The Respectability of Torture
St Mary’s University College, Thurs 1st August, 7.30pm
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, was a whistleblower who was removed from his ambassadorial post by Tony Blair for exposing the Tashkent regime‟s use of rape and systematic torture, including the boiling to death of political opponents. He has also spoken out against Central Asia‟s appalling dictatorships, regimes which are allies of the West, involved in torture and rendition, and was accused of threatening MI6‟s relationship with the CIA. Now a human rights activist, author and broadcaster, he outlines the dynamics of torture and the hypocrisy of incriminated Western governments.
My first public appearance for a while will be in Belfast on 1 August where I shall be giving a talk. Long term readers of this blog will recall that, while my focus is largely on international affairs, the domestic political achievements I most hope to see are a united Ireland and an independent Scotland.
@ Sofia Kibo Noh 28 Aug, 2013 – 7:56 am
“@NR: Could we be seeing the MSM spells losing their potency from overuse and plain ridiculousness?”
They overdid it maybe with 1300 dead children. Focus groups now testing optimum number: 6, 16, 160, 360, 666.
Two snippets. Forget sources.
“An Attack On Syria Would Be the Most Unpopular War Ever. Three times more Americans supported US involvement in Vietnam at war’s lowest ebb.”
“You know how hubris eventually encounters nemesis? Well it would stand to reason that a people given to believing that they can convince the punters of anything and get away with it would eventually tell a lie so poorly concocted and so badly delivered that they’d give themselves away.”
I have enjoyed reading this blog for quite some time. However I normally refuse to comment, even if I have some sympathy with some of the arguments, as there is a tendency to indulge in conspiracy theories and then to attack anyone who deviates from reveling in such endeavours. It is a pity that Craig is too busy with his manuscript and publishing deadlines to let us know what he thinks, or even better to focus the discussion towards the most important aspect regarding an intervention in Syria: protecting civilians.
I think there is a great difference between intervening to stop wanton slaughter in a civil war and a neo-imperialist crusade / Western attack aimed at regime change. Too many discussions on this blog are derailed by an overwhelming antipathy towards Israel, the USA and the UK. Yes these nations have done, and in some cases continue, to propagate terrible crimes. However, I do not see an intervention in Syria as part of a great Western carve-up of the Middle East. I do not see an intervention as being organised due to Israeli / Zionist influence in Washington. I do not see this as an attempt by Obama or Cameron to prop up their administrations through a successful jingoistic military adventure abroad.
However, I do think that an intervention in Syria is long overdue. The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine gained great traction in international relations in the wake of the Rwandan Genocide, however since the abortive War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq the RTP Doctrine has become a polluted concept. I for one think that is wrong and it is time to re-evaluate the concept post-Iraq. RTP should be fundamental cornerstone of international relations. Dictators and despots should not be able to consider themselves free to butcher their own people due to lack of will in the international community to prevent such crimes or because they have powerful friends who can veto any international action.
Before anyone accuses me of being in the paid employment of the Security Services, let me say that powerful friends include the current bogeymen of Russia and China but also the USA for countries such as Saudi Arabia. Armed intervention should always be the last resort but after 18 months of ineffective sanctions and increased slaughter in Syria, now is the time to act. Reduce Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons, destroy his air defence network and establish secure zones for refugees.
[Mod: added paragraphs for ease of reading]
Everyone should read these two links AND the comments below them.
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/08/28/unums-unaccepatable-influence-in-the-formulation-of-uk-dwp-atos-disability-assessment-regime-letter-to-president-of-the-faculty-of-occupational-medicine-royal-college-of-physicians/#comment-54533
http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2012/02/21/to-the-squeezed-middle-labour-tory-welfare-reforms-affect-you-unums-back-up-plan-will-not-save-you/#comment-54528
and of course, comply with the letter of UN Charter Chapter VII, peremptory norm of law and bedrock commitment of all sovereign states, and charge the attackers’ civilian/military command structure as criminal aggressors in compliance with UNGA Res. 94(I) “treat as a matter of primary importance plans for the formulation, in the context of a general codification of offences against the peace and security of mankind, or of an International Criminal Code, of the principles recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal.”
