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.
Fred : To forestall any quibbling :
The IRA man is fighting on the side of the Norwegians and is armed and he’s plotting against Caithness in his spare time.
The latest alert from the Medialens editors on the propaganda contained in the reporting on the war on Yemen.
Invisible War Crimes – The Corporate Media On Yemen
http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/801-invisible-war-crimes-the-corporate-media-on-yemen.html
Richard wrote: “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.”
Anyone who doubts this could be true should do themselves a favour and watch the 2002 television documentary Century of the Self. (View for free at the link.)
From the descriptive blurb about the documentary:
Robert Crawford 7.52 a.m. Excellent book and excellent suggestion. Nietzsche read between 1966 and 69 and this book read in 1990 during a very difficult time were key points in a complex life.
Node
Did the IRA man in Norway/Sweden have a “comfort letter” from Blair?
Do the UNSC still exist but just say things?
Who do the UK support Norway, Sweden, both, neither?
Have the UK sunk the Norwegian fleet yet?
Is the IRA bomber really an Mi5 agent?
…politics is the art of the pragmatic (in my party, anyway) and international law or domestic law is a vehicle to achieve such ends.
So, regardless of whether or not you agree with Craig, principle has no place in your party? It doesn’t influence, or can be discarded in favour of, the pragmatic solution? ‘”Do what thou wilt” shall be the whole of the law?’ And our solution to terrorism is state terrorism. That fits.
Peter Beswick : Is the IRA bomber really an Mi5 agent?
I’m the only one left in the country who isn’t an Mi5 agent, and if I was I’d deny it.
The labourship leader contest has ended with these words by Rowena Mason in the Guardian:
Sources in the campaigns believe it is possible Cooper or Burnham could still win if Corbyn gets less than 40% of first preference votes, although the last YouGov poll suggested the frontrunner could even get more than 50% in the first round.
If Corbyn gets less than half the votes, the second preferences of voters for the candidate in last position – likely to be Kendall – would be split among the other contenders.
At this point, either Cooper or Burnham would be knocked out for being in third place and the second preferences of their supporters distributed. It would then be down to a head-to-head between Corbyn and the remaining candidate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/09/new_isc_committee_announced/
He’s not? But contracting out our legal advice (in order to get a favourable answer) is the way to go, it appears.
The serial God deniers can come up with disingenous endless arguments, a Judge Hellerstein in NY even once ruled Iran was responsible for 911 (followed by an order on its asset) as OBL had once transited Tehran airport ! The basis behind such Bethlehem/Rozenburg ludicrous legal pronouncments is of course the T word.
Plus these two Glenn, announced earlier today on the ISC website, linked to yesterday.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) to move that this House approves the nomination of Lord Janvrin and the Marquess of Lothian as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Janvrin,_Baron_Janvrin ex the Palace!!
The Marquess of Lothian aka Michael Ancram.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ancram
No boat rockers there then.
“I’m not going to contract out our counter-terrorism policy to someone else.”
Which is the same secrecy that gave him permission to kill two UK citizens abroad. You want to know what intelligence there was linking these two (three and may be more) murders? None. None whatsoever. It is a clear fabrication by Cameron and his cronies to get us involved in bombing Syria despite parliament having voted against it.
The depths of their depravity is unfathomable.
PS Re Janvrin
‘On 7 January 2008 he took up his appointment of Deputy Chairman, HSBC Private Bank (UK). Janvrin is also Chairman of The Leadership Council, a research and thought leadership body in the UK.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leadership_Council A further list of some gangsters-in-charge.
Michael Ancram, lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ancram
Bullingdon Club, Henry Jackson Society. As a member of the ‘Top Level Group of UK Parliamentarians for Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation’, his views on replacing Trident will be of interest. But probably not revolutionary.
Craig, at 10:15pm, yesterday. Yes, this seems very like some of the things described by Roderick Russell. Perhaps, as a suitable riposte, you might want to leave a tin of black shoe polish outside your front door with a note saying, “Next time you want to send me a message, please polish your shoes first”.
Don’t forget to take a close-up photo of the treads. Feel free to post the photo on your blog. Is there anyone who could take a mould? Perhaps someone, somewhere could trace the make and model, and the weight of the person wearing them, CSI-style? The mud too could be analysed, if there are any chemists with equipment. Far-fetched, perhaps, but at least take some photos.
Peter Beswick @ 11-03am “The only person not allowed to defend himself is Assad, wonderful thing International law”. Oh I don’t know, whenever the Lebanese ask the US for arms the US are always forthcoming the US will provide the Lebanese air force with any number of Sopwith Camel fighters. Seriously they did have a couple of 1950’s Hawker Hunter jets available ex RAF. Similarly with the Lebanese army, anything that could in anyway threaten the Zionist state is a no no. This big threat to the US was reported by Reuters… they announced an “exclusive” story about Russia planning to build a “major military base” inside Russia, but not far from the Ukrainian border. Despite referring to it as a “secret” base in the article, they confirm that the information was obtained from publicly available Russian military documents.
