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.
@ Ben Franklin
“Why where there no actions against them “They shouldn’t have brought their kids to a battle, Ha, Ha””
________________
Well, one way of answering a serious question is to pretend it wasn’t serious. A good tactic, but somewhat transparent.
Anyway, can you link me to anything which gives the official explanation why the Apache crew faced no action/sanction? (I take it that your post was just an attempt at humour).
“As animal, we have inherited the character of fear for our physical security. That fear has spilt over into our psychological sphere as to how we live. We have to rid of it if we are to come out of living in constant conflict.”
Indeed, Villager. But fear is not the only thing we haven’t yet learned to handle properly.
I came across this quote recently:
“While not as in-your-face and extreme as the movie’s Videodrome, today’s mass media still tap into these two primal urges humans that are difficult for humans to ignore: blood-lust and reproduction. These two instincts were encoded in our DNA for the survival of individuals and the propagation of the species, but they are now “soft spots” that can easily be triggered with specific stimuli, causing an immediate and powerful reactions. As people get desensitized to sexual and violent imagery, mass media constantly pushes the envelope to bring new, distorted and twisted ways to capture their viewer’s attention.”
I didn’t find the linked radio programme very good, but the topics discussed are common here (on this blog). Are we citizens or consumers?
http://activist-post-forum.947009.n3.nabble.com/Humanity-Caged-by-Psycho-Corporate-Dominance-td4026579.html
———————————–
Regarding the infamous Sgt. Robert Bales
“US soldier behind Afghanistan massacre laughs at murder charges”
http://rt.com/news/bales-laughs-afghanistan-murder-711/
[I assume his defense is going to claim PTSD]
———————————–
“And the way they so hurredly wrapped up the terrorist op in NI in preparation for the mother of all terror ops.”
Fascinating comment Herbie. Hadn’t occurred to me but it’s certainly worth thinking about.
Well said, Roderick Russell, at 5:01pm today.
“Would you trust this ex-secretary with your revolution?” Villager.
Yes.
[Mod: ageist attacks (“shrivelled”) are not welcome here, removed]
“Anyway, can you link me to anything which gives the official explanation why the Apache crew faced no action/sanction?”
I thought the official statement was that they were operating within their official “rules of engagement”. But I’d have to check on that. Don’t remember where I saw it.
“Habby I know your pen is your sword, but could your ink be the envy of a rather shrivelled up old Mary?” 5:46pm, today.
That is not very cosmic of you, Villager. In your last two posts (5:13pm and 5:46pm), you have referred to Mary’s supposed social class, the fact that she is retired and have expressed the most blatant form of ageism.
*****************
The sentence meted out to Bradley Manning is wholly unjust, but entirely expected.
No. 2
It’s always a significant tell when habby does a runnner, and I fully expect this one to run and run from the narrative lance. So I’ll just number the occasions asked at the top of each request.
===========================================
Habby claims wrt the murderous Apache crew:
” I’m surprised that they appear not to have been subject to any sanction.”
Why are you surprised?
Suhayl:“Would you trust this ex-secretary with your revolution?” Villager.
Yes.”
You’re one of those I referred to above who wears your religion on your sleeve so i’m hardly surprised. Surprise me with something truly revolutionary if you can.
“a rather shrivelled up old Mary”
Less of that, Villager, please. From bits and bobs she’s posted, I think Mary is roughly my age, give or take a year or two. And Passerby has already forced me onto an imaginary zimmerframe.
Ageism is no more acceptable than any other discriminatory tactic.
I think the more Villager posts the more it reveals itself.
Let it post away
“Ageism is no more acceptable than any other discriminatory tactic”
“That is not very cosmic of you, Villager. In your last two posts (5:13pm and 5:46pm), you have referred to Mary’s supposed social class, the fact that she is retired and have expressed the most blatant form of ageism”
agree with both of these.
The sentence received by Bradley Manning is exemplary of the state of the American NO justice system.
