Bloggerheads

Scotsman – Taking prisoners to the edge of drowning ‘not torture’ says FO (Sat 11 Mar): Forcing a prisoner’s head under water until they believe they are drowning does not necessarily constitute torture or abusive treatment, the Foreign Office has said. The equivocal statement has fuelled suspicions that Britain is turning a blind eye to practices by its allies that many international lawyers believe are illegal.

Here’s that question and answer in full:

Nicholas Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam, LDem)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the infliction of simulated drowning falls within the definition of torture or cruel and inhumane treatment used by the Government for the purposes of international law.

Ian Pearson (Minister of State (Trade), Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

Whether the conduct described constitutes torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment for the purposes of the UN Convention Against Torture would depend on all the circumstances of the case.

On Sunday, the Mail provided this follow-up: In a slippery attempt to avoid responsibility, the Minister’s statement is now being blamed on the civil servant who drafted it. It is better news that we are promised ‘clarification’ of Mr Pearson’s answer.

Even if this version of events is true, you have to ask yourself what kind of culture would breed a civil servant who considers “Well, it depends…” to be an acceptable answer.

*cough* Jo Moore *cough*

Perhaps this is a question best directed at Ian Pearson. The answer passed through his hands, and he saw nothing wrong with it at the time. Why?

Does he actually believe that sometimes it’s acceptable to (ahem) place a certain level of urgency on questions?

Or perhaps – to enrich the debate – this question could be asked of Charles Clarke. He seems to believe that sometimes it’s acceptable not to place any level of urgency on certain questions…

Rachel North – This is an insult: He didn’t actually say ‘ you lucky people”, Dad said, but that was the inference. Dad was pleased that he could finally ask his M.P, Charles Clarke, the question he has been keen to ask for some months. Dad waited eagerly to ask his question; he had already written to Clarke in December 2005 with his question. But Clarke had not replied. Dad was therefore very keen to be part of what was advertised in the meeting notes as ”30 minutes of reflection” after Clarke spoke. (In these meetings, ”30 minutes of reflection” means ”30 minutes of debate”. But it a clergy meeting, so they all ”reflect”, rather than shout and argue. It’s more dignified and godly, see.) Unusually, according to Dad, on this occasion there was not a debate and questions from the floor, as is usual with these meetings at which Clarke was the special guest today: there were instead only 3 questions which Clarke answered at length, the questions seemed to Dad to be pre-prepared to give Clarke an opportunity to talk about things like prisons and police in a self-congratulatory way. Dad was not able to ask his question, the last question finished and it was announced that there would be Eucharist in 2 minutes. Dad was very angry that ”the Eucharist was being used as a filibuster.” And still he had not had a chance to ask the question that was by now burning him up inside. It was time to break bread together; people began to leave the room. My father tells me he at this point left his seat and strode up to Clarke, because he wanted to ask his question, and he said, ”Congratulations on fixing the meeting so that nobody can ask questions! You will have heard about Rev Julie Nicholson who is so angry she cannot forgive the bombers who killed her daughter on 7th July , well, I have a question, my daughter was feet away from the 7/7 Kings Cross bomb, and she and some other survivors have said they are not angry with the bombers, but with the Government, because there was no public enquiry. Why is there no public enquiry?” Charles Clarke looked at my father ”in a very nasty way”, and then he said to my father; ”Get away from me, I will not be insulted by you, this is an insult.”

Yet more evidence of the vast moral emptiness at the heart of Neo Labour. Charming, to the last.

UPDATE – Chicken Yoghurt – Charles Clarke is unwell

Independent – Back home, but still imprisoned: The shadow of Guantanamo
Sunday Herald – Guantanamo: Three tales of Terror
Guardian Film – The Road to Guantanamo

TONIGHT (March 9): The Road to Guantanamo, Channel 4, 9pm

Plan to see it, plan to tape it, plan to talk about it. Cheers all.

UPDATE – You may wish to register for the Channel 4 forums… even if it’s just to deliver a clue-by-four to lovely people like this.

UPDATE – The clever-clogs who made the witless post I linked to (above) appears to have deleted it… and therefore any reply under it. Good to see that his case for torture is so strong.

UPDATE (10:55pm) – Am I the only one who sat through the middle third gritting my teeth and thinking; “I bet that payback feels reeeeeeeeeeeeal good! Mighty good! Mmmm good!”…?

UPDATE – I must admit to feeling a tad disappointed. I really thought they should have shown a cartoon or two before the movie. Like in the old days.

