PDA

View Full Version : Saudi Arabia Threatened to Withhold Terror Intel From UK Over Arms Corruption Inquiry


Grendel
02-16-2008, 05:39 PM
BAE: secret papers reveal threats from Saudi prince
Spectre of 'another 7/7' led Tony Blair to block bribes inquiry, high court told

Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties.

Lord Justice Moses, hearing the civil case with Mr Justice Sullivan, said the government appeared to have "rolled over" after the threats. He said one possible view was that it was "just as if a gun had been held to the head" of the government.

The SFO investigation began in 2004, when Robert Wardle, its director, studied evidence unearthed by the Guardian. This revealed that massive secret payments were going from BAE to Saudi Arabian princes, to promote arms deals.

Yesterday, anti-corruption campaigners began a legal action to overturn the decision to halt the case. They want the original investigation restarted, arguing the government had caved into blackmail.

The judge said he was surprised the government had not tried to persuade the Saudis to withdraw their threats. He said: "If that happened in our jurisdiction [the UK], they would have been guilty of a criminal offence". Counsel for the claimants said it would amount to perverting the course of justice.

Wardle told the court in a witness statement: "The idea of discontinuing the investigation went against my every instinct as a prosecutor. I wanted to see where the evidence led."

But a paper trail set out in court showed that days after Bandar flew to London to lobby the government, Blair had written to the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and the SFO was pressed to halt its investigation.

The case officer on the inquiry, Matthew Cowie, was described by the judge as "a complete hero" for standing up to pressure from BAE's lawyers, who went behind his back and tried to secretly lobby the attorney general to step in at an early stage and halt the investigations.

The campaigners argued yesterday that when BAE failed at its first attempt to stop the case, it changed tactics. Having argued it should not be investigated in order to promote arms sales, it then recruited ministers and their Saudi associates to make the case that "national security" demanded the case be covered up.

Moses said that after BAE's commercial arguments failed, "Lo and behold, the next thing there is a threat to national security!" Dinah Rose, counsel for the Corner House and the Campaign against the Arms Trade, said: "Yes, they start to think of a different way of putting it." Moses responded: "That's very unkind!"

Documents seen yesterday also show the SFO warned the attorney general that if he dropped the case, it was likely it would be taken up by the Swiss and the US. These predictions proved accurate.

Bandar's payments were published in the Guardian and Switzerland subsequently launched a money-laundering inquiry into the Saudi arms deal. The US department of justice has launched its own investigation under the foreign corrupt practices act into the British money received in the US by Bandar while he was ambassador to Washington.

Prince Bandar yesterday did not contest a US court order preventing him from taking the proceeds of property sales out of the country. The order will stay in place until a lawsuit brought by a group of BAE shareholders is decided. The group alleges that BAE made £1bn of "illegal bribe payments" to Bandar while claiming to be a "highly ethical, law-abiding corporation".Wonder what would happen if another "ally" used their access to terror intelligence as a club to squelch investigations into wrongdoing. I guess sitting on 260 billion barrels of oil has its privileges...

Luris Blear
02-16-2008, 05:46 PM
I guess sitting on 260 billion barrels of oil has its privileges...It does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska)?

Er, actually, it may. In this case, though, I think maybe the Saudis pressured on two fronts. More dead citizens paying higher to transport their food (or power their computers to bitch about politics on the internet), or a higher percentage of living citizens.

If only there were other sources of oil...

Grendel
02-16-2008, 10:03 PM
(Whatever the case, our reserves aren't even a tenth the size of the Saudis' and, with our consumption levels...well, the math just doesn't work out so well for us.)

As for the rest, I think if any other ostensibly "friendly" nation played those kind of games with terror intel, they'd be subject to all manner of international condemnation. Their status as global gas tank is the only conceivable mitigating factor.

Searcher
02-17-2008, 08:44 PM
I trully don't understand what makes all these ANWR obsessed people think for a second that if we started the drills everyone would simply forget all about Saudi Arabia.
The State Dept. wouldn't know what to do with their time if they weren't chapping their lips on the Saudis asses.

