Rare TV Appearance 26

Even the coincidence of the broadcast of Murder in Samarkand with renewed national debate on our collusion with torture, did not break through the UK media’s blacklisting of me and my eye witness and documentary evidence that the policy of intelligence from torture had direct ministerial direction from Jack Straw.

Here is Russia Today showing what the UK media will not allow you to see:


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

26 thoughts on “Rare TV Appearance

  • Stephen

    Well done Craig. You are a great and noble man. I always think that it is people like you, if anyone, who should be made Lords of the realm, not the seedy, money-grubbing bunch (most of them anyway) who are.

    After all, who in this sorry tale is the real protector of life and liberty? Is it Jack Straw or any other member of the executive? It is you, without doubt. Don’t allow yourself to forget it.

    Best Wishes,


  • Jon

    I continue to be perplexed by the media blackout. The myth of the fress press can only perpetuate if radical positions surface in the press, if only rarely. Admittedly we still get to hear from Monbiot, Pilger and Fisk, but perhaps the media’s tolerance for opposing the establishment extends only to writers for whom there is already existing public demand?

  • Jon

    Good report btw. Roll on the day we see something of this nature on Channel 4 News!

  • Anonymous

    I take it that the Jon posting here is not the tall posh greying guy with the snazzy ties who presents channel 4 news!

  • pete

    thanks Craig. Also Chris Huhne’s letter to Alan Johnson has been subject to media blackout:

    “Dear Alan,

    I am writing to you, as the Secretary of State responsible for the Security Service, to ask whether any authorisation was given pursuant to section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 which permitted the interrogation of Binyam Mohamed despite the knowledge of his mistreatment by other intelligence services.

    I have had legal advice, from an eminent Queen’s counsel, that the judgement of the Court of Appeal clearly implies that Witness B – an official of the Security Service – would have acted unlawfully overseas since his behaviour would be against the law if it were to be undertaken in this country.

    In those circumstances, section 7 clearly specifies that any British intelligence officer should seek the authorisation of the secretary of state. My question is therefore whether such authorisation was given in this case.

    The implications are most serious. If authorisation was given, then the Secretary of State – either David Blunkett or Jack Straw – approved criminal activity contrary to our declared public policy against torture. If authorisation was not given, the Security Service has proved to be out of political control. Which is it?

    In view of the legal seriousness of this matter, I am releasing this letter to the press.”


    It seems that when the evidence points directly to ministerial complicity in torture the ‘free press’ and the media go silent. How odd!

  • Ed

    Referring to an article where you are extensively quoted is not exactly demonstrative of non-bias!

    However.. I trust this government not an inch. They lie (the real synonym of spin), cheat and generally behave with a reckless disregard for democracy that is breathtaking.

    What would Micheal Foot be making of it I wonder. RIP. The death of decency indeed.

  • Roderick Russell

    Jon – I too am perplexed by the media and the human rights industry’s blackout. I think the answer is that neither of them will get involved in anything that might gore the core of the establishment.

    I am just reading, the former The Times & The Sunday Times Editor, Harold Evans’s biography “My Paper Chase”. He must know the UK press as well as anyone, and he describes it as “the half-free British press”. Surely one cannot run a democracy unless one has a wholly free press, half free is not good enough if the half that isn’t free censors any criticism of the real establishment or of their tools MI5 / MI6. Indeed referring to former Minister Richard Crossman, Harold Evans writes “he wanted to show that civil servants called the shots more often than the public realized, that cabinet meetings were not the decisive forum of popular imagination and MPs had little power” ?” so it seems that our parliament is not the font of democracy it pretends to be.

    My view is that the establishment is comfortable with human rights issues that don’t touch on them. And if one thinks about it, most of the human rights issues reported in the press, horrible though they are, do not touch on the real establishment. Usually the torturer is the CIA or some other foreign agency, and our only involvement is that a junior in MI6 might have mistakenly condoned it. But take it further than that (to a more senior FCO official perhaps) or directly to MI5 / MI6 and the high establishment as in my case, and watch the censorship rush in.

  • Jon

    @Roderick – I agree about the necessity for a fully free press – democracies are dependent on it. We don’t live in a democracy worthy of the name, though we are in a better state than others (no reason not to try harder, though!).

    In relation to human rights, or abuses by the state generally, I don’t think there is a *conscious* effort by the press generally to sweep the big transgressions under the carpet. But there is a widespread belief that “we” (the enlightened West) are better than “them” (our enemies, or bad people generally) – and from this it flows naturally that the press chases “bad” people much more doggedly than “good” people. The funny thing is that who is good and who is bad can change with the wind. Who would have thought, ten years ago say, that the reputation of MPs and the banksters would be as low as it is now?

    This behaviour by media drivers generally is quite unsettling when you think about it. For example for the American journalist – with some honourable exceptions – how can the individual write as if they operated in a democracy, when the historical record contains the School of the Americas, the installation of dictators around the world, the toppling of Allende, the pro-corporate slaughters in Latin America, Kubark, MK-ULTRA, and so on? Never underestimate the human capacity for cognitive dissonance, I’d say!

