UK CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES (CAAB)

Dear Friends
We wished everyone a 'happy and peaceful New Year' and sincerely meant it. However the New Year has not started well. We are living through very dark and dangerous times.

The Bush administration seems bent on going down an isolationist route with news trickling in of key US policy changes. Recent announcements by the US government, which are causes for great concern, are:

Notice of Intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty 1972

The Ballistic Missile Defense Organisation (responsible overall for 'Star Wars') to be renamed the Missile Defense Agency

Fast track deployment of Missile Defenses ('Star Wars')

The US may start testing nuclear weapons underground again at the Nevada test site

Wider bombing campaign in more countries in the aftermath of 11 September as result of conflict in Afghanistan

Instructions by John Ashworth - to resist providing information to US citizens (and presumably anyone else) under the Freedom of Information Act

Lack of human rights and treatment of prisoners captured in Afghanistan

At home Tony Blair continues to be the US Ambassador for the world with deeper and deeper involvement in the Afghanistan conflict. What will be the stance of the UK government should the US start to bomb Iraq, Iran, Somalia or the Sudan for example?

The expected decision by Tony Blair to give formal consent to George W Bush for the use of MHS and Fylingdales in the American Missile Defense (AMD) programme has probably already been made. AMD is going ahead like an unstoppable train; along its route a trail of potential devastation and destruction affecting us all and ironically putting all our security at risk.

All US bases in this country continue to be on high alert status since 11 September and after the US-led response in Afghanistan. What will be the next line of security at MHS for example? More security fences, razor wire, CCTV cameras, more police surveillance and finally gun turrets and missile launchers?

We always hope that the New Year will bring a sense of renewal for us as individuals and for us collectively in the world. 2002 is looking rather grim as far as the old ways of settling conflicts are concerned. Alternative, imaginative and creative ways are rarely used in response to threats and violence. More often the violent response to violence is chosen using more and more deadly weaponry and methods. Things have to change.

It is therefore crucially important that we continue to voice concerns about the decisions made on our behalf – none of the examples given here are done in our name – NOT IN OUR NAME. The ways of voicing concerns can be tedious, time consuming and seemingly pointless at times often resulting in coming up against the proverbial ‘brick wall’. New ways of protest are therefore essential. CAAB are again planning a programme of peaceful opposition and protest in 2002.

CAAB sent out this press release in the early hours of the morning after the terrible events of 11 September 2001…….

For Immediate Release:
The Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB) joins with people round the world to express our utter horror at the terrible violence and devastation in America yesterday. We send our deepest sympathy to all that have been so affected.

The British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that Britain will 'stand shoulder to shoulder with the US'. We support any move to provide humanitarian help and aid in the aftermath of this disaster. However we utterly reject any form of active retaliation which may be contemplated by the US and British governments.

We are deeply concerned that the British government is expected to give America formal consent for Menwith Hill and Fylingdales in North Yorkshire to be used in George W Bush's Ballistic Missile Defense System ('Star Wars'). As the terrible events in America have shown 'Star Wars' would be no solution in deterring the terrorist who is intent on bringing harm to the US and its allies. The policies of the American government and the presence of US bases in this country and round the world puts all our security at risk.

The path of revenge and retaliation is not the way to settle the inequalities and injustices in the world. We urge all countries to seek peaceful ways to resolve conflict and violence by way of international cooperation and dialogue with one another.

…11 September happened on a Tuesday – the night of the regular weekly witness and protest at MHS. We stood with black armbands outside the base and did not use the US flag. We did not protest with the US flag again until after the period of the US official mourning was over.

We handed in a card to the US base Commander and placed flowers outside the base. Colonel Christine Marsh (US base Commander) sent a card to both Anni and Lindis with thanks. The regular protest continues.

Actions and protest after 11 September: Sunday 7 October 2001:
CAAB arranged a spontaneous demonstration and protest at MHS after hearing that the US/UK had started to bomb Afghanistan. We used the US flag with 'NOT IN MY NAME' and stayed at the Main entrance from 9.30pm to midnight.

13 October 2001: International Day of Protest called for by the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space – ‘STOP STAR WARS’:
Over 250 people came. At the beginning of the demonstration a candle was lit in memory of all people killed, injured and traumatized by the actions of terrorists.

George Monbiot and Diana Wallace MEP were unable to come due to illness but many people made powerful statements in opposition to the American Missile Defense system and the bombing of Afghanistan.

…The day before the demonstration a Ministry of Defence Police Sergeant unexpectedly arrested Lindis at midday at her home in Hull accompanied by a Inspector (Home office force in Hull) for allegedly failing to answer to bail at Banbury Magistrates’ Court.

