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.
John Goss you are now getting the treatment, and even interrogated. Evidently there is a need to find your genealogy and map out your contacts and life. Get cracking and put all your details up on your blog, including a blood and DNA sample dammit!
How dare you for thinking the same character is using the warez at its disposal and flooding this board and elsewhere with utter nonsense in the way of maintaining; 2 + 2 = 5.
You anti five you, I hope you are proud of yourself there!
Jon; “Let them be”
Well we have been seeing the dismal results of that policy, to the great detriment of this Blog, as you may have noticed. It’s not often I get spare time to post comments, but when I do I want to it to be part of a substantive debate, but there is no chance of that with others here bent on distraction & disruption.
Re RSS reader, thanks, I will look into that option, but ideally, is it technically that difficult to have a side-panel showing the top active older threads, with click-able links ?
Anon, appreciate the involvement – more please! 🙂
I’m dimly aware of the racist leaflet, and I think I might have have some conversations here, or at least read some, about that issue. I don’t know the detail, but I suppose for American voters it cames down to a very subjective and personal decision-process about whether politician X is fundamentally a “good” person. Given that many contributors here are not from your side of the pond, the question of whether American politician X is racist is perhaps an abstract one, even though it did (and does) deserve more solid consideration.
Obviously, commenters are welcome to have a dig at whichever politician they wish. However, I’d guess the reactions you refer to would likely have been an expression of populist “anti-politics” – the powerful and very human tendency to believe that all politicians are corrupt when it has only been demonstrated that most of them are. Perhaps I am an optimist in that I think there are some good eggs in all parliamentary democracies.
I think you could, here, be a very interesting counter-balance to those perspectives, valid though they are for the people who hold them. However, my personal and non-mod view is that referring to holders of those views as Murrayistas/eminences (etc) suggests that they are deserving of contempt rather than earnest attempts to persuade towards your own view. Some voices here representing US conservative libertarianism would I think be very welcome.
Passerby, if I was getting the treatment from people who had some constructive comments to make I would feel well-pleased. Content is more important than comment.
Among the plethora of Villager/Habbabkuk posts on this page today, Anon chose to regurgitate an ad hominem that I am a Jew hater. He scrapes the barrel by returning to April 2013 and is also totally incorrect.
I only object to the Israelis’ disgusting treatment of the Palestinians whose land they stole. I have Jewish friends who think likewise and I had two jobs working for Jewish bosses when I was a secretary. Both came to my wedding. Why I am explaining myself to you though, goodness knows.
This piece might interest you. http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/israels-man-in-venezuela/
He was a bad loser as this Times of Israel piece describes.
Venezuela vote
Opposition candidate Capriles Radonski says he’s cautiously optimistic after questionable loss to Chavez’s named successor
http://www.timesofisrael.com/election-council-to-audit-venezuela-vote/
btw The Wikipedia page for Capriles is headed thus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrique_Capriles_Radonski
and I thought you would like this Banksy mural too.
http://zaman.ae/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/guerrilla-art-palestine-wall-banksy.jpg
[Mod: removed attack on another contributor]
Anon, thanks for letting me know about Tom Welsh, by the way – I either didn’t know why he left, or perhaps I had forgotten. I recall that he was a very interesting contributor, and – on the off-chance he still reads – he is very welcome back.
I think the Thatcher issue is hugely complicated, in all honesty. The great affection and hatred that she (almost uniquely) attracted in her home country is testament to the powerful social divisions we still have, and that are continually being exacerbated. I’ll not revisit the reasons why she attracts those deeply-held views – both sides have said their piece more than enough. However, it is worth pointing out that for millions of people here, her death was not a private event for respect but a battle for our culture and national psyche. Are we capitalists or socialists? Do we believe in society? Are we champions for militarism and symbols of nationalism, or spokespersons for peace and understanding? How many people can transition between social classes inside a neoliberal economic system? Are we proud of our country?
So, people either lamenting her demise or dancing on her grave is to be accepted, I think. We should accept these views, since – as per my recommendation to understand the rise of anti-politics – they are honestly held regardless of whether the hearer finds them objectionable.
Earlier this year, I had the rather amusing experience of asking whether one of my Tory friends would mind accompanying me to a popular socialist bookshop in London, whereupon we both proceeded to purchase books (despite her background, I rather fancy my chances of turning her to feminism). So, there we were, next to a newspaper stand offering papers of every Left tendency cheering Thatcher’s passing – and she started That Conversation about how “she was just a person” and “no-one’s death should be celebrated” (possibly true in themselves, but complex because of the context above). Anyway, we managed to have that discussion at some length, without upsetting the radicals around us!
