I thought you were removed for buying sex from vulnerable young women in foreign countries?

Apparently you enjoy sex with a kilt on and like to smack womens arses while singing Scottish songs.

You are a man of questionable morals and brough shame on our country. Crawl back under your rock, you slimeball.

Helen,

If you thought that, you are peculiarly susceptible to government propaganda.

If what you say were true, that would of course be another reason for the government to release the documents.

Mr. Murray,

All I really know about you is that you were emplyed for many years "to lie abroad for your country". However, I concluded many years ago that if there was a choice between believing Jack Straw and beleiving someone else, any sensible person should believe the someone else.

Some really petty,simplistic,narrow,judgemental idiots posting here Craig...

Ignore these trolls.

Regards.

Should I be ashamed of smacking women's arses while singing Scottish songs then?

Would Irish songs be OK?

Power to your elbow Craig!

I mean that. I may get a bit shirty over your Ahmadinejad foibles - and this - and that - but for sure your general political thrust is laudable and you're like a jack-Russell after a rat when you get going (and Jack Russells being a major enthusiasm of mine, please take that as a big compliment).

Peter,

Thanks. For readers who start here, I might point out that I view Ahmadinejad as a dangerous nutter.

Given it was Mr Straw who sat next to a certain Mr Powell in the UN during the "mother of all presentations" and did nothing to correct the errors in it, I wouldn't believe Mr Straw if he came up to me and said "My name is Jack..."

My moneys on Jack being the liar.

"I am worried that this request may lead to the destruction of the document, or at least of the top copy with the manuscript note amplifying Jack Straw's views."

THAT is what we should plaster as loudly as possible over the internet -- so that it can't be destroyed.

Would Irish songs be OK?
--Simplistic Trol

Submit a list to me and I'll tell you which ones would be acceptable. :)

Craig,
Good man. As you suggest I think the liklihood of this being released is slim to non-existent but I truely believe that your efforts are not in vain. I just wish more people were aware / cared about what is done in our name.

One thing I would be interested to read a blog post of yours about is your thoughts on BAe and the defence industry in general. I find the idea that the use of 'jobs will be lost' as an argument not to touch outrageously expensive and strategically useless defence contracts to be sickening.

Your thoughts on the SOE attempt number 2 to prosecute BAe would also be welcome. So they fine them £X million but that does nothing to change the political culture does it?!

Kind Regards,
Control

Hi Control,

As you may know, I have posted a great deal in the past on BAE and particularly their relationship with New Labour through Jack Straw and Lord Taylor of Blackburn. You can probably find through the search box in the left margin.

I was thinking about posting on it today, but might keep my powder dry till something actually happens. I expect Baroness Scotland will block the prosecution. I can guarantee you that Jack Straw and Lord Taylor are working on that at this moment.

"Apparently you enjoy sex with a kilt on and like to smack womens arses while singing Scottish songs".

Most blokes from Norfolk are like that. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Maybe wait until the incumbents lose their jobs after the election?

@Helen Wright - I suspect you will be regarded as a forum troll here, especially given the propagandistic tone of "shame on our country" - a questionable assertion in any case. ("Shame on the British government" would be a more accurate statement, and jolly good thing too, I'd say.)

But if you are not just a drive-by disrupter, by all means do give us a fuller account of your views on any of the issues in the torture/complicity debate. It may help put to rest any spurious suspicions that you are a die-hard Blairite or a neo-conservative who thinks that government impunity is a good thing.

Jack Straw is not a terrible liar, and you do him a dreadful disservice. He is a smooth and accomplished, unblushing and unembarrassable, malleable and ductile, word-perfect and confident, seasoned and fluent, utterly brilliant liar.

The kilt thing I plead guilty !

@dreoilin - would love to give you a list but it's usually all over before I get to the end of "Dirty and Slow", but I've got "Danny Boy" in reserve just in case.

"Danny Boy"? In this case shouldn't that be "The London Derriere"?

Do you know that a certain Jack Straw set fire to the Duke of Lancaster's property in London a few hundred years ago - found out in Blackburn Library reading a History of Lancashire Volume

has this Jack Straw named himself after an arsonist, set against Royalty?

