Another breathless day without a moment to blog, but I am delighted at the prospect of an inquiry into British government complicity with torture. I had already written to William Hague offering to give evidence to any such inquiry, and suggesting to him that it is essential that all evidence is taken under oath and at risk of perjury proceedings.
I understand from FCO sources that tomorrow’s official announcement has now been postponed while desperate last minute efforts are being made by the security services and by the US Embassy to tighten the terms of reference. The answer to the question “Did the British government specifically request that anybody be tortured” is quite probably no, and there is a battle going on to ensure that this is the only real question asked.
There is also of course the crucial question of who conducts the inquiry.
I shall be posting tomorrow at 11.30 am new official documents from 2002, never public before, which make completely plain New Labour’s policy of complicity in torture.
“I shall be posting tomorrow at 11.30 am new official documents”
Expect to be arrested at 11.29
New Labour is no longer in power. So let’s wait and see what happens.
Wow! Heavy duty!
Craig,
Respect to you for pursuing this all these years. I’ll be watching for your post.
Mary,
Dreoilin,
George Dutton,
if you’re reading this, please comment; you are missed, and it would be nice to know that you’re still here.
Here here Clark – now is our time, our moment; the force (“democratic accountability and ultimately the rule of law itself” is with us.
From: House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights. “Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture.” (Twenty-third Report of Session 2008-09, p.11):
15. Mr Murray’s allegations are significantly different to those relating to the possible use of torture in Pakistan and Egypt outlined above. He said there was no evidence of British nationals or residents being mistreated in Uzbekistan and no suggestion that British agents were meeting detainees in Uzbekistan or passing on questions for use by interrogators.
…
16. Mr Murray was a convincing witness when he appeared before us and his allegations are supported by some documentary evidence. His credibility has not been enhanced by his somewhat bizarre dealings with the Committee, however. When he first approached us about giving oral evidence we asked him for a written memorandum, which is standard practice for select committees. His response was to publish a story on his blog entitled “Parliamentary Joint Human Rights Commission Struck By Cowardice” which alleged that we were consulting party whips about how to deter him from giving oral evidence. This was entirely untrue, as our subsequent decision to ask him to give oral evidence, despite his comments, demonstrated. In May, Mr Murray published further comments on his blog, suggesting that our Chair was a “stooge” of the Uzbek regime and had somehow been implicated in his dismissal as UK ambassador. Again, these comments are entirely without substance and may only serve to damage Mr Murray’s credibility and reputation.”
And you now expect the UK government to be forced into admitting culpability by more irrelevant testimony from a notoriously paranoid public servant with a grudge against his former employers? Here’s the scoop: nobody gives a shit.
Ooh we are well informed aren’t we LfStL. Who gave you that to say?
Anyone interested can Google “dismore uzbekistan”, and find a host of articles about Dismore’s support of the Karimov regime. I personally doubt that Craig would have been called to give evidence without the campaign orgainsed from this blog. I was one of the people that e-mailed the JHCR.
Larry supports torture.
Something for LfStL to study –
http://seaclearly.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/reliable-intelligence-prisoners-boiled-alive/
Here’s a chance for the Lib-Cons to really hang “new” Labour out to dry. All that’s required is the truth, and not even all that much of it.
Lots of cuts coming, any civil servant hanging onto a false sense of loyalty to the last administration will be given serious pause for thought, if they’re still thinking about standing up for their old bosses. There’s plenty for the civil service to dislike about the last regime too.
Surely being the willing, eager and grateful recipient of torture testimony is tantamount to commissioning it? Aren’t we getting down to the hair-splitting weasling practiced by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, when they’ve got to pretend the _real_ question is, “What _is_ torture exactly? Weeelll… as long as we don’t have death and/or organ failure, and…” spin on ad infinitum.
Yeah, ‘somebody’, he’s been given that by the people who subcontract to the agency for which he works. The SIS really are worried about Craig Murray. They do indeed “give a shit”, otherwise they wouldn’t have assigned a subcontractual arrangement for the disruption of his very popular website.
One of the most important points that Craig made in his evidence to the JCHR last time, in my view, was that accepting evidence from torture creates a market for it. There is a reason for trusting that William Hague will have greater nerve in dealing with the Americans in these matters than Jack Straw did: he comes from the ‘school’ of Margaret Thatcher. Now I didn’t support her, and I have known people who couldn’t stand her, but I cannot imagine her having been spineless in dealing with anybody. Nor do I think that Mr. Hague will be.