Lindis had been arrested for ‘theft’ of two US flags at USAF Barford St John and USAF Croughton [see CAAB newsletter 18 and newsletter 17] while protesting at USAF Mildenhall on 22 September. She was bailed to return to Bicester Police Station on 1 October for a taped interview. She was taken to Banbury Police Station where she was later charged with ‘theft’ of two US flags. She was bailed to appear at Banbury Magistrates’ Court Despite having actually written to the Court pleading NOT GUILTY a bench warrant was issued by the Magistrates for failure to answer to bail.

Lindis was taken to Hull police station, detained overnight and driven to Oxford Magistrates’ Court the next morning [day of the demonstration]. The Magistrates took no issue with the alleged breach of bail after the CPS produced the letter written by Lindis. Strict bail conditions were imposed:

‘Not to go within 25 metres of any military establishment used by the American military in England and Wales’.

Lindis was due to appear again on 26 October at Banbury Magistrates’ Court. The CPS later dropped the case after a second look at the files [contact us for specific details].

We believe that Lindis was deliberately prevented from attending the demonstration at MHS on 13 October.

See also: CAAB report.

5th US Interceptor Missile Test witness and protest planned for 1 December 2001:
CAAB was present at the main entrance to NSA Menwith Hill to witness and protest at the fifth 'interceptor' test concerning the American Missile Defense System. [The test was actually cancelled twice because of the weather].

We blockaded vehicles coming out of the base for an hour. We used the US flag with ‘STOP STAR WARS’ written on it and with a placard saying – ‘STOP STAR WARS - INTERCEPT THE TEST’. Despite being warned by the Ministry of Defence Police that if this continued arrests would be made -no arrests were made. We continued to demonstrate by blockading the vehicles coming out of the base.

Regular witness and protest at MHS – Tuesday 7-9 pm:
It is often bitterly cold and wet during these long winter months. These demonstrations have continued for about 18 months.

It is incredibly important that there is a regular visible presence which focuses attention against ‘Star Wars’ and the US-led actions in Afghanistan (and where ever next). We have chosen specifically to be at the Main entrance of MHS to let the American Visiting Forces and US Agencies know we are deeply opposed to what they are doing and planning. Please come and support these demonstrations.

Arrests and court – 4 December 2001:
Lindis deliberately and openly removed a byelaw sign which was on the fence at the Main entrance. An MDP Sergeant stood by and watched her. She put the sign in Anni’s van with no intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property (we have done this many times in the past and returned the signs to the Secretary of State for Defence as the byelaws, we say, are invalid).

Lindis was arrested for ‘theft’ of the byelaws sign and taken to Harrogate Police Station. The allegation of ‘theft’ was not pursued but instead Lindis was charged with alleged ‘criminal damage’ to the byelaws sign. The CPS later informed her that the case would be discontinued. Lindis has asked the Court to revive the case.

Planning Applications:
The following PA’s have been received by Harrogate Borough Council since the last newsletter:

· P.A. No: 6.90.170.B.CROWND for 3 x No. Temporary Buildings to the rear of Building 11 for security accommodation. [This is a revised P.A. received in early August for 2 x No. Temporary Buildings for security purposes.]

· P.A. No: 6.91.180.A.CROWND for additional security fencing - 3 metre high security fencing topped with 'anti-climb wire' to be erected around radomes GT8 and GT9 and sub-station [the new American Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS) radomes which will be crucial to the American Missile Defense programme if it goes ahead]. The new fencing will also include an electronically controlled gate.

· P.A. No: 6.90.191.B.CROWND for car parking improvements on base.

· P.A. No: 6.90.166.B.CROWND for new fire doors, roof etc to US Consolidated Club with electronic sign to northern elevation.

· P.A. No: 6.99.139.CROWND for new 100 foot diameter white radome containing 22 metre diameter Cassegrain Reflector antennae on a 13 foot 4 inch ring wall with attached 15 foot by 15 foot by 8 foot high covered transformer pen. Antennae erection due April-July 2004 and radome assembly due August-September 2004.

(NB: In a letter to Harrogate planning office dated 21.11.2001 RAF Liaison Officer Humphrey Vincent stated that this new radome was in no way connected to Missile Defense although for security reasons, it was not possible to give its exact purpose.)

Twenty eight people objected to this application. Because of the importance of this planning application we wrote to the Head of Planning and the Leader of the Council urging them to refer it to an open forum. A decision was made not to refer this application to the Area No 1 Planning Sub-Committee (public) on the grounds that there was no significant environmental impact on the area; the reasoning being that the new radome was near to other radomes already built.

