I said at the time of the peak 9/11 rhetoric that you could no more have have a 'war on terror' than you could have a war on swords, or a war on light machine guns. Terror is just a weapon. You can protect yourself against a weapon, but to end the threat you must deal with those using it. And any group with a big enough grudge can use terror.
Our domestic war criminals Blair, Straw, Hoon and Irving - the holders of the four great offices of State who lied this country into an unlawful war - have also now been exposed as complicit in the most vile and despicable acts of torture.
Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee has just published its long awaited report on UK complicity in rendition and torture under Blair and Brown's governments. Not only are the facts a damning indictment of Blair's hubris and utter immorality, but the intelligence service bosses, Scarlett and Dearlove, are also exposed as deeply complicit in this disgusting business. And please don't defend torture - "When we torture people, even if we win the battle, we've already lost the war for hearts and minds, especially our own". Blair's torture policy was Not In My Name and not, I suspect, the name of the vast majority of essentially decent British people.
The Chair of the committee is one Dominic Grieve. This report has been long awaited, and perhaps those wondering why the long delays may look to Blair's machinations as in Chilcot's report and wonder if he has not adopted the same tactic here.
Blair and Straw at least must face trial over this. And both Dearlove and Scarlett, as Peter Oborne recommends in the Mail, must at the least be stripped of their kinghthoods.
It is high time we put these people in the dock to answer for these crimes.
26 comments:
Blair seems to be untouchable and that will make the rest of them involved in this disgraceful episode untouchable as well. Never forget that when the duplicitous, lying, shyster stepped down from the Premiership, his "Heir" Cameron stood and applauded him.
In the absence of a trial, I hope there's an assassination.
Blair.
Will we never be rid of that name?
Regrettably I can safely predict that nothing will happen to Bliar. Bear in mind that the odious reptile traitor Grieve is an ardent remainer like the Bliar. Apart from anything else no sitting PM is ever going to throw an ex Pm to the wolves for quite obvious reasons.
I agree with DeeDee99's last sentence
Raedwald, hear, hear. I'm pleased that you have reminded us of the other leading characters who were active participants in these despicable activities during the Beliar/ Brown years. These are leading members of the swamp in which they all swim and if we wish to call ourselves civilised they all need to be held to account, tried, convicted and jailed for a very long time, hopefully in a muslim infested prison.
"It is high time we put these people in the dock to answer for these crimes."
The UK establishment will always look afer its own, there's more chance of England winning the world cup than there is of the UK authorities sticking Blair on trial for his vaingloriously malignant, criminal adventures.
The invasion of Iraq is commonly described as "illegal" or "unlawful".
Can somebody explain to me which British law it contravened ?
Don Cox
Don, you may not be aware. but we're also governed by the caucus of International Law.
If it was a decision between torturing some terrorist to save my nearest and dearest or convicting Bliar for his actions I'd still save my nearest and dearest and I don't care what anyone thinks of me.
By adding lines such as:
"And please don't defend torture - "When we torture people, even if we win the battle, we've already lost the war for hearts and minds, especially our own". Blair's torture policy was Not In My Name and not, I suspect, the name of the vast majority of essentially decent British people."
...to 'colour' your argument in your favour does you no credit.
War is the lowest level to which society can sink but AFTER a war, those that killed to defend their loved ones return to 'normality'. They didn't go into that war thinking about killing nor did they exit it thinking they'd like to carry on killing.
But terrorists? They CONSIDER killing, they THINK of killing, they PLAN killing, they take PLEASURE in killing and, unless they are stopped, they will KEEP killing. There is no comparison between those that 'have to' kill in war to those that plan, plot and seek martyrdom with indiscriminate killing.
And, as a result, I'm happy (no, not 'happy' but morally at ease) to see any terrorist hung, drawn and quartered if their torture saves the life of any INNOCENT bystander.
Screw morals. Until morality works both ways it's every man for himself in this world - always has been. Turning the other cheek may make you the 'bigger person' but it will also make you the 'deader' person too.