Craig,

You comment above:
"For readers who start here, I might point out that I view Ahmadinejad as a dangerous nutter."

So that 'readers who start here' are not misled as to the actual point which Sabretache was making on a previous post, may I reproduce the gist -

You wrote:
"...if he [Ahmadinejad] could have further refrained from the couple of sentences which were indeed anti-semitic, he would have made the walkout appear unjustified and puerile,..."

Sabretache commented:
"There were NOT "a couple of sentences that were indeed anti-semitic" (my blog quotes the part that cued the walk-out in full)."

This is that quote from Sabretache's blog:
"How can one imagine that the inhuman policies in Palestine may continue; to force the entire population of a country out of their homeland for more than 60 years by resorting to force and coercion; to attack them with all types of arms and even prohibited weapons; to deny them of their legitimate right of self-defense, while much to the chagrin of the international community calling the occupiers as the peacelovers, and portraying the victims as terrorists. How can the crimes of the occupiers against defenceless women and children and destruction of their homes, farms, hospitals and schools be supported unconditionally by certain governments, and at the same time, the oppressed men and women be subject to genocide and heaviest economic blockade being denied of their basic needs, food, water and medicine. They are not even allowed to rebuild their homes which were destroyed during the 22-day barbaric attacks by the Zionist regime while the winter is approaching. Whereas the aggressors and their supporters deceitfully continue their rhetoric in defense of human rights in order to put others under pressure. It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions."

In the interests of truth, would you please point out "the couple of sentences which were indeed anti-semitic", as you wrote.

hawley jr

Frankly, I can't be bothered to look them up. It was a reference to "a minority" which wrongly wields "excessive influence" in policy making, the media, finance etc - in the context of the speech he plainly meant Jews. It was anti-semitic, and it devalued a lot of good points otherwise made.

Yeah, I can't find them either.

Found it:

It is unacceptable that a small minority should dominate large parts of the world through a complex network in the US and Europe to retain its racist ambitions

Plainly and undeniably an attack on Jews. That is out of order. His attack on Israel's crimes was not out of order.

Of course that minority would have to be semitic for the reference to be anti-semitic. It would also have to be a race to be racist (not merely a religion).

@ Simple Troll

It's "easy" and slow. The moral judgment is yours; the style is ours.

@ mj

A derrière too far? :)

Sounds like it's descending to a discussion of semantics.

Straw is playing with words.

I thought we agreed that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitic. Former ok, latter not ok on this blog. But it seems that in the West Ahmadinejad's speech has frequently been interpreted maliciously as the latter rather than the former.

It is not at all sensible to take the comments of readers of the Qur'an out their Muslim context. The Qur'an consistently differentiates between those who practise their religion correctly from those who do not. God does not condemn the behaviour of righteous people who do not attribute partners to Him, of any race.
Similarly, if someone says 'The British....' in a pejorative sense meaning the British establishment, as happened a few days ago on this blog, we know from the context of a political blog that they did not mean the entire British people. Similarly Muslims know from the context the Holy Qur'an that God is not being racist. He is condemning outrageous behaviour.

If we hear Clare Short sticking a knife in Blair's back today about BAE, we don't criticise her for being too harsh because it might upset his feelings. I hope it didn't, but I wish very much it would make him change his politics. We know from the context what is being said.

People in the West take the words of Muslims out of context. The Qur'an is a guide book for Muslims, the Arabic word for those who submit themselves to the will of God, about their religion. It therefore frequently gives examples of previous Muslims who followed earlier holy prophets. Some of these examples concern people from the Jewish race, and many examples are given from even earlier peoples. These are examples to follow or warnings to Muslims against wrongdoing, not a criticism of the Jewish race. God urges the Jews to follow the last prophet,Muhammad, peace be upon him, the same as everbody else.

We believe in God's word, and this leads us to use His terminology. If He says the Jews were wrong about this and about this, we believe what He says, even if others do not. If anyone wants to call God racist, Who is the Creator and Sustainer of all life, then in my opinion they must be even more daft than Helen Wright.

