This may be the most important article I ever post, because it reveals perfectly how the Establishment works and how the Red Tories and Blue Tories contrive to give a false impression of democracy. It is information I can only give you because of my experience as an insider.
It is a definitive proof of the validity of the Chomskian propaganda model. It needs a fair bit of detail to do this, but please try and read through it because it really is very, very important. After you have finished, if you agree with me about the significance, please repost, (you are free to copy), retweet, add to news aggregators (Reddit etc) and do anything you can to get other people to pay attention.
The government based its decision to execute by drone two British men in Syria on “Legal Opinion” from the Attorney-General for England and Wales, Jeremy Wright, a politician, MP and Cabinet Minister. But Wright’s legal knowledge comes from an undistinguished first degree from Exeter and a short career as a criminal defence barrister in Birmingham. His knowledge of public international law is virtually nil.
I pause briefly to note that there is no pretence of consulting the Scottish legal system. The only legal opinion is from the Attorney General for England and Wales who is also Honorary Advocate General for Northern Ireland.
So Jeremy Wright’s role is as a cypher. He performs a charade. The government employs in the FCO a dozen of the most distinguished public international lawyers in the world. When the Attorney-General’s office needs an Opinion on public international law, they ask the FCO to provide it for him to sign.
The only known occasion when this did not happen was the Iraq War. Then the FCO Legal Advisers – unanimously – advised the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, that to invade Iraq was illegal. Jack Straw asked the Attorney General to dismiss the FCO chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood (Goldsmith refused). Blair sent Goldsmith to Washington where the Opinion was written for him to sign by George Bush’s lawyers. [I know this sounds incredible, but it is absolutely true]. Sir Michael Wood’s deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned in protest.
In consequence Blair and Straw decided that, again for the first time ever, the FCO’s chief legal adviser had to be appointed not from within the FCO legal advisers, who had all declared the war on Iraq to be illegal, but from outside. They had to find a distinguished public international lawyer who was prepared to argue that the war on Iraq had been legal. That was a very small field. Blair and Straw thus turned to Benjamin Netanyahu’s favourite lawyer, Daniel Bethlehem.
Daniel Bethlehem had represented Israel before the Mitchell Inquiry into violence against the people of Gaza, arguing that it was all legitimate self-defence. He had also supplied the Government of Israel with a Legal Opinion that the vast Wall they were building in illegally occupied land, surrounding and isolating all the major Palestinian communities and turning them into large prisons, was also legal. Daniel Bethlehem is an extreme Zionist militarist of the most aggressive kind, and close to Mark Regev, Israel’s new Ambassador to the UK.
Daniel Bethlehem had developed, in his work for Israel, an extremist doctrine of the right of States to use pre-emptive self-defence – a doctrine which would not be accepted by the vast majority of public international lawyers. He clinched his appointment by Blair as the FCO chief legal adviser by presenting a memorandum to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in 2004 outlining this doctrine, and thus de facto defending the attack on Iraq and the Bush/Blair doctrine.
A key sentence of Daniel Bethlehem’s memorandum is this
“It must be right that states are able to act in self-defence in circumstances where there is evidence of further imminent attacks by terrorist groups, even if there is no specific evidence of where such an attack will take place or of the precise nature of the attack.”
There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. How can you be certain that an attack in “imminent”, if you are not certain where or what it is? Even if we can wildly imagine a scenario where the government know of an “imminent” attack, but not where or what it is, how could killing someone in Syria stop the attack in the UK? If a team were active, armed and in course of operation in the UK – which is needed for “imminent” – how would killing an individual in Syria prevent them from going through with it? It simply does not add up as a practical scenario.
Interestingly, Daniel Bethlehem does not pretend this is accepted international law, but specifically states that
“The concept of what constitutes an “imminent” armed attack will develop to meet new circumstances and new threats”
Bethlehem is attempting to develop the concept of “imminent” beyond any natural interpretation of the word “imminent”.
Daniel Bethlehem left the FCO in 2011. But he had firmly set the British government doctrine on this issue, while all FCO legal advisers know not to follow it gets you sacked. I can guarantee you that Wright’s Legal Opinion states precisely the same argument that David Bethlehem stated in his 2004 memorandum. Knowing how these things work, I am prepared to wager every penny I own that much of the language is identical.
It was New Labour, the Red Tories, who appointed Daniel Bethlehem, and they appointed him precisely in order to establish this doctrine. It is therefore a stunning illustration of how the system works, that the only response of the official “opposition” to these extrajudicial executions is to demand to see the Legal Opinion, when it comes from the man they themselves appointed. The Red Tories appointed him precisely because they knew what Legal Opinion would be given on this specific subject. They can read it in Hansard.