[Mod: accusations of immaturity and humiliation and no discussion at all – removed. Please stick to topics]
Jon
“the rise of anti-politics”
Sorry if I’ve missed it but what does this mean. I googled “anti-politics” but no answer was obviously your meaning.
Does anyone remember the date of the publisher’s deadline for Craig’s book?
http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/editions/sikunder-burnes-the-life-of-lt-col-sir-alexander-burnes/9781780578323
Random House. Same publisher as B.Liar!
http://www.tonyblairoffice.org/news/entry/tony-blair-a-journey/
Never knew that Cherie is a distant relative of John Wilkes Booth.
Booth’s uncle Algernon Sydney Booth was the great-great-great-grandfather of Cherie Blair (née Booth), wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. – Westwood, Philip (2002). “The Lincoln-Blair Affair”. Genealogy Today. Retrieved 2009-02-02. – Coates, Bill (August 22, 2006). “Tony Blair and John Wilkes Booth”. Madera Tribune. Retrieved 2009-02-02.[dead link]
Footnote 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wilkes_Booth
Phil, thanks, interesting thoughts.
I agree to a point, the libertarian project could well come off the rails. However the point I was trying to make is that the Republicans no longer even pretend they’ll shake up profligate government spending on arms and security. I think the problem is worse than is stated on the balance sheets too – quite aside from untraceable Pentagon spending, much cash on military research in hidden in NASA budgets too, ever since the advent of the space race.
I’d venture to disagree about the pointlessness of trying to elect alternatives, though. I’m more of a revolutionary than a reformist, but it is possible that something positive could come out of electoral politics. Do you hold that every politician is corrupt? I’m not of that view. I think Tony Benn makes a mistake to believe that the Labour party can be saved, but were he to lead it, I think it could drag itself out of the mire.
There are others too, who are blessed with a sense of public duty, who are not out to set themselves up with second jobs, who are not looking for the revolving exit door, and who are not cursed with acquisitiveness and greed. I recall a wonderful article during the MPs’ expenses scandal in which it was revealed that one member slept on a pull-out camp-bed whilst staying over in their London office, and had hardly made any claims for the entire year. That to me exemplified the kind of people who we want in office.
Who was it on this board arguing for sortition? I’m finding the idea increasingly attractive.
Jon
“the rise of anti-politics”
Ok I worked my wayup to your previous comment where I found your meaning. Which happens to be relevant to me because I absolutely believe all politicians are corrupted by power. You still hope for ‘good’ people to save you.
Heh, Phil – our posts cross at precisely the same time. See above ^ 🙂
Jon
“I think Tony Benn makes a mistake to believe that the Labour party can be saved, but were he to lead it, I think it could drag itself out of the mire.”
See after all these years of parliamentary democracy and all we have is a hypothetical hope. Come on Jon surely any faith is lost right there.
Three poems for the weekend on drones, being employed at will and consumption.
The first is clever. Obama’s words in bold running through v the statements of the survivors and eyewitnesses.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/16/anderson-orloski-and-lojeski/
@Jon
Wether every single politican is corrupted is noit exactly my point. There might be an occassional exception (although I am yet to be convinced of that) but the reality is that most people are corruptible. So any angels amongst the corrupted will quickly have their wings burned. Angels. even if they exist, do not get into the cabinet.
“I fear you have misunderstood a great deal of his points on the other thread (which is well worth reading if you have not already).”
Yes I had followed that debate, which is why I stand by my comments.
Re misunderstandings, did you ever come back on my post iro your misunderstanding of Cryptonym comments ?;
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/07/gently-back-into-the-water/comment-page-4/#comments
Jon: “So, people either lamenting her demise or dancing on her grave is to be accepted, I think. We should accept these views, since – as per my recommendation to understand the rise of anti-politics – they are honestly held regardless of whether the hearer finds them objectionable.”
Jon, perhaps you look through a similar prism in your moderation? For a moment yesterday I thought you had found just the right balance when you posted this:
“Jon
16 Aug, 2013 – 11:01 am
(If people wouldn’t mind just refraining entirely from commenting about other posters, that would be great – sometimes not posting a rejoinder is the best course of action. Thanks.)”
I have been seeing you swing the pendulum the other way and pointing it out and so I thought he’s now got the right balance because balance is what your role is all about. An hour later the Happy Scissors came out and you went on your spree. Same thing this morning. What flame-war was on that adults arguing were unable to handle and prompted you to go on a similar spree.
I have noted you are also blind to the roots of ‘personal’ attacks as they occur. Mary unprovoked terms Habby a Hong Kong made wind-up toy — you leave that standing and go snipping when there is a rebuttal. Ditto this morning: John Goss accuses one/two of sock puppeting — you’re ok with that and then come back much later snipping again follow-on comments.
Your usual refrain is that you’re not compensated for your work — well by a capitalist model thats a recipe for mediocrity not moderation.
