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.
“Does anyone have data on the weight of explosives is detonated in anger by the various world powers? I’d say this would be a pretty good measure for a barbarity index.”
__________________
Presumably a “pretty good measure” because it would exculpate the Chinese govt, whose “Great Leap Forward” was probably carried out without a single bomb having been dropped?
Chuck it, Smith.
Two more what have become known as “John Goss moments”, and from the Master himself (at 23h48):
1/. “Understandably Estonia has no great love of Russia since it was occupied during what is referred to as the “Phoney War” and other titles and became part of the Soviet Union in early 1940.”
Yes, just occupied. Of course. Makes it sound almist peaceful, doesn’t it. There are figures for the number of Estonians (and Latvians and Lithuanians)killed – and deported to Siberia – both in 1940 and in 1945 and after. Do you know those figures, Mr Goss?
2/. “…and knowing how Stalin, and Hitler, operated, and recalling the secret Treaty of Rapallo while the Great Powers were meeting in Genoa”
The Treaty of Rapallo was not a secret Treaty, Mr Goss.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
You are still in denial about the Soviet Union, aren’t you.
British state involvement with torture:
The torture in Pakistan of Salahuddin Amin under the watchful eye of UK security services personnel resulted in material that was used to shore up the case for the crown prosecution of the ‘Operation Crevice’/’fertiliser plot’ persons. 2 of the alleged 7/7 ‘accused’ (Mohammed Sidique Khan & Shezad Tanweer) met on numerous occasions with some of the Crevice lot & it would seem that the whole gang were being watched by the UK security services.
Re the case of Salahuddin Amin, a court order was made by Sir Michael Astill on 28 November 2005 at the Central Criminal Court. At the end of a hearing in camera he ordered:
“… for reasons of national security and the avoidance of harm to the due administration of justice, this court will sit in camera for those parts of the trial and the pre-trial process during which there is any evidence given or any reference made to evidence, information or argument which relates to the material disclosed by the prosecution by a notice dated …”
He went on to add:
“… general publication of the relevant parts of it [torture of Salahuddin Amin] could give rise to a substantial risk to national security. Additionally it could obstruct the identification of… those who it is in the public interest should be tried. … The importance of the principle of open justice and the special function of the media are acknowledged, but the grave risk to national security at the present time from potential acts of terrorism and the likely obstruction both to the identification of perpetrators and to the bringing to justice those who are identified are so real that an exceptional course is justified. Departure from the principle must be the minimum necessary to achieve the objective.”
So the true shenanigans & ramifications of the torture of Salahuddin Amin (with the UK security services/crown using the ‘evidence’ extracted( was all hidden behind in camera court proceedings.
Note how the Astill gives the paltry excuse that it is/was all done in pursuit of ‘the principle of open justice‘ and for reasons of ‘national security‘!
Note also that Mohamed Junaid Babar, the US AQ ‘supergrass’, who facilitated the Crevice lot & others is now a free man………….
Iain Orr
old civil service habits die hard-‘submission’ in triplicate.
I shouldn’t take it too hard. I despair of some of the posts here. I wonder why some people feel compelled to hang their coats on to Craig Murray’s peg quite so steadfastly. Why not just have your own blog. I suspect the answer is that no one would bother to read a blog consisting entirely of spite, or obsessive repetition, as a great deal of the comments here do.
I guess it is to do with a submerged desire to be taken seriously as a dissident voice.It’s that or futile nit -picking.
On the other hand there is the occasional rough diamond window of insight.
i read the wikipedia entry on Patrick Haseldine,presumably self-authored. I found it almost painful to read, with its acts of self-flagellation buried within a scream of suppressed fury. A fury expressed in careful civil service prose.There is the making of a great Shakespearean character in there, although Caliban, released from servitude but hellbent on revenge, somehow springs to mind.
Mr Goss
““And with any luck, Mr Goss, I’ll be sitting next to you when you resit history and geography – your post on the “indigenous inhabitants of the Falkland Islands” refers.”
Noddy, seriously, no idea what you are talking about. Does anybody?”
________________
Then let me help you (and then go and see a doctor about the steps you can take to help ward off memory loss).
It was when you were castigating the UK’s colonisation of the Falklands thaat you mentioned that the British threw out (you may even have said exterminated) the “indigenous population of the Falklands”.
No such “indigenous population” existed. Perhaps for the simple reason that the Falklands were uninhabited at the time.
Hope that helps, Mr Goss.
“Do you know those figures, Mr Goss?”
No, tell me.
“The Treaty of Rapallo was not a secret Treaty, Mr Goss.”
Yes it was for a day or two. Read up Noddy.
“Noddy, seriously, no idea what you are talking about. Does anybody?”
________________
Then let me help you (and then go and see a doctor about the steps you can take to help ward off memory loss).
