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.
“What is it called when a person chooses to defend what is done in our name by our rulers even when a mountain of evidence leaves not the slightest doubt that the scale of their crimes dwarfs the all competition put together?”
Are their any prizes for the right answer Sofia?
Tony Blair.
That’s a pint you owe me.
KingOfWelshNoir
Great post.
Giyane @ 1.25 pm. If I were accused of a serious crime, I’d not want you to be the judge. Of course, when they act dishonourably politicians try not to leave evidence; but “no evidence needed… off with his head” is Red Queen justice. The job of critics is to look for and set out the evidence. That way you might even persuade others rather than being content to lap up praise from those who already share your views.
KoWN, wish I’d have written your kind explanation to Habbabkuk! I think you can see by the comments it is much appreciated even by Habbabkuk who quietly applauds it by staying quiet. Can you do this more often please? Thanks.
Really it’s so arrogant to go on acting like we own, or are part of owning the world. It’s not my business what goes on in Russia really, unless it’s our meant to be representatives stirring up trouble in that area of the world. Then I may have some legitimate power to do something.
Wasn’t it Noam who said the media function is to focus laser like on other countries issues while ignoring our own. This is fundamentally a wrong headed position for those who claim to support democracy. And ordinary people have been screwed over by it time and again. So in my view i’m supporting the people of this country.
God help us all.
Jeb Bush @JebBush
· 43m 43 minutes ago
I am excited to announce I will actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeb-bush/a-note-from-jeb-bush/619074134888300 ….
Apparently he visited Gideon at No 11 recently.
Read this report. This country’s legal system is appalling,
Guards Cleared Over Deportee Restraint Death
Witnesses say the man cried out for breath, with the guards accused of using a banned technique known as “carpet karaoke”.
http://news.sky.com/story/1392905/guards-cleared-over-deportee-restraint-death?DCMP=AFC-
‘An inquest last year ruled that the 43-year-old was unlawfully killed and led to the CPS reconsidering manslaughter charges.
The jury in the criminal case was not told of the inquest verdict for legal reasons, or that two of the defendants – Hughes and Tribelnig – had “very racially offensive material” on their phones.’
85386&affiliate=true
Mary, it is only what has come to be expected of US and UK justice where the victim is non-white. How are juries selected? Are they selected randomly? Or are they hand-picked to come up with the ‘right’ verdict? How many blacks or non-whites were there on the jury? Why did the judge direct them to acquit these murderers? This racism/religionism is pandemic. What happened? I feel like I’ve been fighting race prejudice all my life and got nowhere. After Martin Luther King’s assassination there was some hope. Now we have an emergent Enoch Powell in the persona of Nigel Farage getting more air-space than Emmerdale.
We see cruelty and brutality John and little else lately.
‘Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.’
Where are they?
Thanks KoWN and Dreolin for the excellent explanation and for Bliars foot in mouth quotes.
Oh no, not another Bush Dummkopf wanting to become president, beware he’s has form in election rigging.
“Clue: Yougov poll released 13th December: 52 SNP 6 LAB 1 LIBDEM”
Sod your poll. Here in the real world I haven’t got a fully staffed accident and emergency department within a hundred miles because the SNP government in Edinburgh have been short changing NHS Highland to the tune of £11 million a year, they’re closing the maternity unit too because all the money is being kept in the central belt by a load of wankers yelling “it’s our oil” when not one of them lives next to an oil well. I live next to an oil well it’s my oil so how come it’s my hospital being downgraded to community status?
Say what you like about the other parties but at least the NHS was safe in their hands which it certainly isn’t in the SNPs.
KingOfWelshNoir
Well, you have attempted to provide an answer to the question of what motivates the majority of posters on here.
Your answer may or may not be correct – I suppose you know the individuals concerned as much or as little as I do, so what you write as a “spokesman”, so to say, may go for you but not be necessarily true for some or even all of the others.
Now, I could question a lot (most)of what you say , because although cunningly written it is at bottom specious, but I’m not going to bother with an overall rebuttal as it would not be productive: one cannot argue a believer out of his faith.
Just three things, therefore: the first two arising directly out of your post and the third from Iain Orr’s response at 12h20.
1/. If British people writing on a British blog should limit their focus to crimes done in “our name” ( and paid for by our taxes), why do they also frequently refer to (what they consider to be) crimes with which the UK has no connection? You yourself have done so in your post, by referring to the Vietnam War. Ir the American Indians. If the given reason for ignoring (recent) Russian crimes is that those crimes were not carried out “in the UK’s name”, why are various US crimes – also not carried out “in our name” – not similarly ignored?
2/. “It’s not that we hate the West, we just hate what it does”
But in any given period, a state is what it does. It is evasive, therefore, to claim you hate what a state does but do not hate the state. If course, you may wish to reply that the state is acting against the wishes of its people and that you therefore hate what the representatives of the state are doing but not “the people” of that state. Do you have evidence that the mass of “the (UK) people” – as opposed to a certain proportion of said people, eg commenters on this and similar blogs, disagree with what their (UK)representatives get up to in foreign affairs?
3/. Would you like to comment on the fact that many of the most vociferous critics of the West in general and the UK in particular (certainly on this blog) are appear to be especially attached to the conspiracy theory of life (false flags and so on – Lee Rigby, 9/11, 7/7, the KLM and Malaysian Airlines planes, the world run by Jewish bankers (Rothschilds) and Bilderbergers…..)?