19. In view of the large number of unanswered questions, we conclude that there is now no other way to restore public confidence in the intelligence services than by setting up an independent inquiry into the numerous allegations about the UK’s
complicity in torture. (Paragraph 99)
20. We recommend that the independent inquiry which is set up to investigate
allegations of UK complicity in torture should also be required to make
recommendations about improving the accountability of the security and
intelligence services, and removing any scope for impunity, having regard to the
8 recommendations recently made on this subject by bodies such as the UN Special
Rapporteur, the Eminent Jurists Panel of the International Commission of Jurists,
and the Council of Europe. (Paragraph 101)
21. We also recommend that any inquiry should also look into whether there was
any connection between the UK Government’s controversial view of the limited territorial scope of application of UNCAT on the one hand and the adequacy of its guidance to its intelligence and security operatives on the other. (Paragraph 102)
Response to recommendations 19 ?” 21:
The Government does NOT agree with these recommendations. These issues are already being addressed through a number of processes.
The police are considering allegations related to Mr Binyam Mohamed. They are also looking at a further case, following referral by the Attorney General. This case was referred
to the Attorney General by SIS on its own initiative, unprompted by any accusation against the Service or the individual concerned. It is for the police to decide whether there is a case to answer. Any cases of potential criminal wrongdoing will continue to be
referred to the appropriate authorities to consider whether there is a basis for inviting the police to conduct a criminal investigation. Furthermore, some detainees have already put
their allegations before the civil courts to be tested.
In addition, the Prime Minister announced on 18 March 2009 a number of measures to address these issues. These include publishing our guidance to intelligence officers and service personnel concerning the standards applied in relation to the detention and
interviewing of detainees overseas. The Prime Minister has invited Sir Peter Gibson, the Intelligence Services Commissioner, to monitor compliance with the guidance and to report to him annually.
The Prime Minister has also asked the ISC to consider any new developments and relevant information since their 2005 report on detention and their 2007 report on rendition. The Government sees NO need for an inquiry given the above ongoing processes and legal action.
Larry, I did wonder if it was counterproductive for Craig to have used such language regarding Dismore at the time, as it gave them this ammunition to put into their report. But their “surprise” was disingenuous, given Dismore’s sympathies towards the war against Iraq and US/Israel militarism – he is an extremely biased character to be putting at the head of a HR commission. But I am not sure if (a) this is obvious to them, and they actively pretend it is not happening, or (b) they inculcate the views that are required of them, and do not see their own biases.
It was clear also from the prevarication from the committee that they desperately did not want Craig to appear, and that it was only the outcry their blindness created that forced the committee to hear him, against the wishes of the establishment. In writing to the committee, each of us made a small difference, and I’m quite proud of that.
“There is a reason for trusting that William Hague will have greater nerve in dealing with the Americans in these matters than Jack Straw did: he comes from the ‘school’ of Margaret Thatcher. Now I didn’t support her, and I have known people who couldn’t stand her, but I cannot imagine her having been spineless in dealing with anybody. Nor do I think that Mr. Hague will be.”
X has a connection to Y, who had property Q. Therefore, I postulate that X therefore possessess property Q, in sufficient quantities, etc.
Shitty argumentation. Hague will refute your stupidity imminently. Return then and lick my boots.
Absolutely Sunayl, let’s call a spade a spade. The SIS and its bosses are really desperate to get rid of a site run by a very well respected ex-ambassador who didn’t take any shit from the government. His website has a huge following and is a place where one can have free, informative and in the main intelligent discussion.
But of course open discussion of UK governments’ dirty deeds might not be quite the thing. So we have Larry…., Angrysoba etc despatched to put an end to open, informative and intelligent discourse.
I hope the new St. Loony is made of sterner stuff than the last one… that melt-down was just _so_ embarrassing, I’m astonished that a whole new identity isn’t required. Maintaining a consistent identity is only any good if there’s any credibility worth having remembered. Just can’t get the staff these days, I guess.
It beats me why reasonable people like Jon above expect rational discourse out of a tea-bagger, given all the very consistent evidence to the contrary. It’s rather like going to the zoo, spotting an unfortunate primate behind bars, and engaging with it. Now the poor creature has clearly lost its mind, yet the human attempts to communicate. He gets excrement thrown at him, howling, beating at the bars and vulgar displays of self-abuse, and yet this human _still_ expects the insane primate will suddenly lock into meaningful exchange.
We can lament the fact that intelligent primates have been driven insane through captivity, and that unintelligent tea-baggers have always been insane and are drawn to the racist right. But to expect an intelligent discourse with such creatures – that itself suggests a deluded state that ought to be checked at once.