It was when you were castigating the UK’s colonisation of the Falklands thaat you mentioned that the British threw out (you may even have said exterminated) the “indigenous population of the Falklands”.
No such “indigenous population” existed. Perhaps for the simple reason that the Falklands were uninhabited at the time.”
……………………………………………………………………….
Habbabkuk, you need to look this up. You will find you are wrong.
KingOfWelshNoir –
Great piece, i wish to join those in appreciation of it.
They not only make us watch their crimes being carried out ( our rulers in the west ) but we are also Forced participants / actors, in some kind of helpless mode. it comes into our personal lives, when we try to correct some peoples utterance’s, Planted by the bbc, MsM, Ect
Further to Mr Goss’s “John Goss Moment” regarding the “secret” nature of the Treaty of Rapallo:
The Treaty of Rapallo, negotiated on 16 April 1922 by FMs Chicherin and Rathenau, was soooo secret that it was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 19 September 1923.
Perhaps it was a secret public Treaty, or alternatively a public secret Treaty.
Chump!
““The Treaty of Rapallo was not a secret Treaty, Mr Goss.”
Yes it was for a day or two. Read up Noddy.”
_______________
Wow, a secret Treaty for “a day or two”.
That’s really secret.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
re the non-existent “indigenous population of the Falklands”:
“Habbabkuk, you need to look this up. You will find you are wrong.”
_______________
I recall that your Moment was noticed by a couple of other commenters, Mr Goss.
But thanks for your Soviet-style blank denial.
Habbabkuk, if you are struggling to find a source for the secret treaty of Rapallo, try E. H. Carr’s multi-volume classic “A History of the Soviet Revolution”. Of course since the opening of the Kremlin archives more has come to light. There’s also Stephanie C. Salzmann’s Rapallo and After, 1922-1934, which makes a good case for why all the speculation about the Treaty was hogwash, but whether it was or not, I hold reservations. Historians have certainly argued that it did influence foreign policy. It probably did. But as I am sure you are aware it was really the treaty of Versailles in 1919 that did the damage.
Deepgreenpuddock @ 12.38 am: I apologise for my triplicate posting – I had not realised that we had moved on to the next page of posts after the initial 200 and so thought my comments had not registered.
I still welcome comments, especially from Giyane and those who agree with him/her.
@Habbabkuk :
— – – – – – – – – –
But these are our Official Friends – people with whom we bomb and invade other countries, presumably because we share the same values and goals. If our own “friends” won’t listen to us, when we plead for restraint (or at least decency, or at the very least, observance of International Law), how can we expect Official Enemies to consider our pleas?
H: “There should be no need to distinguish if you and others of your persuasion are truly interested in human rights and freedoms, which are supposed to be universal and indivisible, are they not?”
To an entirely objective outside observer, no. But we’re talking about citizens of the country doing the violations of said human rights. They will surely carry more weight, than some complete outsider. Particularly when these critics get to vote.
H: “Feel free to explain why killing off a goodly percentage of the population of a foreign country is morally different to killing off a goodly percentage of your own country’s population.”
Heck, I wouldn’t like to advance any such notion. But when it’s us doing the killing, I feel even more personally affronted when they strut around, telling me that it’s in my name, “keeping us safe”, and making large amounts of personal wealth while they’re at it.
It’s closer to home – that’s why I feel more willing, able and indeed obliged to criticise.
I’m genuinely puzzled at your remarks about China’s “Great Leap Forward”. Does anyone here act as an apologist for Mao? Not wishing to fall into the trap set for KOWN, but “we” don’t love communist China’s actions, nor those of the Soviet Union’s Stalin, nor have we any need to apologise for them ourselves. They were actions of madmen, war criminals, dictators, savage genocidal mass murderers who’s names live among the worst people ever to beset humanity.
Does anyone here on the lefty persuasion try to excuse the evil actions of “Red” China? Do they have anything but massive sympathy for Tibet?
If you genuinely feel these are misplaced sympathies of “the left”, I have to say you are completely wrong – you are actually condemning an entire liberal, progressive movement based on stereotypes and supposed sympathies which do not exist. Very old and painstakingly established stereotypes, at that.
I cannot trace the origins of the dispute – on this thread – about the “indigenous inhabitants” of the Falklands. However, I would be surprised if anyone could provide evidence that there were any such people. There are disputes about various visitors/ colonisers, all of European rather than indigenous South American origin, and the bearing that has on the UK/Argentine argument over sovereignty. To my mind the UK claim is the stronger, but it’s still a story of European adventurers disputing who first pinched/pssessed an uninhabited archipelago situated off South America.
Well,both of them look about 23 to me, and after 35 years, maybe 37..touching 40..and in the pub, this bloke said to me..are you The Bass Player’s Son? I said how on Earth Can I be The Bass Player’s Son..I am 10 Years Older Than Him.