The Apache crew should be done for war crimes, but that would mean that justice is seen to be done and it does not fit into the US mindset, or that of havenosack and his village sidekick.
L. William Caley a mass murderer + 7 years suspended
Private B.Manning a war crimes whistleblower 35 years with parole, should he be still alive, after 12 years.
That is US justice and we should have no crux with it, the officer class, better trained and educated, who should know better than to murder civilians are fettered with red neck justice, whilst the private Manning, someone who takes orders and is not that well trained, is being hammered with a kangaroo judgement.
Mind, our fascist torture tactics at Heathrow come a close second.
FREE BRADLEY MANNING NOW! YOU Nazi lookalikes, what a bunch of moronic judges are serving this fascist outfit.
Sky News and Reuters are wading in on “Japan’s nuclear crisis deepens” — days and days after the news ramped up on the internet. The topic never went away on the net.
Japan’s nuclear crisis deepens, China expresses ‘shock’
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-japan-fukushima-severity-idUSBRE97K02B20130821
It’s a great example of the “choosing” of MSM news to dish up to us – and what gets left out.
Technicolour:
From FJ: “Would it be on topic if I gave Habbabkuk an IRISH linen teatowel (made in Co Down of course) and asked him to dry up!”
What about wetism — do you approve of that?
Nice commendation for Habbabkuk from Villager above.
Then a sniping descent from the usual lofty moral tone in an attempt to put me down as ‘ex secretary’ without knowing what I went on to do in later life.
He knows that I have made serious and heartfelt comments today on Bradley’s sentence, the detention of David Miranda, the anti Assad propaganda and Hague’s rush to support it and then the trial of Bales for atrocities committed against Afghani civilians. And of course earlier on the killing of a Palestinian man by the Israelis in the Jenin refugee camp. Plus details of the gangsters now in charge in Egypt.
Enough.
Thanks for that FEDEX link, Someone, so we do not have to use the service of Obummers foot soldiers anymore and rather use go betweens and private mail servers in future.
Mubarak, mass murderer, is on the way back, so,
rejoice all ye scum,
he is the one
to die for.
Thanks Suhayl, Herbie, Dreoilin and Technicolour for your comments.
Please everyone don’t engage with the pair of them concerning me to avoid any escalation and I hope that does not come over as self important. It is not meant to be.
I am going to ignore them pro tempore.
“Falconer QC will have known that in drawing the legislation so broadly, incidents such as that of David Miranda’s detention are certainly possible within the legislation.”
_______________
I’m not sure that drawing legislation broadly is necessarily always a bad thing. Let me give an example of why.
I recently heard on Youtube (I say “heard” because the clip, which lasted for about an hour, consisted of a couple of video shots which flashed up from time to time in the course of a recording which the chap in question somehow managed to make – clandestinely, I take it) an incident between UK customs officers and someone who was stopped with 100 cartons of cigarettes in his car or van.
To be noted that even if he was a two packets a day man, he had brought back enough cigarettes to last him for 500 days.
Well, HMRC let him go in the end because the man refused to answer any questions and probably because he wore them down. He refused to answer any questions by the clever use of the provision in customs law and the operational guidance issued to customs officers which requires customs officers to give specific reasons for suspecting that the tobacco being imported is not for personal consumption (in which case there would be no problem) but for commercial resale (in which case the “no-limit” allowance does not operate). So he just kept asking for the specific reasons behind their suspicion that he was importing the cigarettes for commercial purposes and refusing to answer anything else until they had supplied those reasons.
Now, the more intelligent of my readers will already have seen that the suspicion was based on the quantity and nothing else (not perhaps entirely unreasonable – see the 500 days point, above). And, indeed, they were unable to give specific reasons for their suspicion. So, because of badly drafted legislation and/or operational guidance, the chap was able to avoid being asked to prove personal as opposed to commercial use by stopping the proceedings before that point was reached.