    In relation to the abuse you have suffered, I am not generally of the view that the media have been instructed not to report on you. I think it is a mix of reporting what is regarded as of interest to the largest number of people, coupled with the easy dismissal that our security services would not set out to drive people insane. So, the cynical nature comes out: “we” would not do such a thing, hence the media outlet needs to be pushed extra hard to report on it. But if some evidence existed to say that Iran was behind it, or Islamists perhaps, then hey – the reports would flow easily.

    I am less convinced in Craig’s case, as he has had so many TV appearances cancelled. It is possible a D-Notice has been slapped on all of them, but unlikely I would think. That said, when was the last time a D-Notice was actually leaked in the public interest? I can’t recall ever seeing one, though I’d be interested to know if anyone else knows of such a time.

  • roderick Russell

    Jon, Your comments make sense to me with a couple of explanatory clarifications.

    I think matters relating to the threats against my family and the related cover-up conspiracy are of a much more sinister nature than you expect (a crooked judge, a Cabinet Minister lying 4 times to ensure there is no investigation, a provably fixed police report, etc). Take a look at the Chapter on cover-up in my paper (click on my signature ?” Chapter 4). It is pretty conclusive stuff and there is 10 times as much evidence that I haven’t put in the WIKI. Or if you want to look at the continuous threats, some of them are there as well (Chapter 5) ?” note the witnesses, the recorded death threats, the property damage. But most of all just read the first Chapter to see what it is like being a victim of zerzetsen, and you will see what is being covered-up

    And I would also clarify your view of American involvement with Latin America, etc. Last week I posted some comments about Cuba on Media Lens that touches on this very subject. The fact is that Americans don’t know what is going on outside the United States. They have no idea of geography. They don’t know what is going on overseas, so they tolerate some of the foreign abuses you mentioned. But it is also true that American’s would not for one second tolerate the sort of abuse from their government against a citizen at home, that has happened to my family in the UK and Canada.

    Some of these issues that touch on democracy, human rights, and the human rights industry came up yesterday in an article in “openDemocracy” headlined “The danger of majority tyranny” which I have also commented on. You will note my reference to our Don Quixote human rights industry. Truthfully Craig as a whistleblower has not been allowed an easy life, but I can tell you that the unpleasantness that has happened to him is not in the same league as what has happened to us. If you look at my WIKI you will also notice precedent where zerzetsen (or zersetzung) human rights abuses from the establishment have happened to others in the UK without any honest investigation. It is time that our cowardly media and human rights industry started looking at these serious issues.

  • dreoilin

    Roderick, could you tell me why you keep referring to the “human rights industry”?

  • Roderick Russell

    Thanks, Dreollin. Please do read the WIKI and also look at the attached correspondence files that back it up as they contain much more shocking information in their narrative.

    Amnesty is not alone. For example, on the advice of a local HR person, I wrote to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They phoned me at home on 11/8/2008 to discuss the case. I was not in and so their lady arranged with my wife that she would call back on a conference call early that afternoon. Her private line number was 780.495.8680 and I think her name was Catherine. She did not call back as arranged with my wife. I left innumerable messages and she never returned any of my calls. Something happened after that call to my wife that morning that caused her to avoid me. Most likely CSIS (who tap my phones) contacted CHRC and advised them not to pursue their contact with me.

    This is a most unusual case. Read the WIKI and see for yourself, but keep an open mind. I make no apologies for my comments on the human rights industry; their behavior has been absolutely shocking. Had they helped then all that we have had to put up with would have been stopped ling ago. The plain fact is they will not touch cases that involve the high establishment.

  • dreoilin


    They took on the US regarding the War on Terror, rendition, Guantanamo, torture, Abu Ghraib. Detainees at Bagram having access to courts and legal counsel. They have taken on the UK regarding changes to the law, about future attempts to prosecute suspected war criminals, Israeli or otherwise – one among many issues. They have taken on the death penalty everywhere it exists, including in the US. They have taken on Ireland in relation to the inspection of prisons, and the question of rendition flights passing through Shannon airport. They have taken on Burma, and China, and the situation regarding the rape of women as a weapon of war. They have taken on Iran. They deal with global issues on a huge scale, without huge resources.

    I worked as a volunteer in the Irish head office for some time, preparing press releases and translations, based on what was coming in on the “wires” from countries all over the world. Amnesty Ireland in those days worked on the basis of two permanent employees and five volunteers. The job they do is vast. Enormous. Amnesty has 2.2 million members and supporters around the world – which compared to world population is not big, by any means.

    As I say I’ll read your wiki. I don’t know your situation, just what you’ve written here.

  • dreoilin

    Keep in mind that “members and supporters” includes people who pay a membership fee once a year, and do no other work.

  • Still running

    I agree with Roderick. Some years ago senior member of a HR organization persuaded me to give evidence against torture in my country. I believed his exposure would help ease situation in the country and increase international pressure on the government. However, later things got worse, the government started prosecuting me, I ran overseas, and asked help from this guy. He replied to me once with ambiguous words, then he stopped even replying to my emails. Then, I realised he did his job for the money and promotion, but when it came up to giving support he disappeared. Basicly, HR Industry was created to topple the soviets, now soviets are gone, the industry is just a toy in the hands of main sponsors, i.e. US and western governments. So, the musician will play the music according to your order!