'Sabretache commented:
"There were NOT "a couple of sentences that were indeed anti-semitic" (my blog quotes the part that cued the walk-out in full)".'

I thought it was said (and not denied) that the walk-out was pre-arranged anyway. Didn't that come out afterwards?

@Simplistic Trol and MJ

Thank god for the humour round here. We haven't had enough of it lately. :)

Thanks Craig,

To believe that the information commissioner will uphold your appeal is to place rather more faith in the independence of his office than I am willing to do. I'd be delighted to be shown wrong.

I do, however, believe that appealing again to the information tribunal may well meet with success. The tribunal is made up at least in part of ordinary people who are inclined to see things in a straightforward way, as far as I can tell.

There is, however, an establishment get-out clause if the tribunal rules for the public interest. The House of Lords can over-rule. In any case you'd be lucky to get a ruling from the information tribunal in anything under two years.

Raising a private army and storming the FCO might be more productive. Sorry for being so gloomy.

I think it's great that you are doing this all the same. It's another little chip in the wall. Don't stop.

Best Wishes,
Stephen

Well done craig!

Great timing with the FOI request.
When Tony is President of Europe I wonder if he will be more or less susceptible to ghosts from his past? ...

Completely off topic Craig but I'd be interested on your views on the coverage given to John Smeaton's election campaign relative to yours in the Norwich North campaign. Suggest you start with a giggle and watch the great pretender's exchange with Bernard Ponsonby on STV news...

http://video.stv.tv/bc/news-250909-smeatongrilled/

He also gets a weekly column in the Scottish Sun and no doubt will be the toast of chatshows, news bulletins etc in the weeks to come.

May I suggest that before you run for Parliament again, you take a leaf out of "Smeato's" book. i.e. skive off your work for an unauthorised fag break, pretend you attacked a terrorist, hang about till the cameras arrive and take all the credit. Follow this up with some cringeworthy soundbites, repeat the lie and generally appeal to the lowest common denominator.

et voilá!

After following your blog for a while, I have often wondered when someone with media influence would pick up on the pointers you have given for a while about these documents and put in a FOI request for them. Guess they are either slow at reading, or too worried about their jobs to put the FOI request in. I hope your request is accepted without too much of a struggle and before the government try apply the 30 year immunity they are suggesting.

Craig,

In the spirit of friendly professional engagement (rather than quibbling or scattering red herrings), may I ask some questions drawing on your interesting posting above?

What exactly are you claiming that Jack Straw did which was wrong as a matter of law? Options include:

• Deliberately inciting the use of foreign torture (“get them to extract that information for us, come what may”)
• Ordering British officials to use intelligence known to have extracted by torture
• Ordering British officials to use intelligence which they had good reason to think had been extracted by torture
• Ordering British officials to use intelligence which they thought might have been extracted under torture
• Ordering British officials not to ask searching questions about how the intelligence had been gained (“don’t ask, don’t tell") when they had suspicions

Other permutations and sub-permutations could be listed:

• The Foreign Secretary not giving specific instructions one way or the other, but somehow presiding over ‘informal understandings’ that torture-extracted information would not be challenged
• The Foreign Secretary authorising the use of individual pieces of intelligence known/suspected to have come from torture if there was a pressing operational case to do so, but specifically disallowing others where that was not the case
• The Foreign Secretary authorising the use of categories of intelligence (eg ‘intelligence from Country X’) where some reports could have come from torture but others not
• Etc

The point is that the House of Lords judgement in 2005 (praised by you in your first book) looked carefully at distinctions of fact such as these. Various statements made by different Law Lords came down firmly in favour of the proposition that the ‘executive’ power (ie Government) could decide to use information which they thought or knew had come from torture if there was a pressing public policy reason to do so. In other words, they specifically did not accept that to do so amounted to ‘complicity in torture’. That, therefore, seems to be the best available UK law on the subject.

If therefore Jack Straw did what you say he did (ie “took the policy decision that the UK would receive intelligence obtained under torture by the CIA and other liaison intelligence services”) he arguably did nothing wrong under UK/international law, as long as he was persuaded that there was a clear public policy benefit.

