The Independent have Jack Straw well and truly cornered:
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Craig Murray, who was sacked as UK ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2004 after alleging that Britain used intelligence obtained by the CIA under torture, said he attended a meeting at the Foreign Office where he was told that “it was not illegal for us to use intelligence from torture as long as we did not carry out the torture ourselves” and claimed this policy came directly from Mr Straw.
The former Foreign Secretary said: “At all times I was scrupulous in seeking to carry out my duties in accordance with the law. I hope to be able to say more about this at an appropriate stage in the future.”
I hope so too, and I hope that the appropriate time is either at the Old Bailey or The Hague.
Straw has climbed down a bit from his days of power and glory, when he told the House of Commons, immediately after sacking me, that there was no such thing as the CIA extraordinary rendition programme and its existence was “Mr Murray’s opinion.” He no longer claims it did not exist and he no longer claims I am a fantasist. He now merely claims he was not breaking the law.
His claim of respect for the law is a bit dubious in the light of Sir Michael Wood’s evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry. Wood said that as Foreign Office Legal Adviser, he and his elite team of in-house FCO international lawyers unanimously advised Straw the invasion of Iraq would be an illegal war of aggression. Straw’s response? He wrote to the Attorney General requesting that Sir Michael be dismissed and replaced. And forced Goldsmith to troop out to Washington and get alternative advice from Bush’s nutjob Republican neo-con lawyers.
Jack Straw did not have any desire to act legally. He had a desire to be able to mount a legal defence of his illegal actions. That is a different thing.
Should any of us live to see the publication of the Chilcot Report, this will doubtless be clear, though probably as a footnote to page 862 of Annex VII. That is how the Westminster establishment works.
The SNP has weighed in on the side of the angels:
Revelations by the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan of the UK’s knowledge and acceptance of torture must see those involved answer questions on what happened.
In an article in the Mail on Sunday, Mr Murray reveals that he attended a meeting at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office where he was told that “it was not illegal for us to use intelligence from torture as long as we did not carry out the torture ourselves” and revealed that this policy came directly from Jack Straw.
Mr Murray also reveals that “there was a deliberate policy of not writing down anything… because there should not be evidence of the policy.”
Craig Murray also states that “for the past year the British Ambassador in Washington and his staff have regularly been lobbying the US authorities not to reveal facts about the UK’s involvement in the CIA torture programme” and claims that is one of the reasons the full Senate report has not been published.
The SNP has called for a full judicial inquiry to be set up as a matter of urgency to get to get to the truth of who knew what and when.
Commenting, SNP Westminster Leader Angus Robertson MP said:
“Mr Murray’s revelation of the attitude taken by then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw only adds to the urgency with which we need a full judicial inquiry.
“Craig Murray’s article lifts the lid on the UK’s role in the human rights abuses that the US Senate has reported on and there can be no more attempts to avoid answering the tough questions that have been posed.
“Clearly answers are needed just as much from the politicians who led us at the time as from those directly involved in what was going on. The need for an independent judicial inquiry is now clear for all to see.
“It is also long past time that the findings of the Chilcot inquiry were published and there can be no more delays to that report being made public.
“There needs to be a full judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of the UK’s involvement in rendition flights that passed through UK territory and the UK’s wider knowledge of the abuses that the Senate has revealed.”
Craig Murray’s revelations can be viewed on page 25 of today’s Mail on Sunday
But with Malcolm Rifkind being promoted everywhere by the BBC to push his cover-up, it remains an uphill struggle.
Habbabkuk – I see you still have “Sofia” projecting his father-figure notions onto yourself. I hope you do not find this too disconcerting, but as mentioned on that earlier thread, it is very likely to be some unresolved parental issues at work.
“Isn’t Mr Goss wonderfully Soviet Union? Deny something ever happened and brazen it our with evasions and feeble glosses when the truth comes out.”
Soviet Union?
It’s ironic that you make such a specific observation about the Soviet Union whilst we’re here discussing very similar denials in the case of British complicity in torture, which are even now being brazened out “with evasions and feeble glosses”.