We have yet to receive a reply and in the meantime this application has gone quietly through on the decision of Helen Sefton (Case Officer) and Colin Browne (then Head of Planning – now replaced by Tim Richards). They made no ‘objections’ but an ‘observation’ that all letters of public objection should be sent to the Ministry of Defence.

NB: Menwith Hill is not included in the Harrogate District Local Plan (February 2001) which monitors and plans local ‘green belt’ development and housing development etc etc. The base is also officially excluded from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Security matters:
MDP officers continue to be ‘bussed’ in from all over the UK for short term duties of 12 hour shifts. They stay in expensive hotels in Harrogate. There are to be more MDP officers on permanent posts at MHS.

We asked Norman Baker MP to ask a PQ about who pays for the extra security (see PQ in this Newsletter dated 19.11.01). The crucial information asked for was however exempted under the Codes of Access to Government Information. We have now asked another PQ about this.

Before Christmas David Blunkett (Home Secretary) sanctioned £1M to North Yorkshire Police for the extra security they provide around the base.

RAF Liaison officer replaced:
Squadron Leader Howard Newbold has recently replaced Squadron Leader Humphrey Vincent at MHS.

HBC meet top MOD officials:
A private meeting at the Ministry of Defence London on 19 October 2001 was held when Mike Walsh (Chief Executive of Harrogate Borough Council - HBC), Councillor Geoff Webber (Leader of HBC) and other County Councillors met to discuss concerns about MHS. They were apparently assured after being told that in future the base would consult HBC if there were any new developments this press release was put out by the Directorate of Air Staff, Ministry of Defence.

Although it actually says nothing we do not know and have not already researched, confirmed and said before (and we do question some of the information) we thought it worth producing in full:

PRESS RELEASE
ROYAL AIR FORCE MENWITH HILL

Introduction

RAF Menwith Hill is situated off the A59 Skipton Road, approximately nine miles west of Harrogate in North Yorkshire and occupies about one square mile of moorland. The base is owned by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and made available to the US Department of Defense (DoD). As with all sites the Government make available to the United States Visiting Forces (USVF), RAF Menwith Hill is made available under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of 1951 and additional confidential arrangements. Her Majesty's Government (HMG) is entitled to possession of the site and retains control over its use and its facilities, though the administration of the base is the responsibility of the US authorities.

The base comprises high-technology installations and structures set on the edge of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We regard it as a priority to work closely with local and national bodies to protect the surrounding environment.

History of RAF Menwith Hill

RAF Menwith Hill was opened in 1960 as "Menwith Hill Station". It was administered by the US Army Security Agency and was staffed by US Army personnel. DoD civilians joined the station in 1966 when administrative control of the site transferred to the DoD.

Throughout the 1970's and 1980's both the infrastructure and the number of personnel at the site continued to expand. In February 1996. the site was renamed RAF Menwith Hill to bring it into line with other RAF sites made available to the USVF in the UK, and administrative control of the site reverted to the US army.

UK/US Cooperation on Defence and Security

Cooperation between the UK and US on defence and security matters has a long history, reaching back to WWI. The close relationship between our nations was significantly strengthened in WWII and further demonstrated in the Desert Storm conflict and the Bosnian peacekeeping operation.

RAF Menwith Hill continues this tradition of cooperation in support of UK, US and NATO interests. We very much welcome this.

Operations

RAF Menwith Hill is an integral part of the US DoD world-wide defence communications network and provides intelligence support for UK, US and NATO interests.

The base operates with the full knowledge and consent of HMG and is regarded as being of vital importance to this country's defence strategy. RAF Menwith Hill functions primarily as a field station of the National Security Agency (NSA), which is the largest of several elements of the US DoD represented at the base. UK. personnel from the MoD and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are fully integrated at both senior and junior levels within both the operational and administrative areas of the base. British staff are aware of all facets of the base's operations and no activity detrimental to the UK's interests is carried out there.

Menwith Hill capitalised on the existing infra-structure at the base.

Accountability

Public and Parliamentary scrutiny of RAF Menwith Hill is provided through clear lines of Ministerial responsibility and by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which draws its members from all major political parties in Parliament.

Government Ministers are fully briefed on the activities at RAF Menwith Hill as a matter of course and visit the base as part of their normal pattern of Ministerial duties. The ISC also make regular visits to RAF Menwith Hill. It would be inappropriate to go into any detail about operations carried out at RAF Menwith Hill in support of national security. But we can say that work at the base is carried out by mixed teams of UK and US operators. Tasks are managed in a way that accords with the law. including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998.

Personnel and Administration

Approximately 1,450 US and 410 UK personnel work on the Base, although the UK figure excludes GCHQ staff. Approximately one third of the US personnel are active, duty military personnel representing all four services (Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps); the rest are US civilians. The majority live off base in local communities and contribute substantially to the local economy.