[Mod/Jon: it’s not clear that this poster is the same as the one earlier of the same name. If you are a different poster, please use a separate name, to avoid confusion. If you are the same poster, please use a consistent email address.]
the most important aspect regarding an intervention in Syria: protecting civilians.
Undeniably, EgB. But I am wondering how our proposed “surgical”(lol) intervention in Syria is going to achieve this? Even supposing it triumphantly deters Assad for all time from using CW’s, it’s not going to save a single civilian from bombs and bullets. From both sides. Granted, it will be a propaganda coup for AQ – on the one hand, here’s the Great Satan supporting our righteous jihad upon the idolatrous Shi’a, and on the other hand here’s the Great Satan once again sticking its long nose in where it isn’t wanted on behalf of Israel…Bell Pottinger would effortlessly meld these two conflicting accounts into a single sales pitch, and I have no doubt AQ can do the same.
Familiar tropes: “it’s not about regime change” – lying bastards, that’s exactly what it’s all about, and long-stated neocon policies are being followed to the letter. When Saddam used CW against the Kurds, the West held its nose and shut up, because Saddam at the time was our bastard, and the PKK was a terrorist organisation. The high moral ground is not with us. Point of fact, I don’t see it anywhere.
Good news everbody, Jack Straw has just informed me that international law has changed over the last 10 years and attacking Syria is perfectly legal, that dosen’t explain why Cameron is going to the UNSC with a resolution blaming Assad though, which he knows damn well will we be vetoed, but at least the British publics objections are now sated by Mr Straws pronouncement.
Three cheers for our armed forces and the Furher.
errrr…..hadn’t you noticed something, EgB, about the way the US interprets international law? As in, attacking Syria, just like Iraq, will be conducted whether or not it is agreed by the UN to be legal. All very well to wave international law at this problem. Fact is, it isn’t binding if it can’t be enforced. If the US were to enforce international law, that would be nice, but it doesn’t. It enforces its own idea of how the world should be run. And the UK PM of the day rolls over for his tummy to be tickled.
So, the Israelis are running a source inside “an elite Syrian unit that controls chemical weapons” Handy.
Crucial to the case against the Assad regime is Israeli intelligence from a within an elite Syrian unit that controls chemical weapons, the Wall Street Journal reported. The intelligence, verified by the CIA, is said to show that the Syrian military moved chemical weapons to the East Ghouta area where they used last Wednesday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10270209/US-intelligence-to-justify-looming-missile-strike-against-Syria.html
Aaah, memories…
“Israeli intelligence was a full partner with the US and Britain in developing a false picture of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction capability,” said the author of the report, retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3294865.stm
Komodo
Yes, we are all in a very dark place, its all about to get much darker. We have always been owned by the few, and now the few are about to put us all into shackles and chains to enforce their ownership. All the blogging in the world will change NOTHING.
Thanks K
Stress relief “Diplomacy”
Where is my Elanopine!
“it isn’t binding if it can’t be enforced”
Times change. Governments fall, politicians get disgraced. And crimes against peace and humanity have no statute of limitations.
We can wait.
EGB: There are several problems with your analysis. The West and it’s Arab allies have contributed to the chaos in Syria by supporting the terrorists with weapons and training over the last two years. This renders the humanitarian reason to attack Syria as null and void.
With regards your comment about striking military targets in Syria being ‘for the Zionists’ , whilst not providing any concrete evidence to support this claim of Israeli interference , it would be a good idea to read ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Ninteen Eighties’ by Oded Yinon and translated by Israel Shahak. It has proven to be uncannily accurate.