You’ll be needing to do some work on that good guys/bad guys world you inhabit.
A little clue to help you along. When Leo Strauss talked of Gunsmoke as a wonderful exemplar of his method, he meant that method as applied to Plebs, as of course it was.
He didn’t advocate it as a means of understanding international relations or geopolitical events.
You might easily have accused John of being a bit British, but for some reason you didn’t think that would work so well.
I suspect that’s because media provides good propaganda cover.
I mean, the British haven’t exactly been shirkers when it comes to lying, denying and then lying all over again. Perfidious Albion, indeed.
“The use of the adjective “perfidious” to describe England has a long history; instances have been found as far back as the 13th century.[1] A very similar phrase was used in a sermon by 17th-century French bishop and theologian Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion
I think that Dreoilin – who, unlike many others, treads siftly but carries a big stick – summed it up rather well back in September:
“John Goss introduced the Falklands to this thread. And when asked if Britain had invaded, he said, “No, like all the other imperialists that drove out or enslaved the indigenous population, they did that centuries ago to steal land and resources.”
Habbabkuk asked:
“Interesting. Mr Goss, who were the ‘indigenous population’ of the Falklands when Britain took them over, and what were the resources that the British were trying to steal?”
According to Wikipedia, the Falklands were uninhabited when Europeans got there. And there was feck-all in the way of resources either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History
But John Goss at 25 Sep, 2014 – 11:50 pm starts ducking and diving and advising Habbabkuk to stay ‘on topic’. IOW he posts a cop-out.
Jeezus, I thought you were better than that, John.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only quibble I’d have with her splendid summary is that she should really have already known that Mr Goss is NOT “better than that”
Anyway, that is the origin of the now hallowed expression “a John Goss Moment”.
“Brent Crude still going south.”
Inconvenient truth round here Ben.
One aspect so far overlooked is the affects on the renewable industries. Renewable energy was only viable with government grants and subsidies when oil was over $100, there is no way they will be able to compete now. That is another horse the SNP put a lot of money on.
“I detect much schadenfreude among observers, who desperately hope a collapse of the Russian economy will bring about Putin’s fall”
Observers, ie, Those sadistic US follows we call a government or those propagandised by them into fearing Russia beyond any measure of rationality.
Seriously, we need another media, I can’t stand clicking links to that awful paper. It’s way to much support for my liking.
What an inconsequential argument about who was right or wrong, again, how boringly repetitive and again, by the same actors.
They should have strung up Jeremy Clarkson, not stoned the poor Porsche he was driving, at least that would have rejuvenated Top Gear/gun somewhat.
If conquering is the only justification to go by when talking about this Empire left over, one can only hope that one day Argentina will successfully take the Falklands and if they so wish, call this island group the Malvinas. Sheep would be called ovejas and nothing would change. The few oil reserves are far too expensive to explore so why should more good soldiers die to keep hold of this group of islands?
From our friend Guano, now styling himself as Giyane:
“Iain Orr
I know you from village FCKO land. You know nothing. Please kind Englishman tell Have I any wrong done.
Pretending to be a village idiot while you are the former employee and current pensionee of Her Majesty seems to be part of the FCO training.”
________________________
Well, Iain Orr does seem to have rattled Guano’s cage, doesn’t he.
Far from pretending to be a village idiot, Iain asked Guano a legitimate question:
“First, as you told me @ 8.18 pm on 16 December, “… I have accused you of a very serious crime, but your FCO mind does not recognise it as a crime.” Further down, you added: “You are a proper nasty piece of bent power”. I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO SET OUT THE PRECISE CHARGES AGAINST ME.”
which I’m sorry to have to note Guano has still not answered.
mmm, odd, it went red, appropriate perhaps.
lol, Spelled my name wrong.
According to a comment on Medialens, 282 MPs have voted today to retain the revolting ‘bedroom tax’.
“What an inconsequential argument about who was right or wrong, again, how boringly repetitive and again, by the same actors.”
_________________
Not really, Nevermind. It is a question of Mr Goss’s credibility : having said something, he then denies having said it.
To be borne in mind when evaluating the veracity and good faith of all Mr Goss’s learned observations, I think.
