The Respectability of Torture
St Mary’s University College, Thurs 1st August, 7.30pm
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, was a whistleblower who was removed from his ambassadorial post by Tony Blair for exposing the Tashkent regime‟s use of rape and systematic torture, including the boiling to death of political opponents. He has also spoken out against Central Asia‟s appalling dictatorships, regimes which are allies of the West, involved in torture and rendition, and was accused of threatening MI6‟s relationship with the CIA. Now a human rights activist, author and broadcaster, he outlines the dynamics of torture and the hypocrisy of incriminated Western governments.
My first public appearance for a while will be in Belfast on 1 August where I shall be giving a talk. Long term readers of this blog will recall that, while my focus is largely on international affairs, the domestic political achievements I most hope to see are a united Ireland and an independent Scotland.
” whether CIA controls the president in its sphere of interest.”
POTUS is a figurehead and has very little control over anything. It’s even rumored that a day-timer with his schedule was found in a gutter, and that he’s already been warned ‘Remember JFk’ or wtte.
Spooks don’t have term limits. They go on and on. The edifice of control in their command does not change with time, even with a new Director, who is as clueless as POTUS (for security purposes)
But I don’t understand how ‘conspiracy theories’ are rubbish. Theories are just facts waiting for human awareness. A crime can’t be charged until the evidence reaches the surface, and I think this is what the din of theories, both obscures and draws attention to.
http://nsnbc.me/2013/08/25/former-jabhat-al-nusrah-member-admits-chemical-weapons-use/
Suhayl; Those giving aid to the victims not wearing respirators, or gloves…some victims have pinpoint pupils, others not. It’s been speculated these are industrial toxins, not weaponized agents.
Do you have any speculations?
Ben, i believe even Brahimi has used the indeterminate term “chemical substance”.
@Phil If the US makes its case to the UNSC and a resolution is passed, and the US places its forces at the disposal of the UNSC subject to UNSC plans and objectives, as required by Chapter VII, then we can’t complain. Think the US government can attack Syria on those terms? Of course not. If they try, they will piss away more of their dwindling legitimacy. Shame and disgrace are non-violent hindrances, even to criminal states.
Chomsky’s point is true: every war is humanitarian. But the law will put a brake on use of force in favor of proactive acculturation and capacity-building instead. The system works – that’s why the US tries so hard to subvert it.
Villager; ‘chemical substance’
Could be ammonia. Right? But, weaponized chemicals?
@Vill, Petraeus is military and not a CIA cadre.
Ben, i’m no chemist. Your guess is better than mine. I just find it hard to believe the timing of the events.
On the other hand ii don’t understand why Syria is one of the last few countries outside of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Is it because of Israel? Even so, why haven’t they offered to rid of them?
@ Erin Go Bragh (11h49)
Thank you very much for that sensible set of comments. Very welcome, especially as they come from someone who follows but has only now posted for the first time.
It is as if a number of the comments which followed were specifically designed to add credence to your observations (although I’m sure that that wasn’t the intention… 🙂 ).
By the way, I assume that posters “EGB” and “Egb” were not you but just from someone(s) trying to be clever-clever.
Conspiracy theory is a pejorative term drilled into US brains by government propaganda to condition a reflex of dismissal. It’s government jargon substituted for my right of denunciation, which is inherent in the human right to peace.
@ Ben Franklin :
“Do you have any speculations?”
_________________
I think we have had quite enough “speculations”, thanks all the same. “Speculating” may be good fun and make people feel good/wise/in the know but are ultimately rather pointless and certainly not very fruitful.
Perhaps better to wait until there is a solid basis of fact upon which to comment.
” i’m no chemist.” Me either. Add to my ‘not’ list…engineer, mathematician, political scientist, mechanic, electrician, diplomat, soldier, pilot. politiician. Most of us can be described as a Jack of all Trades/ Master of none, and none so completely as me 🙂
“Conspiracy theory is a pejorative term drilled into US brains”
Semantics rears it’s head. I see what you mean.
You see, we don’t really know who did this terrible crime. And we are attacking before we can know. I also recall the pictures of “mobile weapons laboratories” in Iraq which turned out to be nothing of the sort!
Here are some reports from 2002/3 on Iraq – very convincing, to those who wished to be so convinced:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,FL_weapon_091402,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/14/sprj.irq.labs/
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/22/sprj.irq.powell.trucks/index.html
And here is an account of the story of what actually happened:
http://musingsoniraq.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/story-of-curveball-and-iraqs-mobile.html
See? The same song. UA Secretary of State Colin Powell stood up in front of the Security Council and delivered ‘evidence’ he knew at the time to be deeply unreliable. No doubt, tomorrow, the UK parliament will be presented with ‘evidence’ with which they will willingly allow themselves to be convinced. We had telephone intercepts, too, from Iraq that had been distorted.
