Craig's Evidence on Torture to be Heard

From Craig Murray's blog:

March 19, 2009
Justice Secretary Jack Straw to be Accused on Torture in Parliamentary Inquiry

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has agreed to hear my evidence on torture on Tuesday 28 April at 1.45pm. Many thanks to everyone who helped lobby for this.

I am delighted, as I have been trying for over four years to lay the truth about British torture policy before Parliament. I will testify that as British Ambassador I was told there is a very definite policy to accept intelligence from torture abroad, and that the policy was instituted and approved by Jack Straw when Foreign Secretary. I will tell them that as Ambassador I protested formally three times in writing to Jack Straw, and that the Foreign Office told me in reply to my protests that this was perfectly legal.

I will prove my evidence with documentation.

Here is the written evidence I will speak to
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/03/trying_again_my.html

There is now a wealth of evidence from individual cases to support my testimony that such an underlying secret policy exists.

It is likely that I will face hostile questioning from government supporters and from "War on Terror" hawks. In the past the government has accused me of corruption, sexual blackmail, and alcoholism (all completely untrue) and hinted that I am insane, in an effort to deflect attention from the cold facts of my testimony. The hearing will be open to the public, so if anyone can make it along, some friendly faces in the gallery would be extremely welcome.

I will also see if I can discover if anything usefully can be done by way of lobbying to ensure that the Parliament channel films it for broadcast.'



Incidentally:
The emails that were marked as deleted unread had been read, then deleted with unread status (as Caronte had suggested might be happening and had happened to his email requesting Craig be given a hearing). Further emails elicited the extraordinary view that signalling 'deleted unread' was a technical matter not a discourtesy.
If I write to someone who answers 'I've thrown away your letter without looking at it. Well, actually I did look at it but I'm replying to you indicating that I didn't', I would think that not just discourteous but dishonest and a bit mad.