Reluctant Observer
“Habbabkuk – I see you still have “Sofia” projecting his father-figure notions onto yourself. I hope you do not find this too disconcerting, but as mentioned on that earlier thread, it is very likely to be some unresolved parental issues at work.”
________________
I hadn’t noticed, RO, but thanks for pointing it out again.
As I’ve already said, as long as this middle-aged man is not posing as a young girl with the intention of trying to date some of the other commenters off-line, I suppose we should just leave him to cast out his demons by himself. Perhaps OUR NHS could help?
It’s emotionally satisfying to view Craig as a prophet howling in the wilderness, scorned and oppressed by the state. Everybody likes to root for the underdog. But in truth, Craig is more of a window on the world for the inmates of a hermit kingdom. The British government is increasingly alone in defiance of governments that meet their obligations and commitments under peremptory norms of international law, namely, “States shall cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach,” (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.) European states are cooperating to end impunity for torture, tightening the screws on criminal British officials:
http://www.statewatch.org/cia/cia.html
Repoublicofscotland:
““Is there any technical way of finding easily/rapidly posts from John Goss (containing the word “Malvinas”)without having to wade through every single comment made on every thread over the last six months or so?”
____________________________
Habb
Erm!…..NO!
For once in your miserable life, you’ll need to do some research, and not parasite other comments.
Happy hunting.”
__________________
Cage rattled? Bars still in place? LOL
Another great “John Goss Moment” (I think I’ll start a collection):
the “secret” Rapallo Treaty.
So secret that it was registered with the League of Nations.
Mr Goss’s “rebuttal” – “it was secret for a couple of days”.
Hilarious! And useful, because it reminds us that an element of the ridiculous is another essential ingredient of any “John Goss Moment”.
Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)
17 Dec, 2014 – 5:18 pm
“Isn’t Mr Goss wonderfully Soviet Union? Deny something ever happened and brazen it our with evasions and feeble glosses when the truth comes out.”
………………………………………………………………………….
What is “wonderfully Soviet Union” about:
“Deny something ever happened and brazen it our with evasions and feeble glosses when the truth comes out.”?
Sounds just like most countries to me: Israel being a good example.
Noddy, go get some rest. The thread is about torture and you do nothing but torture people. Nobody believes your fabrications aimed at belittling me.
“Under the terms of the secret Treaty of Rapallo with Bolshevik Russia and in a violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the German Junkers company secretly establishes an aircraft factory at Fili in the Soviet Union.[22]” Wikipedia.
Go to bed Noddy. Rapallo paved the way for trade between Germany and Russia in contravention of Versailles in which Germany was instructed to pay reparations to the great powers (imperialists). You are a twat Noddy, and make yourself look more stupid with every comment. “One, two, three, four . . . er . . . what comes next?”
“Cage rattled? Bars still in place? LOL”
________________________________
Habb.
I didn’t realise you possessed a sense of humour, there’s hope for you yet.
“One, two, three, four . . . er . . . what comes next?”
That’s right Noddy. “Change hands.”
“If the Queen wishes to resign her position, would it not be more appropriate to drop the ad feminems, to encourage her in her decision. Call her heir droopychops by all means.”
———————————-
Giyane.
In a word NO.
Lysias
17 Dec, 2014 – 5:27 pm
“If Obama is able to reverse decades of U.S. policy on Cuba, now that the 2014 midterm election is past and he has nothing political to lose, perhaps there could also be a rethink on Palestine/Israel?”
………………………………………………………………………………………
Unfortunately Lysias Obama has not reversed decades of US policy on Cuba. He has made a speech putting forward his views.
It is up to the, Republican dominated, Congress to decide on this and in the meantime the sanctions will stay, perhaps indefinitely.
I don’t share your optimism on Israel either sadly.
Re the Sydney Siege.
……………….
While the mainstream reports may suggest that Monis is yet another ISIS-style terrorist that finally attempted to rise and meet his destiny by engaging in terrorist attacks in the West, there are a number of problems with the presentation in terms of details.