UPDATE – Hurrah! Clever-clogs (Robert1234) is back and claiming that this movie about Guantanamo will further the cause of terrorism. And, as we all know, nothing that actually happened at Guantanamo (or any of the policies behind it) will further the cause of terrorism. No, it is this movie that is to blame… just as we are to blame for all of the failures in Iraq for not closing our mouths, clapping our hands and believing in the Freedom Fairies. (Oh, and if you’re not up to speed on his blabbering about a copy of the Koran that didn’t actually make it all the way around the S-bend, simply click here and here.)

UPDATE – Eventually, this discussion spread into a number of separate threads; I’ve posted them below for ready-reference:

C4’s Guantanamo lies
Guantanamo
guantanamo doco
Road to Guantanamo
The Road To Guantanamo (I)
The Road To Guantanamo (II)
Questions about The Road To Guantanamo

One of the threads leads us to this charmer:

Free Market Fairy Tales – The Road to Guantanamo & other fictions: The casting director must have searched long & hard to find the actors that played the US Marine Corps characters, all of whom aside from carrying the wrong personal weapons & appearing to be distinctly uncomfortable in their uniforms, looked as though they had never done any exercise in their lives. Even better was the British military intelligence officer whose beret was so badly shaped, it would have landed him on a charge, aside from the fact he was wearing the wrong beret! Nice attention to detail Mr Winterbottom, but we should expect no less, for scumbag apologists for the terrorist fan club.

(Note – I’ve been meaning to look into the role played by British intelligence; especially given the pre-credit message in the film stating that a US officer had since claimed to have been the chap ‘mistaken’ for British intelligence. Mostly, I wonder if *he* wore the right beret, and if it was properly shaped.)

That post leads us to this stitch-ripper; a glorious “Look! Over there!” moment:

Conservative Party Reptile – Self-loathing, wilful blindness: Obviously, American stories receive greater coverage, but it is sickeningly hypocritical for bien pensant opinion to castigate Guantanamo Bay as the ‘gulag of our time’ when abuses that are infinitely worse on every conceivable level pass calmly and smugly beneath the media radar.

It seems that concepts such as personal responsibility and moral authority are alien to some people.

Also, a lot of effort seems to have gone into assurances and/or questions of guilt… which is kind of funny, because this was also the response of the two governments that released these men without charge.

Not that their being guilty would have made their treatment acceptable… but some people do seem to hold the view that sometimes you have to torture bad people. And sometimes you even have to torture good people to find the bad people. And, sometimes, a fella just needs a little payback. I’m reminded of this reaction to the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, which I think makes as good a closer as any.

After all, in the days following this shooting, a lot of effort seemed to go into assurances and/or questions of guilt…

Today’s Commentary – Shoot to Kill: It is about time someone handled terrorists with the appropriate response. When I discussed this with Mrs. Tuff, she expressed concern, claiming that the guy was down, cornered and not going anywhere. Why turn him into a pin cushion? My response was threefold. First, if it feels good, just do it. Second, bombers are not like muggers. Even a breath away from death, a nutty Muslim can still press a switch in his pocket and take several innocent bystanders with him. You can’t just wound them, even mortally. You must instantly neutralize the threat – this means turning the central nervous system of the bad guy into a Picasso. Do it “for the children.” Third, Muslims across the globe need to learn an important lesson. Don’t screw with us. When was the last time you heard of terrorist cells attacking mainland China? I wonder why that is? Even if this guy was innocent of terrorist activity, wasting him was the right thing to do. Pretty harsh, huh? Islamic leaders in England have made it that way.

Ah, even better. Sometimes to have to *shoot* good people, just to teach the bad people a lesson. Isn’t this black and white world we live in glorious?

Some of us were talking about having to do this right here at home now that only ‘authorised’ protests are allowed in Westminster…

China Post – Activist holds seconds-long Tiananmen Square protest: A campaigner for Tibetan self-rule unfurled a banner Wednesday near Beijing’s Tiananmen Square and then escaped by bicycle, pulling off a rare protest as police patrolled to prevent demonstrations during the annual meeting of China’s parliament. Wangpo Tethong pulled the banner from his backpack reading “Hu, you can’t stop us” in an apparent reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao and held it up in front of the Revolutionary History Museum on the eastern edge of the square. After a few seconds, he put the banner away and left the area by bicycle. The protest drew no response from the roughly dozen security officers in the area or the scores of tourists milling around. Shortly after Tethong’s demonstration, a young man ran who across the square shouting in what was an apparently unrelated protest was quickly tackled by about six police officers, bundled into a car and taken away.