“Didn’t follow my links, eh?”
Your links are irrelevant, $60 a barrel that’s relevant, the SNP based their calculations on twice that, that’s relevant, an independent Scotland would have been running cap in hand to the IMF and having to accept all their conditions that is relevant.
The 55% were right.
The reference to the Jewish bankers (Rothschilds) and Bilderbergers were, of course, for Mr Goss.
The same Mr Goss who wrote:
“I think you can see by the comments it is much appreciated even by Habbabkuk who quietly applauds it by staying quiet.”
1/. “much” appreciated – by three or four people?
2/. Habbabkuk “applauds it by remaining silent”. Does Mr Goss therefore agree that commenters on here applaud Russian atrocities in Chechniya by remaining silent about them (as they do)? KOWN please note.
Fred (17h17)
It is impossible to separate a believer from his faith.
And:
In the same way as apartheid Southern African govts classified Japanese people (visiting businessmen) as “honorary whites”, so many commenters on here appear to classify the Scots as “honorary non-Brits”. LOL
On the question of dissent or resistance. I feel this situation (torture and many other things) can be likened to a gang rape, where some people may have walked away. I don’t respect that. They are still part of it and are not going against it. Just saying I don’t agree is not it.
Later they will get together over earl gray, perhaps remark how they just had political differences at that time and discuss oil prices.
As Harry Fear pointed out over Palestine recently, knowledge imparts responsibility.
Thanks for speaking on behalf of lots of us, KOWN. If we had a FAQ, that’d be in it.
From now on, when the usual suspects churns out the usual accusations of “Murrayistas hate the West”, I shall KOWN them.
@Habby: I’m happy to own my reasons – the lies, and what they cover up! Yes, I know plenty of people who actually believe the words of politicians, especially in high places. This annoys me intensely because they have two 2lb brains same as me, and it is a tragedy that when it comes to matters relating to “the system” they don’t use them.
When the results of a politician’s lies are an aggressive war that kills a million people (shut up, Je!) then my annoyance further intensifies. But I know I have to suffer it, and don’t like to suffer in silence (!)
What does the majority of the public think? Well, regarding Iraq there was a majority against right through until the MPs voted for war, and then I suppose “the government knows best” kicked in an people were, by a very narrow margin, supportive. Regarding torture…. I’m not going to quote the Yougov poll again.
You hate torture, showing you are a thinking, feeling, human being. So why do you poke fun at us, and not support us? The only reason that I can think of is that you are in the unfortunate position of having to defend the actions of successive governments that have shamed their people.
LOL… one (!), 2lb brain.
Actually, it was this KOWN I meant, though the other is recommended too.
While we are on the subject, I feel despite what’s said we do have a responsibility to see how we effect other places.
Palestine for instance. When such injustice is apparent it’s incumbent to look at our relationship and how it may encourage or discourage these injustices.
Something intrigues me about the idea that using the results of torture is not illegal so long as those concerned did not use torture themselves.
A short while ago I was reading a piece in which it was pointed out that Charles Manson did not kill any one personally – he induced others to do his bidding.
Manson is still held responsible and Manson is still behind bars. Might I suggest that using the produce of torture encourages the torturers to use the method to obtain the results? This could make the UK government of Tory Bliar (minus Robin Cooke and Claire Short – who resigned in protest) guilty of the crime.
Bert.
P.S. What happened to the anti-spam?
Fred : “Say what you like about the other parties but at least the NHS was safe in their hands which it certainly isn’t in the SNPs.”
So the NHS in Wales, N. Ireland and England is better than in Scotland?
Habaprofit-you have nothing whatever to contribute here, neither does the erstwhile conductor. I hear there are vacancies on the Daily Mail and Guardian sites.
Peacewisher
“You hate torture, showing you are a thinking, feeling, human being. So why do you poke fun at us, and not support us? ”
__________________
To be accurate, I said that my position on torture was that I was against it.
I did not say that I hated it because I do not want to be included in the ranks of the haters (especially on here).
Secondly, if memory serves, I have not poked fun at any comments on torture appearing in this blog.
Porkfright
“Habaprofit-you have nothing whatever to contribute here, neither does the erstwhile conductor.”
_____________
You are entitled to your opinion, Porkfright, even though it by no means constitutes unanimity on here.
A personal question if I may, Porkfright (it rhymes with White Knight, doesn’t it). Did you chose that moniker because Jews (and Muslims, for that matter) don’t eat pork, ie, they are “frightened” of pork?
Just wonderin’ !
Bert
Or, for that matter, Bentley and Craig (“give it to him, Craig”)?
@Bert: Clair Short did not resign… if you check the record in Hansard you’ll find that she voted for war. A shameful action then, which would have influenced a lot of labour MPs, and seems just as shameful now.
For the record… she resigned some time later, once the dastardly deed was done.
Weisel’s words (lies) rather than ‘weasel words’.
Another Great Performance by Elie Wiesel
by Daniel McGowan / December 15th, 2014
http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/12/another-great-performance-by-elie-wiesel/
Exceedingly strange that Sydney and then Peshawar follow the release of the torture report and the ensuing media storm. Just saying. Pure coincidence of course.