pm yesterday, was dragged into the scandal.
Senior counsel John Agius produced a letter, drawn from the archives of AWB’s computers just this week, which suggested that former AWB chairman Trevor Flugge had discussed problems with the Iraq "trucking fee" with Mr Truss when he was agriculture minister in 2000.
The letter, which Mr Flugge swore he had never seen, was written on April 5, 2000, and addressed to the former Iraqi minister for trade, Mohammed Medhi Saleh, who later became the Six of Hearts in the Most Wanted pack of Iraqis.
It was written for Mr Flugge by an AWB executive turned whistleblower, Mark Emons.
Former AWB managing director Andrew Lindberg, who was the last witness on the last day of the inquiry, was asked by Mr Agius whether his staff knew that AWB’s millions was being funnelled to Iraq at a time when Saddam was accused of massive human rights abuses.
"Would you agree with me, Mr Lindberg, that the (Kurds) email does make plain that there were personnel within AWB who were aware of what … the Iraqi regime was capable of doing?" Mr Agius asked.
A short time later, Mr Lindberg collapsed into tears in the witness box.
His wife, who had been sitting in the public gallery, and several supporters rushed to comfort him.
Mr Lindberg resigned as CEO in February, shortly after Mr Agius asked him whether he was a "complete fool" for ignoring the scandal for so long.The job had paid him more than $6million in four years.
"I hope that wasn’t said in a serious way," he said yesterday, of the Kurds email. "I think it’s open for you to draw that inference."
Mr Lindberg told the inquiry he understood one of the reasons UN sanctions had been in place against Iraq was to stop Saddam’s regime getting hold of foreign currency to buy weapons or for other nefarious purposes.
In his final question Commissioner Cole asked former AWB CEO Andrew Lindberg: “Are you able to give me any understanding as to how you think this came about, how it happened in a company like AWB?” Mr Lindberg replied: “It would appear that it was set up before I arrived by former employees and it continued under my stewardship, and it shouldn’t have.”
Source: news.com.au
It seems, perhaps, that the people who warned me were not so paranoid. It seems, perhaps, that I was not paranoid enough. Legislation passed by the Republican House and Senate, legislation now marching up to the Republican White House for signature, has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else George W. Bush deems to be an enemy.
So much of this legislation is wretched on the surface. Habeas corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism, so the Magna Carta-era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender.
Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. To my way of thinking, this pretty much eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.
Speaking of collecting evidence, the torture of suspects and detainees has been broadly protected by this new legislation. While it tries to delineate what is and is not acceptable treatment of detainees, in the end, it gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.
It was two Supreme Court decisions, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, that compelled the creation of this legislation. The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of habeas corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision held that the military commissions set up to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.
In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior. The passage of this legislation came after a scramble by Republicans to paper over the torture and murder of a number of detainees. As columnist Molly Ivins wrote on Wednesday, "Of the over 700 prisoners sent to Gitmo, only 10 have ever been formally charged with anything. Among other things, this bill is a CYA for torture of the innocent that has already taken place."
It seems almost certain that, at some point, the Supreme Court will hear a case to challenge the legality of this legislation, but even this is questionable. If a detainee is not allowed access to a fair trial or to the evidence against him, how can he bring a legal challenge to a court? The legislation, in anticipation of court challenges like Hamdi and Hamdan, even includes severe restrictions on judicial review over the legislation itself.
The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of Mr. Bush, to draft a bill that all but erases the judicial branch of the government. Time will tell whether this aspect, along with all the others, will withstand legal challenges. If such a challenge comes, it will take time, and meanwhile there is this bill. All of the above is deplorable on its face, indefensible in a nation that prides itself on Constitutional rights, protections and the rule of law.
Underneath all this, however, is where the paranoia sets in.
Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has been established by this legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our forces. Thanks to this legislation, George W. Bush is now able to designate as an "enemy combatant" anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."
Consider that language a moment. "Purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" is in the eye of the beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror."
If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them up.
By writing this essay, I could be deemed an "enemy combatant." It’s that simple, and very soon, it will be the law. I always laughed when people told me to be careful. I’m not laughing anymore.