And I ain’t joking.
i think its a love thing..a purity thing a music thing. it keeps us humans young.
just don’t betray. be honest. tell the truth. just do the best you can.try and make people happy with a bit of love and a smile and an outrageous joke that just cuts through all the lies and evil.
Stand up and be Proud with Your friends and Try and Do Good.
Then You Too have found God.
Tony
@RD “You really do lack intellectual honesty regarding the straw man you have created regarding my position and continue to promote. “the proposition advanced by Res Dis that those who condemned it in some countries but not others must therefore agree with it.” are your words and not mine.”
That must be a double-intellectual honesty violation from you, then, because you know full well the sly, lazy implication that by not constantly decrying the Soviet Union/Russia/ every last human rights violation anywhere, then liberals/ progressives by default condone it – if the government concerns just claims to be socialist.
“Turn a blind eye”, whatever – you know the dishonest imputation, and it is absolutely intended. And you complain about a “straw man” and whine about “intellectual honesty”? Unbelievable. Good thing there are words about such as “chutzpah”, to encapsulate your way.
What is up with you apologists for torture and imperial warmongering? If a family member of yours glasses a bystander in a pub, would you refer any complainants to some murderous thug from (say) south America, and question why we fail to treat all crimes equally? Doubt if it would get you far. But here, it clouds the issue wonderfully.
We’re talking about -us- and our closest allies. People we have responsibility for, and who – in name – represent us. Nice try on blowing smoke about Mao and Stalin, but we’re talking about the here and now. And us. And our elected representatives.
Aww, F-off Tony would you, please? Just do the right thing for a change.
Picking up scattered references to China and the great man-made famine of the mid-1950s, that for me is one of the 20th century’s highlights of inhumanity, as was Hitler’s Holocaust, Stalin’s killing of Russians he did not like … and many other less iconic examples.
The point, however, about such crimes is not whether they were committed against fellow-countrymen or not (see a comment by Habbabkuk) but what responsibility the international community – if such exists (I often doubt it)- has to object (well-intentioned bloggers) or intervene (well-armed troops). In democracies we are responsible for what the governments we elect do. Let’s concentrate on that rather than letting off self-rightous farts against countries that are not our allies and in which we have no votes
@Iain Orr : “ In democracies we are responsible for what the governments we elect do. Let’s concentrate on that rather than letting off self-rightous farts against countries that are not our allies and in which we have no votes”
Indeed – particularly when such crimes occurred many decades before some of us here were even born.
You see, I don’t really care if all these evil people have read all my messages on my mobile phone, and the private messages on facebook and the public messages on facebook and what I write and what I say in any place in the world. I am not afraid of any of them..
Sure I may get things wrong, I may make mistakes…but have any of you cunts watching me(you must be joking) – have you seen My Birds? If you have such miserable lives that you are being paid to actually watch or read what I might say..and had such a Brilliant Day..as Today??
No, Well Fuck Off Then. We are Doing O.K.
Tony
Iain Orr
Let me remind you of the Joint House of Commons Committee on Torture to which Craig gave evidence.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/152/9042803.htm
“Q100 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I ought to declare an interest. Together with Sir Samuel Silkin, the then Attorney General, I appeared as counsel in Ireland v UK in which we gave an undertaking to the European Court of Human Rights that the British Government would never again use torture or inhuman or degrading treatment following what had happened in Northern Ireland. In the documents that you were given, including Sir Michael Wood’s advice, did you see anything to indicate that there was a positive obligation on the United Kingdom to take steps to minimise the risks of torture?”
These two highly respected and experienced gentlemen were giving the same account of where FCO policy stood on torture prior to Tony Blair and Jack Straw.
In the so-called war on terror, George Bush indicated that those guidelines were to be scrapped. Firstly there was to be an expectation that US allies unquestioningly accept US strategy and secondly anybody who was not included in that strategy was potentially an enemy combatant and their rights under existing international law were cancelled in the context of the war on terror.
My question to you therefore is whether you personally accepted the fact that Tony Blair and Jack Straw had unilaterally agreed to George Bush’s new ground rules. Craig clearly couldn’t accept that a reversal of commonsense and human justice had been imposed by headless chicken politicians who knew nothing about international law.
Imaginary Lines – CIA Torture Works to Produce Lies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKjjHuqPHN4
This thread has certainly moved on!
Thank you, Iain, for clarifying a few things for the sceptics. I could tell where you are coming from – anyone has worked in a middle management position in an organisation knows that you are generally kept in the dark about the strategic side of things and are deliberately kept less than fully informed, otherwise your tactical approach could be confused/overloaded/blighted/whatever. I also get it about the “organisational culture”, and the need to fit in, literally to “shape up”… or get a hard time.