Western media reports that, among other ludicrous demands, Monis requested to be provided with an ISIS flag while holding up the café in the Sydney business district.
The problem, however, is that Monis is Shiia, not Sunni. Sunni, of course, is the brand of Islam that ISIS espouses. While both sects see their share of fundamentalism, the twain do not mix.
Why then, would a Shia cleric (fundamentalist or otherwise) request an IS flag at the scene of his crime for all the world to see?
………………………….
The answer is they wouldn’t, Tony Abbot, must be well chuffed now he’s produced Australia’s false flag, and the mug Aussie public, will now allow him to clamp down on society.
Canada had their false flag a wee while ago, it must be New Zealand’s turn next.
As Macky (thank you) has already pointed out I never talked about the indigeneous population of the Falklands and tried to keep the topic about the bombing (now going on) that some of us were trying avert.
—————————————————-
The topic was The Rush to violence.
My comment quoted from Craig’s post and was on topic:
JG
“I am longing for somebody to explain to me the precise mechanism by which our bombing Islamic countries helps prevent terrorist incidents in the UK.”
It doesn’t. Fortunately up to now the UK Muslim community has been long-suffering over defamation by the media. Young UK Muslims, who in my opinion and those of their families, misguidedly went to fight in foreign wars on ideological grounds, are more likely to come back horrified by war than radicalised against UK residents. We encouraged this action against Assad until oilfields were threatened by the western-creation ISIS.
Cameron needs a raison d’être to bomb. There is an election next year and he is the protégé of Thatcher, who when her popularity was flagging got it back on course with her war in the Falklands. Anything will do. So they make it up, beheadings and all. I’m sick of it and urge everybody of all parties to lobby their MPs against voting for Cameron’s war.
—————————————————————-
Noddy responded quoting from my comment and was off-topic.
Mr Goss
“Thatcher, who when her popularity was flagging got it back on course with her war in the Falklands. Anything will do.”
____________________
Yes, the Argentine dictatorship (remember it, Mr Goss? You know, the guys who threw left wingers out of helicopters over the South Atlantic) showed immaculate timing in invading the Falklands* just when they did.
_________________________
* Hope I got that right – they did invade, didn’t they? Or was it the Brits invading Argentina…?
—————————————————————-
JG on topic but took the courtesy (mistakenly) to respond to Noddy
Doug Scorgie, sorry to hear about your MP, especially if he is as evasive as Habbabkuk. Incidentally I mentioned the other night to Ben that he had taken a sentence out of my main punt, like the trolls do. And Habbabkuk has tried to steer the topic away from the illegal bombing (again) of Iraq and Syria. But I am inclined to answer a question of his.
“Or was it the Brits invading Argentina…?”
No, like all the other imperialists that drove out or enslaved the indigenous population, they did that centuries ago to steal land and resources. Oil (petrodollars) is what they want to keep their greedy hands on now.
—————————————————————-
Noddy
Mr Goss (23h11)
“And Habbabkuk has tried to steer the topic away from the illegal bombing (again) of Iraq and Syria”
Well, actually, I was responding to you talking about the Falklands so I suppose it was you who was trying to steer away the topic away?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No, like all the other imperialists that drove out or enslaved the indigenous population, they did that centuries ago to steal land and resources.”
Interesting. Mr Goss, who were the ‘indigenous population’ of the Falklands when Britain took them over, and what were the resources that the British were trying to steal?
—————————————————————-
So from creating the diversion in the first place Noddy ended up with the diversionary comment above in which he mentions the indigeneous population of the Falklands, which ever since he has been trying to lay at my door. And people wonder why he is thought a troll. The man is a loon and I think this proves it.
Security of the population is of marginal concern for British policy planners – The denials that Britain was involved in torture, the suppression of the damning Chilcot report and the recent attack on the Russian economy with British backed EU sanctions together with an attempt to halo Russia with NATO forces as a continuum of Western Germany’s participation in NATO, is a game plan whose reliance on nuclear weapons illustrates the moral calculus of contemporary neo-liberal state capitalism; the fate of our grand-children counts as absolutely nothing in comparison with the need to make more profit tomorrow, that’s the driving principal of what is called capitalism today.