As with all bases made available to the USVF, the senior RAF officer at the base is the RAF Station Commander. Their role is to provide advice to the US Base Commander, the senior US officer on site, on a range of UK policy and protocol matters. The RAF Station Commander is also responsible for liaising with the local community and has the status, disciplinary powers and responsibility of a commanding officer in respect of all RAF Personnel, as well as civilians employed by the MOD at the site, with the exception of the Ministry of Defence Police. As a serving officer, the RAF Station Commander is responsible to their chain of command, in this case Headquarters Personnel and Training Command at RAF Innsworth.

RAF Menwith Hill has an Executive Council composed of senior managers; it meets twice weekly and deals with base management as well as operational matters. Both the RAF Station Commander and the senior GCHQ representative are full members of the Executive Council.

Working with the Community

Community relations are a priority at the base and personnel, together with their families, are actively involved in a. variety of community programmes. For example, staff assigned to the base have volunteered to help local organisations such as The Harrogate Homeless Hostel, the Harrogate Hospital, the Darley Lunch Club and the National Trust. It is estimated that the base contributes approximately £62 million to the local economy every year.

Latest on ECHELON: The Menwith Hill Forum are holding a second public meeting at the Friends Meeting House in Harrogate on Thursday 31 January at 7.30 pm. The speaker will be Gerhard Schmid MEP who prepared the final report to the investigation by the European Parliament on the ‘ECHELON’ interception system centred on MHS.

More details on ECHELON system
click on to
http://www.aclu.org/echelonwatch/
- this website contains comprehensive information

Planning Applications:
There have been no new Planning applications since we sent out the last Newsletter. Anni continues to ring Helmsley Planning Office weekly.

We have been in contact with Emma Loat (National Parks Authority) for sometime about the expected developments at Fylingdales in the North Yorkshire Moors re Star Wars.

The Chairman of the Council of National Parks (CNP) wrote to the Department of Transport, Local Government and Regions (DTLGR) on 20 July last year concerning AMD. C Kearne (CNP) replied on 15 August 2001:

Dear Mr Lunn

US MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM AND THE NORTH YORK MOORS

Thank you for your letter of the 20 July to the Secretary of State concerning the above which has been passed to me for reply.

You will appreciate that I cannot comment on a particular development proposal as to do so might prejudice any subsequent consideration by the Secretary of State. But you are aware development by the Crown is generally immune from planning control and that development is undertaken under the non-statutory procedures set out in Part IV of DOE Circular 18/84. The developing department must serve a Notice of Proposed Development on the local planning authority. The authority must give these proposals the same publicity as they would if the proposals were the subject of a normal planning application. However, these arrangements will not fully apply to proposals involving national security.

If the local planning objects to the proposal and the objections cannot be resolved by negotiation, the developing department must refer the proposals to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions for his determination. The method of dealing with proposals to which there have been objections will depend on the circumstances but in some cases it may be desirable to hold a non-statutory public enquiry in reaching a conclusion the Secretary of State will have regard to any relevant planning guidance, including any relevant PPG.

If the proposed development constitutes a departure from the development plan it will be advertised in the usual manner and notified to the Secretary of State who may decide to hold a non-statutory public enquiry prior to his consideration of the case.

As regards environmental impact development (EIA), the position in relation to Crown Development is set out in paragraph 157 of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions Circular 2/99. The EIA Regulations (SII999/293), like the Town and Country Planning Act, do not bind the Crown. However, when a development is proposed by a Crown body which would require planning permission if proposed by any other person and which would require EIA under the terms of the regulations, the body concerned will submit an Environmental Statement to the local planning authority when consulting them in accordance with the procedures set out in DOE Circular 18/84. In addition the Ministry of Defence will, in appropriate circumstances and subject to consideration affecting national security, provide Environmental Statements in respect of major defence projects though projects serving national defence purposes are not covered by the EIA Directive.

Yours sincerely

Signed C KEARNEY

There has been no further correspondence since this reply.

Appeal upheld against conviction of assault – 3-5 October 2001:
An appeal against a conviction of alleged assault by Lindis on Barry Frost (MDP Inspector – previously at Fylingdales and now at Menwith Hill) was upheld at York Crown Court. It was a nasty and fabricated case and has meant a long struggle to the Crown Court to make sure that this charge was dismissed – refer to previous Newsletters for details.

Anni and Lindis have both made a formal complaint against Barry Frost and the officers involved.

Anni was treated disgracefully by the MDP under the instructions of Barry Frost. The final outrage was when she was not allowed to wait in Scarborough Police Station while Lindis was in custody re the charge of assault and criminal damage. Anni was made to wait outside on the pavement in freezing temperatures for over six hours.