So it is all a charade.
Jeremy Wright pretends to give a Legal Opinion, actually from FCO legal advisers based on the “Bethlehem Doctrine”. The Labour Party pretends, very unconvincingly, to be an opposition. The Guardian, apparently the leading “opposition” intellectual paper, publishes articles by its staff neo-con propagandists Joshua Rozenberg (married to Melanie Phillips) and Rafael Behr strongly supporting the government’s new powers of extrajudicial execution. In summer 2012 Joshua Rozenberg presented a programme on BBC Radio 4 entitled “Secret courts, drones and international law” which consisted mostly of a fawning interview with … Daniel Bethlehem. The BBC and Sky News give us wall to wall justification of the killings.
So the state, with its neo-con “opposition” and media closely in step with its neo-con government, seamlessly adopts a new power to kill its own subjects based on secret intelligence and secret legal advice, and a very weird definition of “imminent” that even its author admits to be outside current legal understanding.
That is how the state works. I do hope you find that helpful.
This article has been updated to reflect the fact the Daniel Bethlehem is now retired from the FCO.
There seems to be a little confusion as to the timing of Bethlehem’s involvement. While his 2004 memorandum offers a post facto ‘justification’ for the war, according to this:
http://opiniojuris.org/2015/02/17/guest-post-chilcot-inquiry-part-publication-saga-official-history/
…although considered* –
http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/43716/document2010-01-27-100801.pdf
– as a legal camouflage expert (and he certainly is that) by Blair and Straw, he was not actually approached before the invasion. He was only appointed by Blair in 2006, and left in 2011.
*As was the input of Sam Wordsworth, here seen firing on all four as he sidelines international law for Israel (par 17) and the UK’s acquiescence in its barbarities.
http://www.adminlaw.org.uk/docs/05%2004%202011%20by%20Wordsworth.pdf
Maynon2013
10 Sep, 2015 – 12:00 am
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20130630.php?t=Conditioning You can choose between blue cloth and red cloth, and that is about all
__________
Brilliant Maynon! And highly contextual.
Have a good day.
do ‘watchers’ with muddy boots visit parliamentarians?
There are serious claims that the Wilson Doctrine is today abrogated (keeping members’ of the UK Houses of Parliament communications sacrosanct)
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/09/09/cameron-refuses-to-confirm-whether-security-services-are-spy
Does this further imply that much of the UK is no-longer a parliamentary democracy but tending to a security/executive dictatorship?
Thank you for this. I have shared it elsewhere.
It is terrifying to listen, currently, to the claptrap and actual lies coming from Cameron, Osborne and other Conservatives. Their only plan is to get involved in Syria. Cameron, at PMQs yesterday, insisted that the “cause” was Assad. Right now in Syria from the group the UK chose to back against Assad has come another branch of ISIS. That’s who, essentially, Cameron wants to back. It is madness.
Murder is happening on all sides in Syria. ISIS were executing civilians in the streets for being loyal to Assad. They were attacking Christians who, traditionally, backed Assad.
We need it all to stop. The “causes” Mr Cameron chooses to overlook include major UK interference in the Middle East across decades. That is why the UK has come to be hated, despised and not trusted. UK actions were a recruiting tool for ISIS in my view. They helped to “radicalise” people. And still Cameron won’t stop doing the same things that will only make matters worse.
The UN is seventy years old this year. My view is that, rather than individual countries doing different things on Syria, the UN must lead and I would put the Arab Countries at the centre of discussions, including Assad as leader of Syria. I’d include Hamas too. Just because Western governments don’t like Hamas doesn’t give them the right to ignore them. That’s the problem. Cameron actually said yesterday that what we had to do was remove Assad and “put in place” another government in Syria. So, more regime change then eh? We simply don’t have the right to remove people that way. What does Cameron (or Blair) think gives them the right to do that? That right doesn’t exist.
Another incisive piece by Craig Murray. This game is sickening and the fact that Labour is in it up to its grubby little neck is disgusting. Let’s hope Corbyn sweeps some of this crap away.
Ba’al Zevul,
I don’t think I implied that Bethlehem was approached by Blair before the invasion. The invasion – and the refusal of FCO Legal Advisers to back it – led them to bring in an outsider with a “robust” approach to pre-emptive self-defence doctrine
Personally, I have no complaints about Judaism,
I just report here confusion in the USA – about the Israeli military secret operation(*) which involved NUMEC (the Pennsylvania-based Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation) – ‘stealing’ or perhaps ‘diverting’ 337 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium (around 22 nuclear weapons) to Israel – leaving behind today still such a large amount of unresolved nuclear waste that the US taxpayer will eventually have to spend more than $400M cleaning everything up!