I have to question your impartiality and judgment. The plot is yours to lose or win. Or you can just relax and trust the flow — people have the choice to ignore and not record everything — i did that with Macky wrt myself, until he also started accusing Suhayl of being stoned etc.
I am no diplomat so not mincing my words. The truth is sometimes hard to swallow, but you should let people express themselves freely, in your words, “regardless of whether the hearer finds them objectionable.”
Phil,
Yes, certainly, it is hard to get good leftists into positions of power, say in the Labour or Democratic parties. Blair’s rise was relatively easy because he had powerful media entities (Murdoch and company, of course) backing his ascendancy. Ditto Jack Straw and Charles Clarke, both previously communists, for their ability to change their politics the way the wind asked them to.
Of course, the British/US media will come down hard on socialists, even spuriously regarding the likes of Milliband Junior as a “dangerous leftist”.
Anyway, we probably agree on all of the above, but other than that, you’ve not given much to respond to. What is the broad outline of your approach? I sense that it is anarchist – and great, let’s hear it! Whilst it is true that I see glimmers of hope, I don’t think I am the dedicated reformist that you seem to think I am.
For my part, I’m very loosely a socialist, but the form that would take after the revolution is hard to define, since it is subject to the will of the people. I think it would be fragile, as capitalism survives and replicates like a cancer, but socialism requires collaboration and constant supervision. My preferred socialism would be democratic, perhaps on the Latin American model, but taking into account modern perspectives such as Michael Albert’s Parecon and the work of Oliver James. I very much like the ideas of moving towards some economic flattening, embodied in the book The Spirit Level, so I support maximum pay as well as a minimum.
I’m somewhat pessimistic about change in general, since I think appetite for social transformation needs to come from the populace. Who, presently, are being very human about it: distracted by bread and circuses, and believing with great sense of capitalist entitlement that they deserve to rise higher than their peers. Thus, the spirit of competition often trumps collaboration, and makes class and economic equality harder to argue for.
Glenn at 2 19am
“Jon – my argument for free speech (as I believe CM originally intended for this blog) was here:
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/07/gently-back-into-the-water/comment-page-5/#comment-420459
I didn’t see any follow-up on it. But now you say you “disagree” with it. Hmm. Fine, let’s not get bogged down in minutia, eh?
And given this curt dismissal of my arguments for free speech, and in order to participate in this blog as well as can be allowed, may I give the only answer that appears to be acceptable : YES SIR !!”
____________
Succinctly put Glenn — I’m beginning to get the same “YES SIR” feeling here and your original use of the word power was, just possibly, not so far wrong. I don’t do ‘hope’ but shall wait and see.
Jon: “I’m somewhat pessimistic about change in general, since I think appetite for social transformation needs to come from the populace. Who, presently, are being very human about it: distracted by bread and circuses, and believing with great sense of capitalist entitlement that they deserve to rise higher than their peers. Thus, the spirit of competition often trumps collaboration, and makes class and economic equality harder to argue for.”
In the Western world, the ‘external’ trumps the ‘internal’. (Perhaps that is also implied in your bread and circuses remark, but its much deeper than that.) As long as that is the case, don’t expect change.
As they say, the only one that likes a change is a wet baby.
Villager, your many paragraphs of dissent are again noted, but politely disagreed with. You are free to appeal to Craig, but when Craig searches for “Villager” in the backend software, I am not convinced he will find you a model of civility and discourse. Really, I wish I could see it otherwise. In the meantime, it is my fervent hope you can independently find some peace and reconciliation with the various people here you appear to have fallen out with.
Onto more substantive topics: for some reason the posting bug has gotten to me today (and I had planned to do some work instead, would you believe). I have thus far posted on the cultural battle over Thatcher’s death, the strategies for escape from electoral politics, and whether it is better to vote for a right-wing libertarian than a fraudulent liberal. I am suddenly aware that I’ve no idea what you, personally, believe, other than that you support Wikileaks’ work. Would you like to respond in depth to any of the above? I should warmly welcome it.
Macky,
I don’t think I did misunderstand Cryptonym, in all honesty. It really did go over the edge in relation to anti-Jewish sentiment. Crytonym could have clarified his/her point, but chose not to – and instead reposted it verbatim as a direct challenge and then flounced off. Had he/she explained that they did not mean to denounce all Jewish people as depraved, I would have relented and apologised, and permitted the same to be reposted. Of course, Crytonym would have been welcome to appeal to Craig, but I am 95% sure it would be a waste of time – I seem to recall Craig has already appealed to various posters to reduce the “ziofuckwit” stuff.
In any case, I seem to recall I left the duplicate post standing. Thus, the record shows that we are sensitive to racially discriminatory posts of all hues, whilst trying to represent as many views as possible. Let me reiterate that it is a difficult balance to achieve.