Disabled access:
One of the related issues concerning cases in York Crown Court has been the appalling lack of disabled access and toilet facilities. Several years ago there was no disabled access at all and anyone using a wheelchair had to be physically carried up two flights of steep concrete steps to get into the building.

Anni and Lindis wrote to the Court about this. As a result two metal portable ramps were eventually provided. However this has not been a safe or satisfactory solution.

During Lindis’s appeal the Court officials would not carry the ramps nor help Anni get into the court. They were apologetic but said they were not covered by insurance. Anni therefore could not get into a public building.

Chris Dean eventually contacted the York Fire Brigade who were extremely helpful sending a fire engine and crew to help Anni into the court every morning and afternoon of the case (3 days).

Anni has since written to the Manager of York Crown Court and the Court Service. The Court Service are investigating this.

Derogatory remark by Magistrate:
Lindis was at Pickering Magistrates’ Court on 19 December 2001 for the trial of an alleged offence of ‘aggravated trespass’ s.69 under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Sergeant Carr (MDP) who arrested Lindis earlier in the year refused to answer any questions put to him under cross-examination about the byelaws at Fylingdales. Lindis made an application to the Magistrates hearing the case but was told she could not ask any questions concerning the byelaws. Although not actually heard by Lindis at the time the Chairman of the Bench made a biased remark against her.

After a discussion with the Clerk in the lunch break he raised this point with the Magistrates and suggested that the remark might be perceived as being unfair and biased. The Magistrates withdrew to discuss the suggestion and when they returned a retrial was ordered in front of a new Bench. The retrial will be at 10 am on 19 February 2002 at Pickering Magistrates’ Court.

New Senior Ministry of Defence Police officer:
Chief Inspector Luqman (at Menwith Hill in the late 80s/early 90s) is now at Fylingdales having replaced Barry Frost – (MDP Inspector) as the Senior MDP officer. Barry Frost is now on attachment at MHS.

New RAF Liaison Officer:
Wing Commander Chris Knapman is the new senior RAF officer at Fylingdales.

Closure of roads: Local people are unhappy at the continued closure of roads and footpaths around Lakenheath by the US authorities. They were closed following the terrorist attacks on 11 September when security was tightened round the base.

Local parish Councillors met and decided to send a letter to Suffolk County Council and the Ministry of Defence objecting to the continued closure of Waterworks Road, Lincoln Road, Lords Walk in Beck Road.

Parish Councillor John Taylor said that he could not understand why the roads were still closed when guided tours had resumed on the base.

“Surely the resumption of the tours flies in the face of the security measures in operation on the base. The roads that have been closed are public roads, for goodness sake. They must be re-opened as soon as possible.”

Mildenhall County Councillor Roger Pendleton said “I cannot understand why these road are still closed. Surely, the real enemy is in a cave 3,000 miles away.”

Recently Suffolk County Council has renewed the temporary closure (until 8 March 2002). It is feared that the closures of the roads and footpath will become permanent.

20 December 2001: Lindis was driving her car towards the closed off section of Lords Walk. She stopped at the ‘check point’ hoping to speak to the MDP but to her surprise was waved through by them and the US military security personnel. After quietly sitting in the car for just under an hour she got out and witnessed and protested with the US flag with ‘STOP STAR WARS’ written on it. She was eventually arrested under a Public Order offence for allegedly causing ‘alarm, distress and harassment’ to a US military woman who had complained to the MDP. She was not charged but a file was submitted to the CPS.

Claim served on US Government and military personnel:
PRESS RELEASE – 10 January 2001

A civil action has been served on two United States military servicemen and the United States Air Force after an application to the Central London County Court ordered that service of the Claim by the Court was granted.

Lindis Percy (Co-Coordinator with Anni Rainbow of the CAMPAIGN FOR THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF AMERICAN BASES - CAAB) alleges that she was assaulted, battered and unlawfully detained in August 1995 by Kevin Moore and Thomas Burnside on a public road outside USAF Mildenhall in Suffolk.

Ms Percy made a citizen's arrest on Thomas Burnside (carrying a gun) who had been following her and Ms Rainbow on his bike. Following this incident Ms Percy was handcuffed, thrown to the ground and held face down on the side of the public road. She was dragged by the US servicemen and forced into a waiting US 'police' car inside the base. She was strapped into the back seat of the car while Thomas Burnside sat with his arm across her throat. Ms Percy was later arrested by Mildenhall police who had been called by the US authorities for alleged 'theft' of the bike. She was later charged with 'theft' of the bike.