As for any illegality, the docs reveal that the FBI was trying to convict people, but the CIA was actively blocking many things in those days. This seems not to be a conspiracy theory, the FOI documents reveal briefings to former Apollo Astronaut Senator John Glenn in 1977, I did not search for the K word.
(*) according to FOIA releases from the intelligence community [140 redacted pages pdf] http://www.irmep.org/pdf/08312015_cia_numec.pdf
sorry that this link doesn’t connect much *directly* to the Red Tories or the Blue tories, other than retrospectively seeming to highlight nuclear terrorism in the 1960s, and a key player with hindsight.
I wonder if Daniel Bethlehem has advised ‘lightly’ on the terms of use for their presumed weapons of mass destruction, as well as the drones?
“I’m sorry, are we not into taking account of what Craig has just said?”
Craig was talking about the justification of self defence for a state in international law. Not domestic British law.
Craig.
Your excellent piece has now been published in our counterculture paper IT.
http://internationaltimes.it/exclusive-i-can-reveal-the-legal-advice-on-drone-strikes-and-how-the-establishment-work/
“That is how the state works. I do hope you find that helpful.”
I found it very informative, thank you. It is also deeply disturbing, not least because it demonstrates the trap we are all in. The only way to return to the rule of law is to throw the whole lot of them out, politicos and corrupt civil servants. But the system is so rotten that most decent people don’t even consider putting themselves forward. If they do, they rarely get jobs and get corrupted by the system if they do. Similarly, they rarely get elected and end up consigned to the back-benches as the one or two permanent members of the “awkward squad” if they do. We are in a vicious cycle downward into hell.
Here’s what I dun ritted on the I.C.H. – in other words, what I could figure out for myself without the expert-insider information provided by C.M. I include it for the simple reason that I don’t understand why everybody can’t figure it out for themselves:
“One of the amazing things about this extra-judicial killing is that it has been committed by people who (in the case of British politicians) claim not to believe in the death penalty. Yet people have been killed not just without fair trial, but without charge, without seeing the evidence against them, without access to even a third-rate lawyer and without even the pretence of due process of any kind – essentially just on the basis of accusation.
“The accusation of “imminent threat” is made by people (British politicos) who visibly dissemble every time they are seen to speak, yet people seem to accept it without question. So am I the only person who wonders exactly what imminent threat these people posed to Britain or Britons while they were in Syria? Surely to do damage in Britain they need personnel, arms and explosives in Britain. Are those personnel and weapons still on the loose somewhere or did they never exist at all? Why anybody takes Cameron and his ilk seriously I don’t know. This whole operation turns centuries of legal protection for the citizen against the State on its head and the mass of the population don’t even seem to notice.
“What’s more, it occurred on the territory of a sovereign state which has made it clear that it doesn’t want foreign planes operating in its country without permission! Welcome to the future folks – one day it will be our turn.”
And from C.M., above:
“There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. How can you be certain that an attack in “imminent”, if you are not certain where or what it is?”
Well, quite; the same thing applied to “weapons of mass destruction”. Leaving aside that their existence didn’t constitute a cause for war in the first place (a fact never mentioned by those who claim they were duped into supporting the Iraqi disaster) if they were so sure they existed, they must have known where they were – especially since they were supposed to be at 45 minutes readiness. That means that the people charged with launching them regularly drill. That generates radio traffic. Unfortunately, most of our brothers and sisters are, in these matters, manipulated using the same subliminal techniques applied to get them to buy soap powder and cornflakes. The technique clearly still works, since they are still using it and getting away with it. I often wonder what the Blairs, the Camerons, the Cleggs, Toynbees etc. say to each other when they are behind closed doors and the champagne corks start to pop. How does it feel to be laughed at by that shower?
“Are you saying that the UK can legally kill anybody in any war zone in the world?”
If they can show they are armed combatants in an opposing force yes they can. I’m just surprised you somehow think they wouldn’t be. That’s how it’s always been isn’t it?
Firstly how can Cameron justify the huge expense of deploying a drone to murder just 3 combatants whose threat to the UK was already redundant?
Can we now confine him to a mental institution on Bethlehem’s premise that his descent into dementia is now “imminent” requiring “pre-emptive” confinement and treatment because he is such a threat to the rest of society?
Understood, Craig. Just thought that your piece could have been read as implying otherwise. TY.
Lets face it the Rev 2:9 mob is upon us, led by a son-in-law firmly ensconsed in 10 Downing. The only way is down, babies !
The genesis of CIA & NATO annihilation, slaughter and deracination of Syria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nnJt-eW5BhY
Syria – another take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FislQwhKuhg
Baal – yes, I have changed “was” to “had been” in the text which I think makes the chronology now unambiguous. Thanks.