It is interesting that Britain has been reinforcing bilateral relations with Cuba since Putin agreed to write off $32 billion in Russian debt to Cuba and further, Putin emboldened by Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency leaks, cautions to reopen the so-called Lourdes spying post, 150 miles from Florida together with military bases.
We continue to play roulette with the fate of the species. The threat of instant destruction by nuclear weapons will remain and Cuba remains the catalyst.
Reluctant Observer; “perhaps you would be kind enough to define a “troll” ”
Very simple actually; somebody unwilling or unable to engage in rational debate; in the first case it’s a case of not being here in good faith, the second case, being of poor mental faculties.
BTW re your obsession with Sofia, it’s obviously before your time here, but it started as a humorous satirical parody iro of a Poster called “Villager” who worshipped Habbabkuk as some sort of Father figure. It was funny then, and it is funny now.
Dreoilin to John Goss; “I don’t have time for you”
Yes, you can tell a lot about a person for the people they do have time for.
Habbabkuk; “a John Goss Moment”
Nothing John has ever posted, even with your malicious misrepresentations, comes anywhere near as embarrassing & revealing as your recent pathetic attempt to engage in a debate with KOWN; a true “Habbabuk Moment”, just one of a very long series.
Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)
17 Dec, 2014 – 6:00 pm
“It is a question of Mr Goss’s credibility : having said something, he then denies having said it.”
………………………………………………………………………………………..
Habbabkuk, on a number of occasions you have said that I have in the past described myself as a lawyer and that now I am denying this.
That is not true and I have asked you previously to link to any comments where I say I am a lawyer.
Now that you have received instruction by Dreoilin on how to find historical posts on this blog perhaps you can back up your assertion by proving me wrong with a link.
Re the Pakistan Massacre
………………………..
Pakistan is a quasi-lawless state, it collaborates, with the Taliban and the west, its people shotgun to death Christians coming out of churches.
Its minister are assassinated if they stand up for Christians rights, you can be sentenced to death under the ridiculous Blasphemy laws, even though you are completely innocent.
All kinds of sects make their way to and through Pakistan, the west has operated out of it, as well, do we really know for sure who killed these people, it may not be who we think it is.
Its worth keeping an open mind.
Now we’ve put that to bed, and hopefully Noddy, I am warning that if further misrepresentations come from the keyboard of Habbabkuk, like the Joe Stalin and Soviet shit I shall be asking the mods to do something, because frankly, I’ve had enough. I’ve also had enough of your, and Dreoilin’s sniping at Mary who everybody should know is having to deal with chemotherapy or radiation (forgotten) and that is most inconsiderate. So pack it in, Habbabkuk.
“No, like all the other imperialists that drove out or enslaved the indigenous population, they did that centuries ago to steal land and resources. Oil (petrodollars) is what they want to keep their greedy hands on now.”
What oil would that be John? The oil and gas around the Falklands?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/02/oil-and-gas-falklands
It’s perfectly obvious what you were talking about, and it wasn’t Argentina.
——————
And do you seriously think that Mary should be allowed to post whatever she likes, with no come-back, because she has been ill? (and you do realise that she ‘sniped’ at me first?)
Take your holier than thou attitude and stuff it where the sun don’t shine.
Isn’t the question of what does it mean if we oppose torture in one country but condone it in another in essence an examination of Rousseau’s social contract and how man in his low level monkey mind realises with intelligent cunning how important it is to lie.
The monkey man knows he must agree that it is wrong to steal, hurt, torture, kill etc because he understands that if he so agrees others will not steal, hurt, torture or kill him.
But he also knows if he is cunning (more cunning than others)then he can agree not to steal or hurt so that others do not steal or hurt him but then secretly do these things to others. If he is clever and lucky he is not found out and is successful. If he is stupid or unlucky he is punished. He needs good PR and to control his personal reputation.
We might think such individuals are psychopaths and we are not like them, but there is probably something of that in all of us….sometimes just in very subtle ways we might glimpse it as we seek to gain the upper hand the advantage in a relationship or situation.