Dave_G, Much wisdom in what you say. A non-controversial (here, anyway) example would be Napoleon's conquest of Europe. It was meant to be permanent, whereas when Wellington conquered Europe by defeating the French in Spain then in France, the British and allies left - it was purely temporary.
Dave G--You are talking out of your arse. We managed to defeat the socialistic scum of nazism and soviet evil without stooping to becoming torturers ourselves. That is the same kind of scum as our enemies.
Using the word "terrorist" doesn't mean shit. The FFC and her gang are already talking about 15 years for looking at "far-right" ( ie not Marxist) websites. Any stupid fucker can wield a label and say that means so & so is outside the Pale and you can do what you like to them.
Fuck that noise. I rarely agree with Radders what with his swallowing of Camoron's "Islamism" nonsense but this time he is 100% right.
Raedwald, You complain that there can be no such thing as a "war on terror". I think you are being precious. Whilst the phrase is propaganda it is perfectly comprehensible English and begs no questions. It is certainly much more apposite than Remains re-defining "Leave" as, well, remaining partly in, for example. And by being so literal about the phrase "war on terror" you are engaging in propaganda just as much as George Bush Jnr.
Most of us have been lucky enough to live in a society that exists because others fought for it and killed for it. My father had to deal with two British soldiers who were victims of torture - one dead, one alive who died soon after. He always wondered if he should have shot the living victim as a mercy. The whole episode haunted him for the rest of his life.
I am not in favour of torture. But the idea implied by Raedwald that there is a massive practical and moral gulf between war and torture is utter nonsense. If we had not defended, or attempted a defence of, our way of life in the past from attackers, whether Roman, Viking, Norman, Spanish, French or German, we would not have the nation we have now. That defence has included bitter war, of which torture was sometimes a component.
Mr Ecks,
speak to any of the families of the Manchester bombing and ask if they'd have censured torture if it meant their kids being alive today.
You are conflating WAR (Nazi/Soviet etc) with terrorism. Whilst neither of them have merit or justification, war is something nations do, not individuals. You can't torture a nation to prevent an atrocity - though if you COULD I'd also agree to it.
There's something about 'killing the one to save the many....' that seems accepted practise (in war, anyway, as er the gazillion examples of history) but somehow it doesn't apply to saving a 'few' in times of peace???
If you have sons, daughters etc (heck, even my CAT) that was threatened by some preventable terrorist atrocity are you telling me you'd sacrifice them to your moral principles?
As ever, it is always the 'principled' that take the high position - never the victim.
Dave G--Very sorry for the Manchester horror. But torture isn't something you can put in a box. Once you start down that road--once you become that kind of scum --it isn't going to stay within nice safe confines. The Manchester relatives will not enjoy living in a country where torture becomes routine--and it will don't kid yourself about that.
After all there are paedos and lots of nasty folk out there who also "should" be made to cough up their associates and full details of their crimes. And on it will go.
Until it reaches your door. But too late by then.
Perhaps I can suggest that the main problem with torture is that it doesn't work - the number of 'false positives' outweighs the small number of 'true positives' that it produces.
Consider the many hundreds of women who in times past admitted under torture to being witches, flying on broomsticks and kissing the devil's arse.
A lot of the time it's done more for inflicting humiliating pain and degradation upon an enemy rather than from a need to obtain information.
Read many of the accounts from army intelligence officers and it's pretty obvious how to obtain the highest quality information from prisoners and captives - and it's not by torturing them.
A fair and balanced piece here from the WEF: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/this-is-why-torture-doesnt-work
No one (I presume) is advocating torture as 'routine' but only in exceptional circumstances where it may prevent unnecessary deaths of innocent people - and, lets face it, the people that are subject to such practises aren't chosen at random - they usually have form and are-where-they-are because of specific evidence giving cause for (potential) torture.
It is down to a civilised society to recognise the difference between effective torture (be it sleep deprivation or knacker-crushing/waterboarding) to determine whether it should be contemplated never mind enacted.
After all, you don't have nuclear weapons if you're not prepared to use them.