You make much play of the minute helpfully published on your website recording FCO Legal Adviser’s Michael Wood’s view:

“After my protests at our obtaining intelligence under torture, I was astonished to be called back to London for a meeting on 8 March 2003 at which I was told that torture intelligence was legal, and that Jack Straw and Sir Richard Dearlove, Head of MI6, had decided that in the "War on Terror" we should, as a matter of policy, obtain intelligence got by torture by foreign intelligence services.”

I suspect that you were not told that ‘torture intelligence was legal’. If you were, the sentence is largely meaningless. Michael Wood (being a smart fellow) carefully distinguished between receiving intelligence derived from torture (not an offence) and using it in evidence in judicial proceedings (not allowed). This view was later upheld by the House of Lords.

I therefore don’t see why you are in FOI pursuit of the minute recording your meeting with Linda Duffield. Jack Straw’s manuscript marginalia on it are highly unlikely to be relevant to the core issue. Indeed, even if he said disobliging things about you, so what? If he had agreed or ordered or accepted that HMG use evidence possibly derived from torture for solid reasons aimed at protecting the UK from terrorism, he would be comfortably within what the House of Lords said was lawful in these complex circumstances.

It may be that you are right that Jack Straw has not been telling the truth or all the truth about what he did or did not authorise/order/encourage. But even if what you say is correct on that point, it does not seem to follow that what he did was illegal/improper under international and English law.

Much of your argument (and perhaps its appeal to many people) looks to be based on the idea that huge numbers of senior people dealing with these issues simultaneously were all incorrigibly corrupt, cynical and dishonest if not downright wicked. I just don’t find that credible, which is where you and I basically part company on the substance.

Don’t you think it possible that when the issue was raised (perhaps indeed by your own tough and commendable questions) Jack Straw took the best available legal and policy advice on what was and was not permissible (advice which perhaps was later upheld by the House of Lords looking at the whole issue with the utmost care) and acted accordingly?

And that when he says your account is “entirely untrue” he may be right, insofar as the claims you are making are just not accurate in that sense?

You might say that whatever the current law might say, it is Just Wrong to accept any intelligence tainted by suspicions of torture and that Jack Straw falls squarely into that camp: that even if was lawful it was not acceptable.

But you then have to wave goodbye to President Clinton who made clear his view that if he himself had to order the use of extreme interrogation methods to try to thwart an imminent terrorist attack on American citizens, that’s what he would do – and live with the consequences.

Regards,

Charles

Charles Crawford

For a man of such verbosity you seem to have a very small capacity for understanding reality. People get hurt by torture and it is morally wrong.
It doesn't matter what the law of England or any other institution says about it, most human beings are gifted with a thing called conscience.
If you think it's such a normal thing to be tortured, try it yourself, every morning noon and evening. Like warfarin , a small dose of something harmful might be very beneficial to your moral health.

Charles Crawford says,
"Don’t you think it possible that when the issue was raised (perhaps indeed by your own tough and commendable questions) Jack Straw took the best available legal and policy advice"

Would that be similar to the "best possible legal advice" given by Lord Goldsmith to Blair regarding the invasion of Iraq?

Charles also says,
"But you then have to wave goodbye to President Clinton".

So what exactly? Are you suggesting that what Clinton or any other US president says makes torture morally and legally fine in your books?

"most human beings are gifted with a thing called conscience"--anon

Yes, I've always found it very easy to reject torture in total disgust.

I've just posted a comment on Charles's 'blogoir' pointing out that I think Craig's objections to HMG's willingness to receive evidence obtained by torture are primarily moral, not hair-splittingly legal, and that mine certainly are.

I've debated this with Charles previously. He regards himself as a pragmatic moral relativist on this issue, and justifies torture as a 'lesser evil', rejecting the 'slippery slope' argument.

In general, I am a moral relativist too, but I believe that there are certain things on which decent people should not compromise, and torture is one of them.

This may be of interest:

http://antarena.blogspot.com/2009/10/is-this-democracy.html