Criminal charges were changed five times until the case eventually came to Mildenhall Magistrates' Court in 1996. Ms Percy faced offences of alleged assault, theft of the bike and other minor charges.

Ms Percy was acquitted at Mildenhall Magistrates' Court of all charges by Howard Riddle (Stipendiary Magistrate) who commented in relation to the actions of the US servicemen that "the level, duress and duration of the violence used against Ms Percy was shocking".

The incident was video recorded by US servicemen and shown to the Court. However the specific incident when Ms Percy was assaulted was 'blacked out' by the US authorities. On the video the US servicemen admitted that they had 'no authority' on a public highway. The two servicemen have since left the United States Air Force.

Ms Percy said, "It has been a long struggle to bring this to court. It was a disgraceful incident and those who were responsible must be accountable for their actions otherwise the US Visiting Forces can do what they like."………..END

‘Not in my name’ protest: On 25 November 2001 Lindis was arrested after witnessing and protesting at this base. She was spuriously arrested by Sergeant Paul Rogers MDP for alleged ‘burglary’ after she went into a MDP Vehicle Control Point (sentry box) to highlight the lapse of security after the MDP officer had left the ‘check point’ empty. She was taken to Mildenhall Police Station and was later released without charge after a taped interview by Sergeant Rogers.

The lack of knowledge of the law by some of the MDP was one of the concerns we highlighted in the written evidence to the Defence Select Committee.

The charges against Lindis re ‘theft’ of the two US flags at USAF Croughton and Barford St John (see CAAB Newsletter no. 18) were finally discontinued after the solicitor acting for Lindis contacted the CPS to request that they look again at the case. There was no ‘theft’ of the US flags therefore the charges could not possibly be sustained in court.

One of the flags had been taken from Lindis’s home after Hull police at the request of the MDP searched it. She had told the MDP exactly where the flag was while she was in custody.

Lindis wrote to the arresting officer after the case was discontinued to ask that the flag be returned to her as it had not been stolen and therefore the MDP should not have searched her house and taken it.

Sergeant Wright (MDP) replied to Lindis on 21 November last year saying ‘I am pleased to inform you that in keeping with your wishes the flag has been returned to the rightful owner and the Base Commander at RAF Croughton is grateful that at least one of his flags has now been returned.’

‘In respect of the other flag, the US Authorities at RAF Croughton have been advised to seek recovery via the civil courts, and if this course of action is adopted you will no doubt hear in the fullness of time’.

Lindis will again be writing to William Farrish – US Ambassador to request an appointment with him so that she can return the second US flag to him with a letter of protest about the American Missile Defense system.

In the meantime the US flag is being kept safely with no intention to deprive the US Ambassador (as ‘Keeper of the flag’) of his property.

19 December 2001:
Lindis was researching on this base for over two hours before the US authorities realised she was there. The MDP were called and she was escorted out of the base with no action taken.

Successful outcome of ‘Case stated’:
The appeal by way of ‘case stated’ concerning a conviction against Lindis under s. 5 of the Public Order Act 1984 [see CAAB Newsletter no 18] was heard in the High Court London. The case involved a clash between freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998 and a Public Order offence.

The Home Secretary made a late intervention in the case to join with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The case was heard in the High Court London before Mr Justice Kennedy and Mrs. Justice Hallett. Judgement was reserved until two days later when the Judges ruled in Lindis’s favour for the right to protest using the US flag.

Mrs Justice Hallett said “the district judge appears to have placed too much reliance on just one factor - namely that the appellant's insulting behaviour could have been avoided ... This seems to me to give insufficient weight to the presumption in the appellant's favour of the right to freedom of expression."

This is a significant success for us all and comes after a long struggle to use the US flag in protest.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE POLICE
(Accountability and control of MDP)

CAAB submitted written evidence to the Defence Select Committee concerning the proposed extension of the jurisdiction of the MDP included in the Anti-Terrorist Bill. Included in the submission were our deep concerns about the role of the MDP on US bases. The MDP on American bases are paid for and under the operational control of the US authorities.

Lindis, Nigel Wylde and Roy Large met William Wallace (Liberal Democrat - Foreign Affairs) and Angela Harris (Liberal Democrat - Home Affairs) on 4 December in the House of Lords as the Anti-Terrorist Bill was being debated. The Anti-Terrorist Act 2001 is now on statute and the powers of the MDP have been extended. There are however possible difficulties that we can foresee in the future re the extended jurisdiction of the MDP.