I should also mention that this issue may well become moot given the advances we're seeing in 'reading minds' using scanners/electronics.
Now that's when we ALL need to start worrying.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unthinkable
A film that made me reconsider my position on the torture of terrorists (which is now a resounding 'don't know'). And Blair should be on trial everyday of the week until Kingdom comes on principle, anyways.
"we're also governed by the caucus of International Law."
Who is governing us ?
Anon @ 17:09
That's right! Let's find more ways pay back those passive voice crims who evade the blame . . .
Did anyone actually read the report?
There were 19 allegations of UK intelligence staff involved in acts that may convene the Geneva Convention including "We have found nine instances where we consider the UK personnel concerned to have issued what could be construed as threats". These acts are mainly defined as potential mental stress such as "They'll send you to Gitmo if you don't cooperate" or "What will happen to your family if you are given to the yanks" etc. Tampering with lights or meal times to disorient as to what time of day it is and disturbing sleep.
There are 2 cases of staff witnessing or knowing about acts that may convene the Geneva Convention. One was putting someone in a stress position described as kneeling on a bed with arms behind back and the other was an officer witnessed an interview where at the start a US intelligence official came in and threatened Gitmo if the detainee didn't help enough and leniency if he did.
One official did report a case of bad transport (windowless box) of a detainee to be flown out from an airbase which the UK authorities complained to the US who replied the president has ordered a war type approach.
Of these cases it has been found that there is no criminal case to answer, although the committee did wish to probe deeper on one of them due to an MOD involvement.
Doesn't really look like the Spanish Inquisition to me.
I couldn't give two fucks then or now what we did to the terrorist shits, it was a war and given your 'international caucus of law' is framed by nations some of whom wouldn't be judged fair or free I don't give flying fuck there too.We should play to win and bollocks to all the 'we are better than them' we could torture round the clock and we would still be better than the third world shits whose contribution to the world lately has been ever more twisted ways of filming murder.
@ DeeDee99 07:44 The US has a similar problem with the outlaw & failed presidential candidate h.r.clinton, she is difficult to fully prosecute for all her crimes without also jeopardizing saint obama.
Anon 18.09
"It shows that British involvement in George W Bush’s illegal and barbarous programme of kidnap for torture was far deeper and more extensive than we have previously been told.
The figures are stupefying: 13 incidents where British intelligence officers witnessed the mistreatment of suspects; 25 incidents where our intelligence personnel were told by the detainees they were being mistreated, and a further 128 incidents where intelligence officers were informed by foreign liaison services about instances of mistreatment."
More than enough evidence to form an indictment, you'd think.
Thirty years ago I attended a presentation on ‘resistance to interrogation’. A retired USAF pilot related his experiences after being shot down in Cambodia.
He was captured and immediately - before any form of questioning - was suspended, by his thumbs, arms behind his back - for a week.
I found it unbelievable that this man, the same flesh and blood, had survived this - and even more - to stand up in front of us and tell the story.
I guess he was lucky not to have some SIS equivalent telling him he ‘might’ be sent somewhere a bit nasty, and in the meantime he may have to kneel beside his bed with a hood on.
‘Bed’! My pilot could only dream of such a thing.
How ‘torture’ has been redefined.
And does nobody question why Grieve - after years of obscure HoC hearings which have largely got nowhere and produced sparse and inconclusive evidence - is pursuing this meme of UK self-criticism and self-accusation and de-haut-en-bas anti-Americanism at precisely this moment in time? Rehashing the arguments about a war on terror that in 2003 the smug anti-NATO, anti-US EU politicians airily claimed would never affect western Europe.
Bashing Britain's security services with little justification.
What was May doing in Brussels while Grieve was doing the bashing? She was arguing in favour of a security partnership and the value of the UK's national security services.
Who immediately headed for Broadcasting House to weigh in in support of Grieve? Ken Clarke. And what, pray, does it have to do with him? Unless it's all really about something else entirely? Who and what does that UK-bashing and Grieve's 'international law' grandstanding help the most?
The dots and dog-whistles aren't that difficult to join up, surely?
Post a Comment