And the “major” base? Not so much. The base is described as 300 hectare site, which makes it about 700 acres. By comparison, most “major” US military bases are more than 100,000 acres in size, meaning this new base is less than 1% of that. http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/09/09/reuters-claims-to-uncovers-secret-russian-plan-to-build-military-base-in-russia/ Get under your beds, the Ruskies are coming.
Excellent stuff!
The Inquest, and there has to be one, should prove interesting. Let’s hope the families have the means to be represented.
Mickc
“The Inquest, and there has to be one,”
I’m afraid you are living in the past, that Law doesn’t count anymore.
I am recording this next partly as an act of defiance and partly in case I am found suddenly to have decided to commit suicide or have a heart attack on a mountain.
Only the cold weather will make your teeth chatter Craig and the ‘officer in training’ with muddy boots knows it.
Mary,
I know Robin Janvrin. He’s very pleasant, I know nothing against him.
Craig, the fact that they went to the trouble of tasking one of their ‘performers’ to stalk across your landing in muddy boots suggests that they are acknowledging that you are onto something. So, yet again, you’ve hit a nerve. Somewhere in Vauxhall Cross, there is a (wo)man banging their head on a table and foaming at the mouth. It is almost a recognition of the veracity and acuity of your article. ‘The smoking footprint’, one might term it.
muddy jackboots
An obvious question, obviously, but was there actually any mud at all anywhere near your abode? Or did chummy have a tupperware box of selected mud for intimidating ex-dips in his car? Keep a sample if it happens again (use gloves) – might be interesting!
Ishmael; “I wonder how many are that corrupt, knowingly.”
Corruption is a manifestation of immorality; in the UK it seems that it’s a self-perpetuating cycle in that the Establishment has always been debased, and their example influences/corrupts those that aspire to climb the greasy pole to become part of the Establishment; Tony Blair & David Cameron, and indeed most of the political class, are just normal products of a well developed & refined system, and their self-deluding self-righteousness only amplifies their base hypocrisy; the System turns ambitious % amoral people into venal blood-soaked ghouls, just physical human shells empty of common human decency; occasionally some don’t even bothered to hide behind hypocrisy, as when Alan Clark, British Minister who supplied arms used to kill East Timorese, was asked if it bothered him, he replied “not the slightest”.
The man as a friend/acquaintance is fine maybe but Janvrin’s connections? The royal family, HSBC, the Leadership Council… scream ‘establishment’ and he has passed the Cameron seal of approval to go on the ISC.
He is also chairman of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_Foundation_of_The_Duke_and_Duchess_of_Cambridge_and_Prince_Harry
and I believe there is also a company created to protect their image and copyright in the style of the Beckhams.
What would his likely opinion be on Cameron’s extra-judicial killings?
Yes, DtP, so I surmised, the ethos that you British subjects live by is a tell. It’s also quite pragmatic when you want to fuck prepubescent orphans, isn’t it? Clearly CRC Articles 19 and 34 are what you can get away with, with little diddums’ fanny.
To climb the greasy pole of the Establishment, there is an invisible filtering system.It applies in most Western countries and can be interlinked. Family background, school, University, Club.
Some are picked out at an early age at University for ‘conditioning’ with scholarships in the USA,sponsored by the CIA. The British-American brotherhood and Friends of Israel are such fronts.
Blair, Balls, Millibands .Brown all went this route. Had their brains lobotomized and returned with the Stars n Stripes in place, to do their Masters bidding.
Should they retire or fail, a sinecure is found in the USA,such as David Milliband and Bollox enjoys.
Blair enjoys the fruits of $2 million/year from JP Morgan for services rendered while in power.
“… a tupperware box of selected mud” Ba’al Zevul, at 2:29pm, today.
You can buy this at LIDL.
Recommended reading, if only to get other perspectives. The comments are pretty good too. Which is not to say I agree with any or all of them, but certainly there are some points made which deserve thought.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9628882/on-drone-strikes-david-cameron-is-repeating-tony-blairs-big-mistake/
As Lord Salisbury once remarked, a gram of experience is worth a ton of theory. Before his election, Cameron might have argued that lawyers must approve every step taken in the name of national security and the Parliament needs to vote on any new development. In office, he has found himself fighting a 21st-century war using a charter written in 1945. He can, if he chooses, keep stretching the definition of terms such as ‘directing’ and ‘imminent’ until they snap. Or he can simply say that Britain is at war with the Islamic State, and that people like Reyaad Khan are going to be casualties of that war.
Which is precisely what Cameron’s avoiding. The Yanks are telling him that to acknowledge it as an entity on which he can legitimately declare war, like a state, is not an option. But it’s too late for that. IS IS a state.
Also good for night ops, Suhayl…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/6223949/The-health-benefits-of-Moor-mud.html