Let’s drone Bethlehem!
The people must strike back to pre-empt the destruction of British parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, such as it is these dsts by Cameron and his red blue toxic Tories.
Are you saying that the UK can legally kill anybody in any war zone in the world?
If they can show they are armed combatants in an opposing force yes they can.
But does the UK need to be a declared participant in the war? Are you saying that the UK can legally kill an ISIS member in the Yemen, for example?
I’m just surprised you somehow think they wouldn’t be.
FOAD, YR. Don’t make personal comments about me.
Now Russia is going to give Cameron a lesson in self defence.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/russian-military-buildup-continues-in-syria/6764670
The only person not allowed to defend himself is Assad. Wonderful thing international Law
This how the echo chamber works; first one rouge nation sets a gobbledygook “principle” as standard then it is followed by others, and in no time it is passed as “international law”.
The “independent” Aussies have now sent a message to the UN;
The legal three card trick is played thus;
Note the farticles headline; Syria air strikes legally sound
“But does the UK need to be a declared participant in the war? Are you saying that the UK can legally kill an ISIS member in the Yemen, for example?”
Britain is a declared participant in this conflict. We have already declared we will protect British assets in Iraq, I think we would all agree we have a duty to protect the civilians in Iraq and we are declared allies of the Kurdish forces.
Hope you have my BCTs ready.
Craig.
Surely an aware man such as yourself must have noticed your “tail/s by now?
Muddy boots? Over the back fence? Have the flat “swept”.
Imminent; looking for snow when there is none falling!
They are not so bold when you have an independent witness with you, I have found.
The “click” on my phone does not kick in for a few seconds after I have been connected.
I tried to get Common Space to print up Murdoch’s involvement in Genie Oil, without success, also to print up Ineos Upstream’s demonstrations in Community centres throughout central Scotland, to get us to accept “Fracking”, again without success.
When my local Conservative councillor’s wife and daughter walk past with their dogs, I think I will walk close behind them, just to put an extra shilling on my insurance policy. ( what is that buzzing sound above me?).
______________________________
Maynon2013.
I have said for years that we get to vote and that is all. After that they do as they please with us.
Fortunately, they are few and the poor are many. If they go too far, the poor may “swarm” all over them.
Yes, Krishnamurti is right.
Have you seen, http://www.who owns the world.com ? Interesting.
[mods: submitted 07:13, recovered from spam filter]
I like the new Law but I suspect Israel won’t be too pleased when the friends Palistine realise the new legal opportunitities available to them.
There are some good letters in today’s Guardian. Article 51 of the UN charter is being quoted.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/09/legal-and-moral-questions-about-drone-strikes-in-syria
Richard
10 Sep, 2015 – 10:13 am “I found it very informative, thank you. It is also deeply disturbing, not least because it demonstrates the trap we are all in. The only way to return to the rule of law is to throw the whole lot of them out, politicos and corrupt civil servants. But the system is so rotten that most decent people don’t even consider putting themselves forward.”
etc
…I wonder about this. I wonder how many really know the ins and out’s, I wonder how many are that corrupt, knowingly. Seems to me like it’s a very small amount of people critical to exerting this leverage. I certainly don’t imagine if there was comprehensive knowledge about the details of this mechanism, and people took a position, that they would all have to go. I don’t know about how much politicians actually know, how much they simply don’t consider, or feel forced to go along with. I take it others here have a better idea of the lie of this land inside the system…
It does seem (within the system) like it’s built in a very totalitarian way, whips etc. Craig’s sober reminder about the SNP’s real chances of influence exposed aspects of this also.
I think there are probably a lot more ok people who see themselves as powerless and must fit in/follow orders than I might imagine in my bad moments….
Thanks Harry Law – I need to read up on the topic.
@hasbara has-beens No. 1,943,847,456 – no, i’m not a lawyer but I am a Tory and if there are lawyers available who’ll defend my constituents then i’ll buy them, thanks. Legality is what we can get away with and the sins of the Labour Party don’t transfer to us much like the sins of the father. A lot of this seems like a circle jerk with little to no profit. I’ll read your thing but politics is the art of the pragmatic (in my party, anyway) and international law or domestic law is a vehicle to achieve such ends. 2 dead terrorists and Corbyn coming on Saturday – this is someone else’s argument – i’m buying bunting.
Fred
I don’t know why you’re going on about Iraq. Let me make my question clear.
Suppose Norway and Sweden go to war. The UK is not a participant but it gains intelligence that an IRA member is somewhere within the war zone, plotting to bomb Caithness. Would it be legal for the UK to send in a drone to kill the IRA man?
BCTs? Don’t change the subject.