[Quote from the link at the bottom of this post]:
“As for Rumsfeld’s “bulletproof” evidence of an al-Qaida-Iraq link, it might be more like spitball-proof. According to U.S. officials interviewed in the Knight Ridder article, “Rumsfeld’s statement was based in part on intercepted phone calls, in which an al-Qaida member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives … The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.” Other sources for the administration’s allegations of an Iraq/al-Qaida link may be equally dubious. In an interview on NPR, reporter Jonathan Landay noted that U.S. officials said some of these claims probably come from an al-Qaida prisoner who wants to push the U.S. into war with Saddam in the hope there will be more terror recruits as a result.”
http://www.salon.com/2002/10/10/intelligence_2/
No doubt, tomorrow we will hear the British Prime Minister and the US President talk again of “telephone intercepts” and much else. It will be another performance. I think we would do well to remind ourselves. Fool me once…
Excellent summary of all the questions hanging over our heads and the real possibility of Al Qaeda/Nusra getting a grip on Syria. I would normally not post the full article here, but in Craig’s absence am doing so in the spirit that it might help focus the discussion on Syria.
“A few more questions before we start bombing Syria
By BILL ROGGIO AND LISA LUNDQUISTAugust 27, 2013 11:59 AM
Over the last few days, the United States, pushed along by an assortment of Western and Middle Eastern allies, has been moving unmistakably toward an imminent military intervention in Syria. While the development has obviously been spurred by the horrifying Aug. 21 chemical attack in Damascus, which killed over 300 people and sickened at least 3,500, the rapidity with which the intervention plans are being developed brings several questions to mind.
1. Secretary of State Kerry said yesterday that the US will soon produce information to back up its claim that the Assad regime perpetrated the recent chemical attack. When will the proof be produced, and what is it?
2. Kerry also accused the Assad regime of cynically covering up evidence by continuing to bomb the attack sites, and of not giving the UN investigators immediate access to the sites. He further cited a sniper attack on the UN convoy as evidence of obstruction. Since the site of the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack is in territory that has been a rebel stronghold for months, is it reasonable for the US to have made this claim?
3. Is there a possibility that the Aug. 21 attack was an accidental hit — of chemical stocks belonging to either the regime or the rebels — by the undisputed massive regime bombardment in the area at the time? It is known that the regime has been frequently moving its chemical weapons to keep them out of rebel hands, and it is also known that rebel fighters, including al Qaeda-linked groups, have sought and reportedly had access to chemical weapons. The Al Nusrah Front is known to have pursued chemical weapons; credible reports of the group plotting to conduct sarin and mustard gas attacks have emerged from Iraq and Turkey over the past several months.
4. Why is the US so quickly dismissing the UN investigative effort as too late to deliver credible results about the Aug. 21 attack despite the fact that the team had arrived on Aug. 18 to investigate months-old complaints of chemical weapons attacks, including one lodged by the regime in March?
5. Is there a way to rule out the possibility, given the timing of the Aug. 21 attack, that it could have been perpetrated by rebel groups seeking to draw the US into a military intervention against the Assad regime?
6. The regime has much to lose by mounting chemical weapon attacks, and especially while UN inspectors are in country and the world’s eyes are turned toward Syria. Why now? Is the basic vagueness of the US’s accusation due to a Western decision that now is the time to intervene militarily, regardless of who perpetrated the attack, since there is clearly a very distinct danger of the spread of chemical warfare in the region at this point?
Rebel reports of another attack today, this time allegedly involving phosphorous and napalm in Aleppo, do not add clarity to an already very murky picture.
7. What is the US’s endgame in Syria? Reports are emerging that the Obama administration seeks to “punish” Assad for using chemical weapons. Is this sound strategy, or a tactic that can potentially backfire?
8. What happens if the US actually succeeds in killing Assad and overthrowing the government? Will Islamist terror groups such as the Al Nusrah Front and the Islamic State of Iraq dominate the political scene in Syria, as they have dominated the fighting? And if so, is that in the best interests of the US and the West, or, for that matter, those of Syria and the region? The West’s efforts for a resolution to the conflict in Syria ultimately hang upon the fragile hope that moderate forces will prevail, in a situation where the two strongest military forces, the Assad regime and its largely Islamist opponents, each offer only harsh alternatives.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/08/a_few_more_questions_before_we.php#ixzz2dHW98VFU
“Why is the US so quickly dismissing the UN investigative effort as too late to deliver credible results about the Aug. 21 attack despite the fact that the team had arrived on Aug. 18 to investigate months-old complaints of chemical weapons attacks, including one lodged by the regime in March?”
I think that question was answered by Erin, Villager. (@ 3:38)
Which was what, again, Ben? Anyway overarching point is that there is no ‘good’ military answer, so lets hope they get on with Geneva 2.
Can’t help but get the feeling this is being driven by the Saudis — when will the World assert itself to pressure them to join in the 21st century?
The UK government is full of hypercritical crap by being so indigent about chemical weapons
They tried to scam me into being a guinea pig ,but luckily did not fall for it unlike some of my
comrades who I never saw again.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/03/freedomofinformation.politics
It look s to me like a false flag operation. Quoting from Leonard Cohen “Everybody Knows”
http://nodisinfo.com/Home/video-shows-evidence-fatalities-syria-toxic-agent-zionist-israel-implicated/
‘which one…’
“R2P is one thing. Criminal aggression by NATO officials is something else altogether. The predominant propaganda debate about R2P focuses exclusively on Pillar 3, military intervention. The more important pillars of R2P are gradually helping the world get the US regime under control.”