  • Roderick Russell

    Thanks, Dreollin. When you have read the WIKI I would be most happy to answer any questions you may have. As you can see the WIKI itself is divided into 8 Chapters, each of which can be viewed by going to Table of Contents in the left hand margin and clicking on it. It’s best to start with Chapter 1, which summarizes it all. Amnesty is referred to in Chapter 6. Attached to the chapters are correspondence files which include further information, some proof of cover-up, and transcripts of some of the recorded death threats.

    FYI ?” The Wiki itself is based on a Research Paper that I presented verbally at McMaster University last year to The 30th World Congress on Economic Crime prevention.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Right, I’m hooked, and am going to read Roderick’s WIKI (which sounds like a book, actually).

    I agree with you, Roderick, it’s well-known among, for example, the Left in ‘Third-World’ countries that many Western Human Rights and other NGOs behave in ways which further Western hegemony. This is not to denigrate the passion and the good work done in individual cases by thousands of volunteers, members and ‘ground-level’ people, not at all, but often they (we, since I’ve been a member of several such organisations over the years and I know people who’ve worked in them though not at high levels) don’t really get to view the bigger picture with sufficient skepticism. This kind of dovetails-in with what Jon was saying earlier.

    Btw, at first when I read the phrase, ‘HR’, I thought you were referring to ‘The Human Resources Industry’ and I thought, yes, that’s a capitalist construct, right on, Mr Russell!, but I suppose it was a synchronistic misreading on my part, since in relation to their deep allegiances, the two HR Industries are not so very dissimilar in some ways, when one thinks about it…!

    The other thing is that such charities provide absolutely ideal cover for spies operating abroad. I suspect they are hoaching with spies, ‘quiet Americans’ and even quieter British. I’m absolutely certain that I’ve bumped into such people on some of my trips abroad, people who were wanting to hear what my views were on such-and-such and so-and-so. One wonders how that happens, I mean the cover. There must be some degree of complicity by the charities, just as there is by the Press with certain ‘journalists’. Does anyone have any experience in this area?

  • Richard Robinson

    Re: NGO “industry” – are you familiar with Dervla Murphy ? Travel writer (she has a nice way of going about it :- go somewhere, travel around by push-bike, get thirsty, look for bar, drink beer & chat with whoever else is in there; write up results). She has much to say (mostly sour – one around post-troubles Balkans, in particular) about well-fed NGO workers pulling down locally-vast salaries to drive around in nice cars, in order to Do Good To hungry people with no money or shoes.

    Which doesn’t prove that it’s all like that, of course.

  • Larry from St. Louis

    Congratulations, Craig Murray, you’ve made it on Russia Today, a Russian propaganda tool that would have given a platform to Tim McVeigh to spew his hatred if he hadn’t gone straight to terrorism.

    You have as much credibility as this douchebag:


    And goddamn you for not setting Roderick Russell right. He’s got problems, and perhaps you should at least attempt to disabuse him of his paranoid delusions.

  • Roderick Russell


    Another interruption from the “Larry the Liar” professional smear team who write to Craig above – “And goddamn you for not setting Roderick Russell right. He’s got problems, and perhaps you should at least attempt to disabuse him of his paranoid delusions.”

    The formula used has been FIRST TO THREATEN, THEN TO COVER-UP BY ENSURING NO HONEST INVESTIGATION TAKES PLACE, THEN TO SAY YOU ARE NUTS WHEN YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE COVER-UP. People will recall that this formula fits totally within the zerzetsen pattern and is exactly what the STASI used to do.

    The purpose of the “Larry the Liar” team is of course to SMEAR me and others. Others have commented on Larry’s professional smear tactics. As a contributor so succinctly put it at March 6, 2010 7:15 AM as a comment to Craig’s topic – Brown at Chilcot “Larry – You need to talk to the people working the other shifts on the ‘Larry from St Louis’ avatar, stylistically you seem to be singing from different hymn sheets. The earlier guys weren’t so in-your-face with the profanities, and were generally a touch more urbane. I think that approach is more successful. Maybe you could discuss it with your supervisor.”

    I should mention that the Larry Smear Team has no knowledge of me whatsoever. They don’t know me, so they have no basis for making any of the defamatory smears they have made, except that they are paid to make their filthy accusations. I have been asking for some months now for Larry’s contact details, and I note that the Larry Team are too cowardly to supply them.

    It does beg the question ?” Where is the human rights industry, and why are they scared to look at all this?

  • Duncan McFarlane

    It’s a bit ironic that it was Russian TV given that Putin is a lot more ruthless in jailing or killing dissidents than the British government.

    However if the only way we get to hear both sides is from governments hostile to each other allowing things embarassing to their rivals to be broadcast, but not things embarassing to them, it’s better than only getting half the truth.

Comments are closed.