Grendel
02-17-2008, 09:08 PM
Well, between spiraling prices and a shady-as-all-get-out regime in our "friends" the Saudis, "any port in a storm" starts to look pretty appealing. I get that, but it's bailing out the boat with a walnut shell.

Luris Blear
02-17-2008, 10:32 PM
A lot of this is what Grendel is saying. "Any port in a storm." And yes, only to weather the storm. Last I read, one of the big oil companies also recently built the world's largest wind-energy farm here in TX. If they can find a controllable and inexpensive other source of energy and we had a way to buy it, they likely would. So would we. We're all sick of this.

I would also like to point out that this goes beyond Alaska and includes a lot of domestic oil which is pretty much going untapped.

The other issue is diplomacy. Here's what we get:
Murderers. Some people own the land and use their new oil money to pay for murderers. Others are mad because they don't own the land and will murder their way into having it. Still more are mad when you attempt to stop the murderers from murdering and try to murder Americans for stopping the murders. Others yet get mad when you don't stop the murderers from murdering and will also commit murder when they get this angry.

Oil prices that shift during key voting periods, causing turmoil. Or if they don't, that causes turmoil too.

And, of course, being stabbed in the back by otherwise friendly nations in the U.N.

Then there's the political debates inside any country buying from OPEC (those where dissent is still legal, anyway). The party in power is constantly either too diplomatic or too aggressive. Doesn't matter what they did or what the wrong thing to do was two weeks beforehand. Now it's the wrong decision.

Then there's the American demand for more OPEC oil driving up the cost of energy for poorly developed countries. This is to say that after paying more than we need to for oil, we get to pay out more money in foreign aid to the countries are policies are helping injure. (If a man blackens his girlfriend's eye then put an ice pack on it, did he really help her in the long run?)

The thinking is, in short, to be less immoral. If these kids want to play rough with their toys then we stop buying them new ones.

I can't really understand the opposition to drilling domestically, either. The idea is simple: Put liquid money in one side of the pipe. Take liquid money out the other side. Anything that spills in between is less liquid money. Solution: keep liquid money in pipe. If the energy companies are as evil as I'm led to believe, they would aim for 100% of their liquid money to come out the other side.

There are other issues - the trees and wildlife are pretty much the only one that concern me, and I would probably (if begrudgingly) be supportive of stricter standards than the energy companies would like.

Grendel
02-17-2008, 11:23 PM
I can't really understand the opposition to drilling domestically, either. The idea is simple: Put liquid money in one side of the pipe. Take liquid money out the other side. Anything that spills in between is less liquid money. Solution: keep liquid money in pipe. If the energy companies are as evil as I'm led to believe, they would aim for 100% of their liquid money to come out the other side.

There are other issues - the trees and wildlife are pretty much the only one that concern me, and I would probably (if begrudgingly) be supportive of stricter standards than the energy companies would like.I think the main issue is that it ("it" being the ongoing ANWR debate) is not going to have enough of a net effect to justify the environmental costs. From the AP (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/) a few years back:

WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.If it would really help offset our oil dependency, the case would be far more compelling. Since we can't just "undo" that development, without a decided energy upside, it makes little sense.

Luris Blear
02-18-2008, 09:51 PM
I haven't been trying to limit this to Alaska entirely, though. Drilling anywhere in -- or even near -- America has been made all but illegal.

I understand fully that America would still be purchasing the bulk of our oil from abroad. I just don't understand why one dollar more than necessary is being pumped into this system of self-destruction.

Grendel
02-19-2008, 05:34 PM
I haven't been trying to limit this to Alaska entirely, though. Drilling anywhere in -- or even near -- America has been made all but illegal.

I understand fully that America would still be purchasing the bulk of our oil from abroad. I just don't understand why one dollar more than necessary is being pumped into this system of self-destruction.Even assuming restrictions were cast aside, the oil companies are the ones doing the drilling. There's no way they will max out refining capacity and cut into their own (already grotesquely bloated) bottom line. What's the incentive for them to do so?