How is it with us collectively? Are we in different in groups or tribes than as individuals? It is obviously more difficult for a group to be cunningly duplicitous than an individual because the group has to keep the secret, and therefore this is all the more so in a large group like an organisation or state.
If we accept that there is a shadow side to our individual personality where we sometimes take advantage where and when we can (if we think we will not be found out)do we not accept that a shadow side might also be there collectively either because the leaders recognize it is necessary (that’s not too bad depending on their motives) or because psychopaths get into power and link up.
Disregarding the possibility of a group of psychopaths running security it could never be openly agreed that a country would as a matter of policy say one thing and do another. We accept that our leaders require some guile, some cunning and so we quietly accept that they need to lie and we can understand that this is not going to be policed very easily. When we choose who to vote for we probably assess this and look for the diamond geezer. If the shadow is policed too well it won’t work; it won’t be a shadow. Do we secretly think that its ok as long as a careful lid is kept on everything duplicitous and contrary to our open position, because if it is not then the whole system will fail and the floodgates will open?
If those in charge are secretive and duplicitous not because they objectively perceive that it is sometimes necessary for the common good but because they are psychopaths (those of who are all too good and lying) then is it not likely that the shadow side will get worse and be found out. Although the psychopathic shadow will need to concentrate on PR.
People are either very stupid and have no idea of what their leaders are up to, or they know, or they have a hunch but do not want to know all the detail because they suspect that it will not assist to shine a light on it unless the secret has become too bad. And they hope or pray that the shadow is doing the right thing, maybe making mistakes, maybe torturing, but for the right reasons, for some collective good (although perhaps just a national good).
So probably some bad things, some lies, some torture, some murder, some theft is secretly tolerated provided it stays under wraps and provided it benefits the group. There may be periodic scapegoats and sacrificial lambs, but is there also an essential tipping point where the group stands up and says what the fuck this is wholly unacceptable. That could come because everyone was so stupid they didn’t know there was a shadow and are genuinely surprised, or it could come because the shadow has gone too far.
What is it that is unacceptable – was is too far? What would really make you go against the grain, against the state, not in a subtle or reasonable way, not like an investigative journalist or a human rights lawyer, but which would make you say I no longer want to be a part of this. It has gone too far. I am out. Craig would appear to have reached that position with his experiences.
I suspect that it might be related to the extent to which we intuit or know that the elite is essentially either acting on balance for the good, or just a bunch of self serving psychopaths (for the bad).
Is all of this not the same as the idea that those above should serve those below and those below obey those above so long as those above serve them.
When do you stop obeying? When those above are not serving you.
Who is “you”?
Late Thursday night, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a far-reaching Russia sanctions bill, a hydra-headed incubator of poisonous conflict. The second provocative anti-Russian legislation in a week, it further polarizes our relations with Russia, helping to cement a Russia-China alliance against Western hegemony, and undermines long-term America’s financial and physical security by handing the national treasury over to war profiteers.
Here’s how the House’s touted “unanimity” was achieved: Under a parliamentary motion termed “unanimous consent,” legislative rules can be suspended and any bill can be called up. If any member of Congress objects, the motion is blocked and the bill dies.
At 10:23:54 p.m. on Thursday, a member rose to ask “unanimous consent” for four committees to be relieved of a Russia sanctions bill. At this point the motion, and the legislation, could have been blocked by a single member who would say “I object.” No one objected, because no one was watching for last-minute bills to be slipped through.
Most of the House and the media had emptied out of the chambers after passage of the $1.1 trillion government spending package.
The Congressional Record will show only three of 425 members were present on the floor to consider the sanctions bill. Two of the three feigned objection, creating the legislative equivalent of a ‘time out.’ They entered a few words of support, withdrew their “objections” and the clock resumed.
According to the clerk’s records, once the bill was considered under unanimous consent, it was passed, at 10:23:55 p.m., without objection, in one recorded, time-stamped second, unanimously.
Then the House adjourned.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/three_congressmen_just_reignited_the_cold_war_while_no_one_was_looking_2014
…………………………..
Arrogant western governments, are going to be our undoing.