More broadly drafted legislation would have been better because it would probably have put the burden of explanation onto the chap importing the tobacco instead of onto – as an essential preliminary to further investigation – the customs officers.
So I think you can readily see, on the basis of this example, that the provisions of the Terrorism Act are – given the purpose of that Act – well drawn in respect of people entering or leaving the UK in specifically NOT requiring the competent authorities to show cause (eg, suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities) for detaining and questioning entrants/leavers. Otherwise, Mr Miranda, like the tobacco man, could have simply refused to answer questions on the basis that the authorities could (or would) not show due cause for suspicion and he would have been on the way, together with his electronic equipment (unexamined) within the hour.
Do we really think that terrorism is the sort of offence in the fight against which we want to hobble the authorities charged with maintaining public safety in this way? After all, we are talking here about detention for a maximum of 9 hours and questioning and not hanging him upside down by the ankles.
Yes, about that Apache crew
“After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own “Rules of Engagement”.”
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
@ Dreoilin, re Apache
Thanks for that info, Dreoilin. But I am still hoping that Ben Franklin, with whom I was dialoging, will provide me with a fuller link.
I’m sure that he will.
” At the same time he’s demanding of standards of people’s theses and analyses”
Yes, Villager, very demanding. So why does he exempt himself. Case in point;
The collateral murder video. What’s is so hard abut taking a position?
See, there he goes again. I asked his position and he requires me to provide links for his side of the argument.
You don’t see a pattern with his evasive replies?
“I’m sure that he will.”
Of course I will (snark)
“Mind, our fascist torture tactics at Heathrow….”
_____________
9 hours detention (with food and drink and toilet facilities) and the confiscation for examination, for a maximum of 7 days, of electronic equipment = fascist torture?
Do words really mean anything any more on this blog?
@ Ben Franklin
“See, there he goes again. I asked his position and he requires me to provide links for his side of the argument.”
_________________
I answered you. And I’m not asking you to provide a link for “my” side of the argument; I asked you for a link to a (the) official US explanation for why no action was taken against the Apache crew. The question seems to follow naturally from our dialogue and I really don’t understand why you you seem to have such a problem with it.
In the Daily Mail the readers’ comments on Manning/Snowden are well thought out. 90% supportive and not buying the idea that these cases have much to do with anti-terrorism, but are designed to deter future whisteblowers and protect great State Embarrassments rather than secrets.
One suggestion is the big embarrassment in the Snowden affair is revelation of massive industrial spying by the UK/US. Another is it will reveal the secrets of off-shore banking or corruption of banksters.
A couple of quotes stolen, “Capitalist governments hate communism,but adore its methods of control.” and “I still find it amusing that one heck of a lot of information about the Pri5m and Eche0n projects had been circulating around the Internet for years yet many bystanders dismissed the stories as paranoia.”
Sadly, however, when it was revealed a few weeks ago that the FBI, through electronic surveillance, had a server operator in Ireland arrested for hosting (not creating) kiddie porn and will be extradited to the US, the same Daily Mail readers were 100% in favor of massive surveillance of the Internet if even one fiend was captured and one child saved.
I don’t understand the reach of the US in these matters. How are foreigners, committing what may or may not be crimes in other countries, subject to US law?
Habbabkuk (La Vita È Bella!)
21 Aug, 2013 – 6:34 pm –
“9 hours detention (with food and drink and toilet facilities)…”
“He got his first drink – from a Coke machine in the corridor – after eight hours and was eventually released almost an hour later. Police records show he had been held from 08.05 to 17.00.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow
http://rt.com/news/russia-syria-chemical-attack-801/
Times like this I wish I actually had a basement.
” I really don’t understand why you you seem to have such a problem with it.”
You didn’t answer with any evidence of thought or reason beyond an off-handed quip, and frankly it is insulting to my intelligence to present yourself as having answered Done with you. Buh bye.