This says it all.
http://dematerialisedid.com/09.07.09-Steve-Bell-on-to-001.jpg
Glenn,
Jon is right to give our resident thug a considered reply. This is a public forum. Larry’s comment is one of the first following Craig’s post. It is not one of Larry’s usual rants, which are designed to upset us regulars. No, it has every appearance of a reasonable, evidence based comment, it even includes a quote – *very* unusual for Larry. Larry posted that for the public, so a considered reply was appropriate – for the public.
Not one government official will ever be prosecuted for torture, or any other crime, including, but not limited to Tony Blair. An enquiry by a government (any) will do nothing. We elect criminals and liars and expect honesty and justice.
Actually I thought the Committee’s take really was desperate –
“Mr Murray’s evidence was convincing but we are going to ignore it because he was rude about us on his blog”.
I have no doubt at all that without the public campaign they would never have accepted my evidence and am very grateful for all the help and support.
I’m quivering in anticipation and had to laugh when the verbal sparring over the remit became apparent last night, as yet we have not had any announcement by Cameron, whatever the rumours in the media and their twitching might indicate.
I don’t expect they have the guts to an open agenda to inspect all aspects that lead to torturing suspects to further one’s dastardly agenda.
I’m just that little too old for cutting edge man to man combat with more than one man at a time, but please watch your steps very carefully now, because you will be in their eyes during this period of soulsearching, if I would have the dosh I’ll hire you a body guard.
Although I agree with Jon that some discourse with pathological stirers who need their ego fix should happen, factually, but apart from that we should really wise up to such pathetic and factually empty
attempts at destroying every thread here.
Good job it’s not today that we are being asked to send e-mails of support for Craig (which I did at the time).
The BT Yahoo server for e-mails has been down for over 24 hours and after waiting 45 mins on the phone with endless _thank you for your patience – you are being held in a queue – please continue to hold- _ to be answered by a nice Indian lady in the call centre, there was no information, only apologies.
It was a little like getting back to Waterloo a week or so ago and finding that the signalling system had completely broken down. None of the very few and harassed staff knew anything about when and which trains might run. Over the tannoy came a real voice of a young woman, and not the electronically generated one, saying ‘I don’t know what to say’. It was actually quite funny at the time. It made me think how vulnerable we are when technology on which we are dependent fails.
Perhaps the Russians have got at the server. There must be millions of people and businesses left high and dry.
No, the Committee members were struggling to understand the relevance of foreign governments behavior towards their own citizens in a country outside the scope their investigations, and were suspicious of a bitter old man who had tried to publicly smear their reputations with fictitious bullshit.
What “meltdown”, Suhayl? That recent spate of garbage wasn’t me, asshole. Sounded like somebody needed to up their Ritalin and cut down on the sugar. More likely after a few months of hand-slapping you figured out what “false flag” actually means, and tried to smear an opponent you cannot defeat by rational means.
Suhayl, you’re totally pathetic. Yet again every assertion you make about me is factually false. Therefore there can be no evidence for it. That word won’t register with you, though. Maybe if I break it up; ev-i-dence. You should be familiar with the last syllable.
It’s you who had the meltdown, buddy. You gave up making sense weeks ago.
I see it was actually glenn who made the “meltdown” reference this time. But it’s just Suyahl’s gas blowing out a sifferent asshole.
“That recent spate of garbage wasn’t me”
Tell me, Chomstein, what do you get out of coming here? You’re not employed to do it. It’s how you get your kicks, right?
Which ‘spate of garbage’ are you referring to this time? The racism that you’re now continuing on this thread?
Yes, garbage is garbage. Squabbling over whose garbage is whose is a redundant exercise. Who cares?
Kingfelix: Disregarding your profanity, you have given no good reasons to doubt that Mr. Hague, who was supported by Mrs. Thatcher as a candidate for the Tory leadership, would partake of her integrity. Events will show how well he compares with Jack Straw on this matter.
@glenn – I agree with you in the main, but it was easy to knock down, and as Clark says, Larry supplied some evidence, which I am not sure he has done before. Yes, he can be abusive and Islamophobic – so I won’t waste time writing lengthy replies to him.
Yes, McIntyre, I found out who this “Chomstein” – thanks for the link. But I don’t even know if he’s a “-steen” or “-stine”, nor do I care.
Ruth: “Absolutely Sunayl, let’s call a spade a spade.”
Racist! The PC brigade won’t let you use that term.
Contrary to the prevailing stench of bullshit, I think it’s a big, big mistake to discriminate by ethnicity, nationality or skin tone. They just don’t group people accurately. However, religious nuts and political fanatics are fair game, and deserve every kind of derogatory abuse and verbal sewage that can be thrown at them. Same goes for apologists and sympthatizers. If you don’t want to get hit by the slop, stay out of the sewer (by which I mean this noxious blog).