FWIW, Cryptonym may well still read here, in which case he/she is welcome to clarify at this late stage.
I should add to that, that it is the same economic-socio-political culture that is being imposed on the rest of the world by the West/US. So don’t look for great examples there either, except perhaps bhutan, but never having visited, don’t know enough about it.
“Israel army publishes fake image of huge “Gaza shopping mall””
“In one of its periodic efforts to deny the devastating effects of its siege of Gaza, the Israeli occupation army published a blog post on 12 August claiming that Palestinians in Gaza are “out in force, enjoying themselves in sparkling new malls, beautiful beaches and hotels, and doing their shopping in pristine grocery stores and markets heaving with fresh produce.”
“But the “Gaza mall” photo published by the Israeli army is actually an image of the Suria KLCC Mall in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israel-army-publishes-fake-image-huge-gaza-shopping-mall
I remember seeing similar images posted on Paul Staines blog. Thing is that Staines understands how media works. He doesn’t bother very much with argument and discussion. He constructs narratives.
It works.
“As they say, the only one that likes a change is a wet baby.” What absolute nonsense. This is the kind of talk Tories use. Conservative means to conserve what exists. Without change there is no progress. As GBS said “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Asking you to be unreasonable would push sarcasm to new heights.
Passerby,
Regarding your post about Egypt. We will be in complete agreement that what is happening there is awful, but perhaps we’ll disagree about what was said in the other thread. Suhayl and I very clearly elucidated our respective positions on religious governance, and what he and I believe was fundamentalism making an undemocratic power grab. I stand by my view that deep and widespread resentment in Egypt was growing against Morsi, who was seen as harking back to the days of Mubarak.
However, no-one on that thread voiced support for the army, who paradoxically enough really do hark back to the days of a pro-US, pro-Israel, neoliberal authoritarian government. And now it has come to pass, with great cost to life and societal cohesion.
I was surprised to read today in The Guardian that, unfortunately, some people in Egypt are supportive of the crackdown. I’ve never regarded the Brotherhood as “terrorists” and yet it seems Egyptians of all political stripes are taking a leaf out of the Bush playbook, and denouncing the Islamists in tones I find unjustified and inflammatory. Says a 17 year old from Sharqiya, “They deserved it. They wanted to destroy the country, so that’s why the military had to step in”. Says someone from Tamarod, a group who mobilised opinion against Morsi: “We agree with what happened at Rabaa and at Nahda”.
With Egyptians cheering on the slaughter of their political opponents, what can we do? A dreadful and nearly hopeless situation.
Jon; “I don’t think I did misunderstand Cryptonym”
Well there’s at least BrianFujisan who thinks you have;
“Sorry Jon i have to agree with Mackey’s thoughts on the wording of Cryptonym’s post.”
Villager; “i did that with Macky wrt myself, until he also started accusing Suhayl of being stoned etc”
I merely asked the question, but do feel free to try to explain why you don’t take similar objections iro the Habu-Clowns frequent weed smoking slurs against Ben Franklin ?
Heh, Habbabkuk, you put me in a military regiment! I’m rather upset you didn’t pop me in jail for conscientious objectors 🙂
Edit: Macky, the reason for inconsistency is paradoxically one of balance. Excessive posts on who is smoking weed are silly and mildly disruptive, but if I delete them as per your wishes, then I upset the original poster and various people who advocate for zero moderation. This creates an influx of posts appealing the deletions, and thus the disruption that I’ve tried to help avoid is encountered anyway.
I hear you on Brian’s support for your view. If you feel strongly about it, please send the text of the post to Craig (which, as I say, is still available) and he can take a decision. Edit: In any case, Cryptonym chose not to defend themselves, which I took to mean that they too found the paragraph in question difficult to defend.
Here’s another chap who understands how media works – Andrew Marr.
He’s warning here of the doom and gloom that will inevitably follow Scots independence:
– It’s going to be much closer than the polls would suggest.
– It would mean losing Trident.
– The UK would lose its permanent seat on the UN security council.
– He said the BBC, for which he works, must remain neutral.
– David Cameron and George Osborne would become “smaller figures” on the world stage.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1376724879.html
His “smaller figures on the world stage” reminds me of his statement outside 10 Downing St in 2003, where he claimed Blair had emerged a larger man as a result of the Iraq war, yet Blair is now almost nationally reviled outside the London media bubble.
Nothing about how the peeps might fare, you’ll notice.
I suppose the question remains, Is it enough to puncture their narrative or is it necessary to construct a competing narrative.
Jon; “but if I delete them as per your wishes”
You are getting your wires crossed; I have no such wish, and my comment was addressed to Villager, not you !