Evidence To Parliament – Live Webcast 97


If I pretended I wasn’t nervous about my appearance before the parliamentary committee today I would be lying. Little patches of moisture appear briefly on the keys as I hit them, then evaporate.

I am nervous not for myself, but in case I fluff this real opportunity to redeem something of the honour of our country, and to end this barbarous collusion with torture. If I had the chance to speak uninterrupted for ten minutes, I am sure I could make an impact. But I am limited to short answers to questions from the committee.

You will be able to see this on live webcast here at 1.45 BST today.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=3978

If anyone knows how to capture this for podcast or youtube or anything…


97 thoughts on “Evidence To Parliament – Live Webcast

1 2 3 4
  • Anon

    Craig spoke with heartfelt humanity and the whole committee responded in kind. That is a great service for the people of this country who have been bludgeoned by New Labour’s post 9/11 aggression for such a long time.

    But as Professor Sands gave his legal evidence, part of my mind was comparing this fight against torture with the battle against slavery. At the start of UK involvement in slavery all Christians knew that all men are equal in the sight of God. At the end of the battle, slavery was abolished but Darwin’s theory institutionalised the racist concept that white man had evolved from black. Darwin is the present status quo, covered by a thin fig-leaf political correctness.

    Professor Sands quoted Lord Bingham’s opinion that the ends justified the means in some narrow circumstances.

    He emphasised that evidence from torture is not admissable in a court of law, which leaves the door open for those like Blair who are operating above the law. The present process of investigating Bush and Blair’s evil policies will result more active condemnation of torture.

    Professor Sands repeated many times that Craig’s point about the government creating a market for torture was morally valid. But he did identify it as a channel for legal prosecution, rather leaving it as a consolation prize to an unhappy civil servant who had been put in an impossible situation by his political masters.

    The colonial enterprise to steal oil from Muslim countries and the Zionist shills who provide legal cover for this colonialism will become stronger. We are being moved inexorably to a further degradation in our national self-respect. Don’t worry, 400 years later the UK Prime Minister will say sorry and everything will be lovely, won’t it Mr Blair?

  • Anon

    Sorry, Professor Sands did NOT identify the ‘market for torture’ point as a channel for legal prosecution.

  • Anon

    Any prospect that the UK could be prosecuted for ‘laundering’ illegal torture evidence, Professor Sands made clear would be cancelled by Bush and Blair’s declaration that their opponents in the war on terror had automatically lost any rights under the Geneva Convention. Oil must be taken.

    We know this government’s position on reviewing this stance, that so long as British troops are fighting the ‘war on terror’ no questions will be asked or answered. It is absolutely plain to Craig and most of the rest of the world that the US and UK intend to spend the next half millenium fighting for that oil, until it is finished or no-one can breathe on planet earth whichever comes sooner.

    Thanks to Professor Sands for explaining the reality of the situation. What is needed now is for him to DO the real-life version of the ‘film’ he made about the prosecution of Mr Blair. Because of the legal quicksands, we do not have any choice now but to prosecute Bush and Blair. Any thing less will be colluding with their vile colonial schemes.

  • Ellie

    Just to want to add my voice: it was excellent evidence and your work (and general stance) has been inspiring to a lot of us. Many thanks – and keep it up!

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.