In case I disappear, remember this. America is an idea, a dream, and that is all. We have borders and armies and citizens and commerce and industry, but all this merely makes us like every other nation on this Earth. What separates us is the idea, the simple idea, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our organizing principles. We can think as we please, speak as we please, write as we please, worship as we please, go where we please. We are protected from the kinds of tyranny that inspired our creation as a nation in the first place.
That was the idea. That was the dream. It may all be over now, but once upon a time, it existed. No good idea ever truly dies. The dream was here, and so was I, and so were you.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America’s Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress.
Great potential for CDM projects but short supply of CERs: Seiichiro Nishida, Mitsubishi UFJ Securities, in discussing public and private investments and the CDM project prospective, noted the great potential for CDM projects in the Middle East and the short supply of certified emission reductions (CERs) as compared to the high demand.
Better to wait till issuing stage before finalising CER prices: Noting the incorporation of qualification and registration risks into CER prices, he suggested that it is often better to wait until a project has reached the issuing stage to avoid qualification risks.
Need to increase profitability of CDM projects: Identifying “finance-related issues” as a key barrier to success, he highlighted the need to increase the profitability and fund-raising capacity of CDM projects.
Need for supplemental mechanisms emphasised: On raising project profitability, he emphasized the need to monetize the environmental contribution to augment returns and that this requires supplemental mechanisms to the CDM, such as tax credits.
CERs are form of foreign investment: Rachad Itani, Xenel-Balderrie Project Finance & Advisory, discussed his experience with CDM-enhanced projects in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. He suggested that CERs are a form of inward foreign investment and that CDM-enhanced finance can provide a significant boost to the internal rate of return.
CDM projects can reduce operating costs: He noted that of the six greenhouse gases (GHGs) covered by the Kyoto Protocol, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide provide the greatest value and, after outlining present and future projects, he noted that CDM projects are not simply ends in themselves but also means to reduce long-term operating costs.
Reference: Summary of the First International Conference on the Clean Development Mechanism in Saudi Arabia and the EU-OPEC Roundtable on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage: 19-21 September 2006, http://www.iisd.ca
Erisk Net, 24/9/2006
Cost premium "small: Romilly Madew, chief executive of the Green Building Council, said the GBC’s cost-benefit analysis of green buildings The Dollars & Sense of Green Buildings showed that green buildings incur a small premium of no more than 3 per cent above the costs of standard construction. This made the cost of going green for CBD commercial building “less than $100 per square metre,” Ms Madew said.
Momentum is there: BCI Australia chief executive officer Matthias Krups said that the results reflected the momentum in the industry to build green, but that manufacturers were slow to respond.
Window of opportunity: “The results also point to a strategic window of opportunity for manufacturers’ branding and positioning, with ‘specifying green products’ ranking among the most common of green building activities, yet few if any architects are able to specifically put their finger on a ‘green manufacturer’,” Dr Krups said.
Green building sales on rise: Among other findings in the survey: More than 50 per cent of Australia’s architectural firms and contractors see their sales associated with green building on the rise, yet 65 per cent of architects and contractors see ”little or no impact” of green building on their profits.
The Australian Financial Review, 28/9/2006, p. 55
Contracts due soon: B&B is completing construction contracts for the gas-fired plant, which would cost about $600 million to build using standard industry cost assumptions of $1 million a megawatt.
Other expansions mooted: It gained development approval earlier this year. B&B is also considering expanding its Ecogen gas-fired power business in Victoria and its Braemar joint venture in Queensland.
Float up in the air: Meanwhile, B&B must decide within the next month whether to go ahead with a sharernarket float of its power assets this year, wait until 2007 or restructure the assets into an unlisted fund. It has mandated investment banks Deutsche Bank and Morgan Stanley to lead the potential float.
ERM a long-time partner: B&B’s stake in the plant at Wagga, which it is developing in a joint venture with long-time partner ERM, would be part of any power station business. Other assets likely to form the power fund are B&B’s interests in Queensland gas-fired power stations at Braemar and Oakey and Western Australia’s NewGen venture at Kwinana, all of which are also joint ventures with ERM.
The Australian Financial Review, 28/9/2006, p. 16