USG won’t go to UN because the protocols would proscribe action.
Howzit Dave Lawton?
‘everybody knows……” (villager, you too)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pesIGuV9DDk
“Could be ammonia. Right?”
Or chlorine.
http://www.water-technology.net/news/news95534.html
@Flaming June: You accuse me of throwing “acid” at you.
Hmm. I responded to a bunch of accusations you made against the blog, and against a lot of the posters here – including me. Clearly any response to your accusations is beneath your dignity to recognise, other than to demand (“expect”, even) that such comments are deleted.
How about dealing with accusations you have raised, for a change, instead of just dismissing them in such a haughty manner?
There was nothing acidic about my comments to you, for goodness sake, it was simply questioning you about your denouncements of at least half the people that write here! Not to mention asking for why this blog was – in your words – now “a laughing stock”.
Somehow I doubt you’ll bother. Jeez, I even referred to your posts as “interesting and valuable”. It was towards the end of my post, though – perhaps you’re unable to look down your nose quite that far.
Villager, at 5:26pm, today. Thanks for posting that piece and link – a superb analysis and it absolutely crucial questions.
“You accuse me of throwing “acid” at you.”
Perhaps too much talk of chemical weapons is beginning to weigh on people!
_________
Suhayl, you’re welcome. They’re a good website — serious, objective and reliable. Bill Roggio is very well known in security and media circles, which is why i thought i’d have a peek at what they were saying.
Habbabkuk,
“I think we have had quite enough “speculations”, thanks all the same. “Speculating” may be good fun and make people feel good/wise/in the know but are ultimately rather pointless and certainly not very fruitful.”
Stop speculating about what feelings speculation may engender will ya Habbabkuk?
🙂
That’s what I was getting at, Fred. Bleach mixed with ammonia makes deadly chlorine gas.
@Villager 27 Aug, 2013 – 8:52 pm
I’d better write this in quickly, before your original comment is deleted by order! I agree that free speech is such an important concept, and free speech is a principle that should be respected precisely when things are not to our liking. Too many seem to think free speech is about only protecting what I happen to want to hear.
Speaking of which, my counting algorithm is crude – it only tallies the number of posts by individual users. It does not make a count of the number of requests to delete the posts of other people. (However, I’d put a wager on which poster that would turn out to be, if anyone’s interested in checking manually.)
I’m all for difference in views, even very strong differences. I’m also for talking with people I don’t agree with, but do not support the snide references and criticisms to others while being incredibly thin skinned oneself – to the point of outrage and the demanding of censorship. The attitude rather reminds me of a particularly condescending and aloof schoolmistress of a (thankfully) bygone era.
@ Ben Franklin 27 Aug, 2013 – 11:53 pm
“Trust me. Obama wants no part of conflict or controversy. He wears suspenders and belts. In a way I feel sorry for him. POTUS is a figurehead office, much like UK royalty. He has a halter and a bit in his mouth as any War Horse does.”
Don’t underestimate the pettiness and vindictiveness of our so-called insane leaders. One proposed motive for W’s attack on Saddam was retaliation for an assassination plot against former President George H.W. Bush. And Bill Clinton, so outraged when articles of impeachment were voted against him that he interrupted his vacation and flung missiles at some African country, hitting an aspirin factory.
The same Clinton allegedly had one missile, all accidental like, strike a very specific room of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Small mapping error by CIA. Allegedly it was lesson for Chinese about spying they’d done. More likely is was because they were late in kickbacks to Clintons via Buddhist nuns. 🙂
Tomorrow Snowden should stay deep in Stalin’s bunker or wherever he’s hiding. History repeats. One our missiles aimed at Assad’s palace, mistakenly headed north. Just a coincidence it landed precisely upon Mr. Snowden’s head. Great tragedy. Apologies. Heh, heh.
Who holds the reins to the bit in Obama’s mouth? Did Snowden make off with pics from Chicago’s gay bathhouses? Though sex scandals hardly work now, and if those are real they’d gain him approval. Is it just straight thuggery — remember JFK?
We learned yesterday what the Clintons are up to. They’ve re-taken control of the Democratic National Committee, recipient of bag money and dispensary of same to favored party candidates.
Launch scheduled for about 18 mins from now.
Live video http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/Webcast.shtml
Erin Go Bragh, 28th Aug at 11:49 am: thanks for commenting, please continue to do so. Yes, we get some views here that might be characterised as “conspiracy” or “alternative explanation” theory, but we get pretty much the whole gamut. Pretty much everything is welcome here.
@egb, please use a different handle, so as not to cause a mixup with Erin Go Bragh. But yes, I agree that the phrase “conspiracy” has been tarnished. Some outlandish theories have of course turned out to be true, just as some have undoubtedly been proven to be false.