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been to his Department of the use of MOD police in connection with RAF Menwith Hill since 5 July; and what the preset departmental budget was for this function. [15878]

A: Dr. Moonie: I am withholding the cost of the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) deployed at RAF Menwith Hill in accordance with Exemption 1 (Defence Security) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The financial arrangements governing the MDP presence at bases made available to the United States visiting forces in the UK, including RAF Menwith Hill, are covered by a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and US Governments. The costs incurred by Her Majesty's Government for the MDP presence at RAF Menwith Hill are reimbursed by the US Government, except where overtime is occasioned by the activities of protesters, which is a direct cost to the UK. [19.11.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the memorandum of
understanding between the UK and US Governments in respect of RAF Menwith Hill was
signed; and what expiry date was set for this memorandum. [8772]

A: Mr. Ingram: The presence of the United States visiting forces in the UK is governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951 and additional confidential arrangements. There is no specific memorandum of understanding governing the presence of the USVF at RAF Menwith Hill. [23.10.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MoD personnel at RAF Menwith Hill are under the operational control of US visiting forces. [6260]

A: Mr. Ingram: As at 1 October 2001, 257 Ministry of Defence personnel employed at RAF Menwith Hill are under the line management of the United States visiting force as part of their day-to-day duties. [15.10.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the complement was of Ministry of Defence police at RAF Menwith Hill on (a) 1 January and (b) 15 July; and what
percentage of the cost of these personnel on each date was met by the US Government. [6258]

A: Mr. Ingram: I am withholding details of the MDP complement (on 1 January 2001 and 15 July 2001) at RAF Menwith Hill in accordance with exemption 1 (defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I can, however, confirm that staffing levels have been significantly increased in recent months.

The financial arrangements governing the MDP presence at RAF Menwith Hill are covered by a memorandum of understanding between the UK and US Governments. The costs incurred by HMG for the MDP presence at RAF Menwith Hill are reimbursed by the US Government, except where overtime is occasioned by the activities of protesters, which is a direct cost to the UK. [15.10.2001]

Q: Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) UK and (b) US (i) military and (ii) civil personnel are deployed at RAF Fylingdales. [6264]

A: Mr. Ingram: As at 5 September 2001, there were 81 UK military, 318 UK civilian, one US military and 10 US civilian personnel deployed at RAF Fylingdales. [15.10.2001]

Q: Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements the US has made with the UK Government over their use of Diego Garcia; what British forces are stationed on the island; what plans the Government have to increase the UK's facilities there; and if he will make a statement. [10113]

A: Mr. Bradshaw: There are a series of bilateral agreements between the UK and US concerning the availability and use of Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory, for defence purposes. The Territory remains available to meet the defence needs of both Governments, while remaining under UK sovereignty. [10113]

There are currently approximately 40 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel based on
Diego Garcia. There are no plans to increase the UK's facilities there. [30.10.2001]

House of Commons National Missile Defense Debate - 14th January 2001:

18. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): What recent discussions he has held with his US counterparts concerning UK involvement in the proposed national missile defence system; and if he will make a statement. [24480]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I discussed missile defence with the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and other NATO colleagues, most recently during the NATO Defence Ministers meetings on 18 December. I expect regular discussions on the subject to continue. I have consistently made it clear that we share US concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, and that we will continue to work together to tackle the threat with a comprehensive strategy. But it remains the case that the US has not yet decided how it wishes to proceed with missile defence and has made no request for the use of facilities in the UK.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quite rightly drew attention to the dangers of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Does he accept that national missile defence, if introduced by the United States, would be a serious breach of the test ban treaty process and the nuclear disarmament process? Would it not be better if my right hon. Friend used his good offices to persuade the United States not to go ahead with this incredibly dangerous proliferation, and if he made it clear that no British facility whatever will be available for it?

Mr. Hoon: I do not accept the way in which my hon. Friend puts his question. He will know, as other Members of Parliament do, that the United States continues to observe the terms of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, having given six months' notice of its withdrawal, either signatory is perfectly entitled to do. I am sure that he would welcome the intention of the United States to reduce the number of operationally deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 as a valuable step forward. That of course is linked to its commitment to missile defence; that important reduction is a direct consequence of the extra security that it anticipates having once missile defence is fully deployed.

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): The events of11 September showed graphically the lengths to which certain terrorist groups are prepared to go in an attempt to achieve their aims. Given the proliferation of long-range missiles, including among rogue states, does the Secretary of State agree that what happened on 11 September strengthens, not weakens, the case for ballistic missile defence.

Mr. Hoon: Yes. The events of 11 September show that there are those who would seek to threaten the United States and its friends and allies by any means available. That could certainly include ballistic missiles, and we agree with the United States that there must be a comprehensive strategy to tackle all those threats.

[Some of the reduced numbers of nuclear weapons are actually to be put back on the shelf.]