The Responsibility To Protect is a fine idea but for it to have any credibility it would have to be fair and unbiased. The recent slaughter of Kurds in Northern Syria is a perfect example of the inconsistency of the RTP. Barely a murmur in the MSM because ‘our side’ did it.
Finally , the ‘coalition’ are completely ignoring the investigation by UN inspectors and won’t even wait for a report. What kind of legitimate process could we possibly have any faith in when it is rubbished before it’s even finished? The terrorists have far more to gain by using chemical weapons than the Syrian Army and it looks to me like it’s being used as the perfect excuse to weaken Assad and counter recent military gains.
R2P is plain-vanilla international law. Nothing wrong with R2P if it is implemented in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. On the other hand, if R2P is invoked to justify use of force without full Chapter VII compliance, well then, that’s aggression, and the civilian-military command structure of the aggressor nations are subject to universal-jurisdiction legal jeopardy for the rest of their lives, as enemies of all mankind. Just so everyone, ex-presidents included, is clear about the rules, because they’re only tightening with the passage of time.
Kosovo cited as precedent for limited cruise-missile strikes. How did that work out?
“In 1999, U.S. military planners and the Clinton Administration predicted that a “precision” bombing campaign would coerce Slobodan Milošević into resolving the Kosovo Crisis by complying with NATO demands after only two to three days of precision bombardment. But the air campaign ground on for seventy-eight grueling days.
That Kosovo miscalculation was based on what the Clinton Administration saw as the Bosnia precedent of 1995 — i.e., Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia in September 1995. William Perry, President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, claimed the damage done in 11 days by the 708 guided weapons striking 48 target complexes coerced Milošević to come to the bargaining table at Dayton. That performance, Dayton negotiator Richard Holbrooke told the annual convention of the Air Force Association in 1996, proved that more bombing leads to better diplomacy.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/27/syria-in-the-crosshair/
@Ben
The serbs got hammered for 70+ days without budging. They withdrew immediately upon being abandoned by the russians, after yeltsin struck a deal with clinton. So it can be argued that diplomacy was the real solution even in kosovo.
Jon A final request. Could you delete the irrelevant ad hominem content @ 27 Aug, 2013 – 8:52 pm referring to me in reply to some acid from Glenn UK.
Also the reference to ‘Frequent Poster’ from the post @ 27 Aug, 2013 – 7:35 pm and any future uses of that phrase. Redundant and pathetic.
Thanks.
We await the coming maelstrom in the Middle East with dread.
Phil; There’s that Russian connection again. Suhayl doesn’t buy into my theory wrt Putin’s sense of honor. But diplomacy isn’t going anywhere near a Syrian solution. Too many triangulated groups and ZERO credibility on all sides for brokering a deal. I’m afraid there is only two courses; isolationist observation of events on the ground, or total military commitment.
R2P is one thing. Criminal aggression by NATO officials is something else altogether. The predominant propaganda debate about R2P focuses exclusively on Pillar 3, military intervention. The more important pillars of R2P are gradually helping the world get the US regime under control.
Pillar 1, domestic human rights and rule of law, constrain state overreach by NATO satellites, and to a lesser extent the US. An example of that is Miranda’s suit against the UK government. Russia’s respect for rule of law protects human rights defender Edward Snowden. US government disclosures regarding foreign interference in Iran have already prompted judicial proceedings that will in time afford compensation for internationally wrongful acts by the US government.
Pillar 2, capacity building, comes into play when states like the US government fail to meet their minimal obligations. Examples of capacity building include the International Baccalaureate and UNESCO support for the culture of peace, which was quietly evident in the Occupy movement.
So let’s stop complaining about R2P. It’s a smokescreen. The problem is not UN doctrine but US government aggression.
@ Erin Go Bragh 28 Aug, 2013 – 11:49 am
“I have enjoyed reading this blog for quite some time. However I normally refuse to comment, even if I have some sympathy with some of the arguments, as there is a tendency to indulge in conspiracy theories and then to attack anyone who deviates from reveling in such endeavours.”