The matter of the Falkland Islands is a complex one. Even before I knew about The Chagos Islanders, I thought this was more complex than meets the eye… this was the British Empire’s base in the South Atlantic, and why we should still feel the need to control shipping through The Cape or export of explosives raw materials from Chile was a mystery to me in 1982, although I never dared to articulate my concerns in the jingoistic climate (understandably) nurtured by the government of the day. However, the rights of the Falkland Islanders, as British citizens, did need to be taken into account… little did we know about the plight of the Chagos Islanders at that time, otherwise the word Hypocracy would have been flying high. Maybe it was in the rest of the world, and that’s why we only got 3 or 4 votes in favour at the UN. Anyway… enough said on that one. Bit of a diversion really from current events.
Back to current events… you may all be aware of this:
http://rt.com/usa/214967-obama-sign-sanctions-russia/
(more sanctions asap)
If we discount the notion that the US is an illogical destructive killing machine, the only way recent US behaviour (with compliant EU) can be explained is in economic terms as a rearguard action against the new economic order. I know little about economics, but the term I’ve just been introduced to is “Special Drawing Rights” (SDR), and its inevitability via the IMF. This was my introduction:
http://philosophyofmetrics.com/2014/01/21/sdrs-and-the-new-bretton-woods-part-one/
Could anyone here who is anything of an economist explain whether this is correct, because:
1. there is no way that US is going to accept this…
2. I thought the EU was aligned with IMF; in which case why are they so strenuously supporting the US line resisting change?
This seems like a perfect storm, and people need to know.
@Habby: I am not being cute! If you aren’t prepared to reveal how you feel that’s your privilege. However, if you are against torture, what do you think should happen to those who sanction and enable it. Should they get:
a. A tax break
b. A position in government
c. A lengthy spell in jail
Peacewisher
Can’t help with Economics. but the new santions will be The second provocative anti-Russian legislation in a week, after the fabrications contained in H, Res 758 was passed Last week.
Re the Sanctions you linked to –
” Read the legislation, which Congress apparently didn’t.
As reported on GlobalSecurity.org, earlier that same day in Kiev, the Ukrainian parliament approved a security plan that will:
1. Declare that Ukraine should become a “military state.”
2. Reallocate more of its approved 2014 budget for military purposes.
3. Put all military operating units on alert.
4. Mobilize military and national guard units.
5. Increase military spending in Ukraine from 1 percent of GDP to 5 percent, increasing military spending by $3 billion over the next few years.
6. Join NATO and switch to NATO military standards.
Under the guise of democratizing, the West stripped Ukraine of its sovereignty with a U.S.-backed coup, employed it as a foil to advance NATO to the Russian border and reignited the Cold War, complete with another nuclear showdown.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-on-a-war-footing-three-members-of-congress-just-reignited-the-cold-war-while-no-one-was-looking/5420146
on torture and Censorship,
Very good interview here –
Abby Martin interviews investigative journalist, Nafeez Ahmed, about what was not discussed in the torture report and his claims of censorship at the Guardian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbe43yjTLnY
The troll’s response
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/12/weasel-words/comment-page-1/#comment-496650 to my comment was as predictable as Obomber’s to Peshawar.
11 ‘militants’ including 4 ‘Taleban’ have been killed by drone in Afghanistan. Sky Newa.
The troll has been leaving a large quantity of chaff on this thread as per usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)
First of all I want to be clear that I condemn torture and war-making wherever it is practiced.*
Straw men and nit-picking aside we got through a day and a night without mentioning the straw elephant in global human rights the room. Let me put that right.
Here’s Dr. Ishai Menuhin is the Executive Director of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, and a chairperson for Amnesty International – Israel. “…the occupation requires the use of prohibited means, and torture “for occupation – each occupation – has its own principles,” as the Israeli writer S. Yizhar noted as early as 1967, “but there are no and have never been lovable occupiers.” It is not possible to be a democracy today without a staunch commitment to human rights. The government’s convoluted replies are given in order to hide its use of torture, and attempt to prevent any meaningful change in Israel’s attitude toward Palestinian human rights.”
http://972mag.com/legal-experts-cannot-erase-israels-history-of-torture/97979/
* Let’s not forget the Kibozraarg of Splatagon 4 and their “Great Ooze Ahead”.
The Daily Mail isn’t letting it go at any rate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2876925/Now-Blair-s-Iraq-aide-wants-judge-led-torture-probe-senior-Labour-figures-pile-pressure-Miliband-insist-formal-inquiry-needed-truth.html
And see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7891197/Memos-reveal-Tony-Blair-accepted-Guantanamo-rendition.html
“Tony Blair expressly ordered [then Foreign Secretary] Jack Straw to violate the law, and refuse to help British nationals who were being detained across the world by the United States. He expressly sanctioned the rendition of British citizens.
“These are people who, after years of abuse, were never charged with any wrongdoing. This was a betrayal, pure and simple, of both the men and of any moral principle.”