Base closure postponed: The US Department of Defense has announced that the planned closure of its spy base Bad Aibling has been postponed for two years as a result of US military action in Afghanistan. The base had been expected to begin closing in 2002 with full closure anticipated by 2003 [See CAAB 17]

According to Lt. Col. Ken McClellan, Secretary of Defense Office spokesman, the huge C-17 planes on standby to fly out the American military intelligence equipment were needed to drop ‘humanitarian’ aid in Afghanistan.

US air crews from Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina and McChord Air Force Base, Washington have been using the C-17’s to drop thousands of crated rations over parts of Afghanistan. The ration packs are similar in size and colour to the cluster bombs being dropped on Afghanistan by other US and UK planes and have been blamed for maiming or killing Afghanis who have mistakenly picked up the wrong ones.

Lt. Col. Ken McAllen has also said that the Bad Aibling base may be used in the US military war although neither he nor other officials from the Secretary of Defense Office would say how long it might be used or exactly what it might be used for.

Behind a veil of secret agreements, the United States is creating a new and expanded military bases that encircle Afghanistan and enhance the armed forces greater ability to strike targets throughout much of the Muslim world. Since September 11, according to Pentagon sources, military tent cities have sprung up at 13 locations in nine countries neighbouring Afghanistan substantially extending the network of bases in the region. From Bulgaria and Uzbekistan to Turkey, Kuwait and beyond, more than 60,000 military personnel now live and work at these forward bases. Hundreds of aircraft fly in and out of so-called “expeditionary airfields”.

The new build up is occurring with almost no public discussion. Indeed, it has passed virtually unnoticed outside the region – in part because of operational security and force protection considerations in Afghanistan and in part because of agreements between Washington and host governments not to discuss the bases in public.

……….Many see it as evidence of hegemony and control…………

………..The American build-up in the region began long before September 11, and it has been paralleled by a shift in the focus of terrorist groups. As the United States built a network of facilities in half a dozen Persian Gulf states after the Gulf war, terrorism increasingly focussed on large US targets, from the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and the USS Cole in Yemen to the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre……………

Although the original justification for gulf bases such as Al-Udeid was preparedness for renewed action against Iraq, a senior defence official said last year that the Qatar facilities were “not focussed at one particular country or another, but part of a system we would like to have in place.”

Issues of decision-making, jurisdiction and authority held by the host country are spelt out in documents called status of forces agreements. As of September 11, according to Pentagon documents, the US had formal agreements with Qatar and 92 other countries.

Since September 11, new classified arrangements have also been established with Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. How long will the US remain? Noone inside the Pentagon or at Central Command head quarters has a time table or a master plan for when US forces will withdraw, but it may be instructive to recall that the Persian Gulf bases have now been occupied for more than a decade. ………..(William M. Arkin, Los Angeles Times. 5.1.2002)

Thank you so much to everyone who has so generously sent contributions over the years to enable us to do this important work. Each year the financial demands increase. This year will be no exception. The largest demands from CAAB’s budget are:

the printing and postage of the quarterly newsletter
travel expenses for research
court and legal conferences
speaking engagements
telephone bills
internet searching
organising demonstrations and regular witness and protests
photocopying

Because of these and other financial demands it has meant that we have never been able to claim our full expenses. The reassurance of regular contributions by Banker’s Order (small or large) is an enormous help. People often ask us how they can help. Committing a regular amount really would help us.

PLEASE NOTE: The Co-op bank will no longer accept Banker’s Orders direct. If you do decide to set up a Banker’s Order for CAAB please would you fill in the form below and arrange with your own bank who will then forward it on to our bank.

Bankers Order
Please print

To: The Manager of……………….……… Bank

Address of Bank…………………………………

…………………………………………………..

Sort Code:………… Account number………….

Please pay the Co-operative Bank PLC, 6 Tyrell Street, Bradford, BD1 1RJ
(Sort Code:08-92-29)

For the account of Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (CAAB)

Account number: 50095311 the sum of £……….

on receipt of this authorisation and monthly / quarterly / half yearly / annually thereafter on the first of the month(s)

Signed…………………………………………...

Name…………………………………………….

Address………………………………………….

…………………………………………………..

Post Code………………………………………..

NSA Menwith Hill

Saturdays - 2 February, 6 April, 1 June, 3 August, 5 October, 7 December from 2pm - 3pm outside the Main Entrance.

‘RAF’ Fylingdales

Saturdays - 2 March, 4 May, 6 July, 7 September, 2 November from 12pm - 1pm outside the Approach Road Entrance at Fylingdales, Near Pickering, North Yorkshire Moors.

Contact numbers for both Meetings:

Anni: 01943-466405 or Lindis: 01482-702033