Well written and provocative. As one who believes in *some* conspiracy theories, and there are many that are have proven over the years to be true, including false flags, from my side it appears the tendency is to attack, discredit and mock anyone who proposes them.
It’s one thing to believe a conspiracy is or was at work behind any event — that’s often obvious — and another step to ascribe the conspiracy to a particular architect.
With the current Syrian crisis, there is an obvious conspiracy and possibly a false flag op at work. Who’s ultimately behind it I wouldn’t say. If it were not a conspiracy, why the incredible rush to bomb, before evidence is properly gathered?
The narrative is daft, claiming social media proves Assad-dun-it. If the conspirators gave themselves more time, they could do a better job of cooking the intelligence to suit their desired outcome, as they’re furiously engaged in at the moment. “It’s a slam dunk, Mr. President.”
@Ben
Well I’m not sure about Putin having a sense of honour! There might well be ‘diplomacy’ going on that we know nothing about. I find Suhayl’s argument, that russia will do nothing, quite convincing. I was particularly struck by someone’s suggestion that russia will become a junior partner to the us. As fedup correctly asserted, ideology is dead – it’s all business.
Here’s a thought. Why are some people hoping the russians will fight? Do we want the equally corrupt russians to save us from our own corrupt leaders? Shouldn’t we be doing that ourselves?
Times change. Governments fall, politicians get disgraced. And crimes against peace and humanity have no statute of limitations.
We can wait.
This view is not supported by history.
The USG certainly deserves it’s portion of culpability, but there is plenty of blame to go around just in the ME. Keeping the Saudis addicted to the dollar is another tool of control and it’s a two-way street, as any mutually beneficial business arrangement would be. Salafists, Tikfiris, Alawites and on and on and on. TE Lawrence tried to unify the disparate tribes by leading them to Damascus, only to find the waterworks unmanned after the plundering was complete.
“Here’s a thought. Why are some people hoping the russians will fight? ”
Who? I certainly don’t hope for it. It was my speculation that Putin’s saving of face would require at least some saber rattling, and even that gesture can be inherently dangerous.
EGB
“So let’s stop complaining about R2P. It’s a smokescreen. The problem is not UN doctrine but US government aggression.”
I agree. But you seem to see R2P where I see aggression under the guise of benevolence. Aggressors often justify their aggression with a moral claim. Germany’s annexation of czechoslovakia was accompanied by claims of a moral need to intervene to save people. I imagine many germans believed that at the time.
@Ben
“Who?”
Didn’t mean you. At least one poster here has said they hope the russians make a stand. I can’t find it now. Anyway, not important.
Anyone else going to the downing street demo today at 5?
Komodo at 10.30 am. Synchronicity indeed. Israel will not be thinking of sharing the natural gas with its neighbours, methinks.
@NR, IMO conspiracy theories are crap. When you have official impunity you don’t need a conspiracy. CIA assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Fred Hampton, Walter Reuther, et al: not conspiracy but crime, crimes committed with impunity by US government officials. US government armed attacks on civilian populations at Kent State, OKC, WTC ’93, 9/11, Boston ’13: not conspiracy. Crime.
The whole “rogue CIA” debate is a misdirection. The question is not whether the president controls the CIA, but whether CIA controls the president in its sphere of interest. Obama caved on jus cogens under explicit threat of rebellion when he decreed impunity for torture, assuming universal-jurisdiction legal exposure under the CAT. The chain of command is clear – the inner circle of the CIA’s in charge.
Putin wont do anything but bluff and bluster.
He is not in a strong bargaining position let alone strong enough to lead the charge.
Right now everyones in bluffing mode.
Who will fold first though?
EGB: “The chain of command is clear – the inner circle of the CIA’s in charge.”
Innocent question: if so, how did Petraeus manage to get done-in? Wasn’t he the Hero of The Surge in Iraq? Sorry don’t mean to digress, just trying to complete my understanding.