The Angels post on extraordinary rendition (Nacht und Nebel) has been put back in its place in the files; CM was blogging on extraordinary rendition and censorship, but Iain Dale's commenters on the post he (Dale) put about Craig Murray's blog being unreachable, say it is a server failure because of a spam attack. A commenter called Bob Piper, who says he suspects he has the same server, is up and running, though CM is not. Iain Dale has posted no further news on any answer to his earlier today email to CM asking where his blog has gone.
Update.
CM's blog is running again. It's usually best to ask where a journalist and author's blog is, as Iain Dale did, and keep asking, as some of us did, till it returns, if there is a break in normal communications for (in professional blog terms) quite a long time. Regrettably the time when absence by a journalist critical of the Executive could be ignored is gone- and concern does not necessarily indicate conspiracyloon paranoia, but that a lot of civil and political liberties always taken for granted as integral to our culture are gone now; and their demise has not left a vacuum but is filled by repressive legislation often well-analyzed and criticized by Craig Murray.
As he remarks, the divide in our political culture is no longer centred on economics, and right and left, but on libertarianism and authoritarianism, and right and wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
I shall read it though HG .
This moderation here became necessary when CM asked other bloggers to post the link to his article in Comment is Free, which had been moved to somewhere difficult to imagine, never mind find.
So I did, as I have great repect for CM. It's under Comment is Unnecessary.
As for Night and Fog (terrific film by the way) the parallels are surprising. Night, N.
Thats a great post HG and highly emotive . Is there any actual evidence of unacceptable torture being Carried out ?I `m not quite sure what Craig Murray did and I would be staggered if the Guardian would miss a chance to have a go at America of which they are habitually hyper critical and also of Israel of course.
I have a slight problem with this , the Liberal open media in the West is always ultra critical of democracies and ignores open torture that takes place , for example , in Iraq , (the Arab and African world ),as well as genocide and night visits as a constant feature of civil life, one memeber of every family at least died one way or another.
Any country at war is going to be obliged to extract information by some method and I`m not at all sure there is not a very good moral arguement for torture . In this case the cloak and dagger methods are made neccessary by urealistic expectations of how a war might be fought and these are prisoners of war.
Do you imagine the allies did not do much the same sort of thing and would you have prefferred that they risked defeat. You may recall that it was by the skin of ur teeth that 12 jets were prevented from landing on heavily populated US cities. casualties would have been on a Nuclear level . TO what extent would you be prepared to risj the klives of the innocent and out people for the sake of enemies , out of uniform , who in the past would have been shot .
The more real the security thrat becomes the less you will find people care about ruffianly behaviour towards the enemy. Put it like this HG What would you do ? I would approve types of torture under certain circumstances , well obviously ,so its only a matter of when and how and what provenece of information might be an acceptable trigger ?
What is your view ?
I want to live in a society that seeks to set the example, not point at the other side and says "They're doing it, so we're going to, too."
Of course liberal media should question our values, that's part of the role of free media in a democracy.
Terrorists are the least of my worries. I'm concerned about africanised bees.
CM criticized the increasingly illiberal stance the Guardian takes in its entrenched approval of the current Labour Executive.
There have been horrible accounts of prisoner mistreatment and killing in Uzbekhistan, where he was stationed, and from where he voiced his opposition to the UK government's acceptance of intelligence so gained. You will make your own assessment on the truth of these things, N., as do I.
It's a source of pride that in our press and by our journalists, internet and newspaper, these actions and the regimes are described; you're right to point, too, at what goes on in Zimbabwe, and in parts of north Africa, as well as in former Soviet Republics and in Arab states, or far east states for that matter. No 'buts', or 'howevers', note, it's all of a piece and that piece is oppression and the evil use of power.
Deep breath: the state exists, in part, because we as individuals cede to it much of our use of force in the interests of social peace, and equality of justice and treatment; personal vengeance and vendetta based on small scale social groupings are among the first behaviours to be agreed to be given up as a society matures. The state is, by its nature, violent, because violence is what we gave it, both to achieve this peace within society and, if our society is threatened, to get out there and end the threat, to itself, and to us.
The state is a social construct and we have endowed it also with all its rules, as well as its powers. Individuals are born into their state and acculturated by it, but the concession is real for each of us. There is enormous give and take, and constant adjustment but, in England which is all I can speak of, there has been very longterm and widespread satisfaction with what has evolved. Our state isn’t supposed to do aggressive war, torture, or social and cultural punishment; it’s supposed to do self defence, prudent arming, and assistance to allies (governed by the same aims). As we withdraw the assent that creates it in the face of the pursuit of a blatantly different agenda of the assertion of values, collusion with parts of other states to the exclusion of interests in parts of our own, and the use of unauthorised means, the state demands our continued agreement and monitors and punishes expressions of dissent.
Dissent does not mean blowing up parts of the UK, which is an act of common criminality, to be investigated and punished as such; equally, so is blowing up other parts of the globe by those pretending to our state’s authority, and ditto to be investigated and punished as an act of common criminality.
This is a huge and many-branched discussion N, these first responses are not deliberately inadequate, obfuscatory, position-taking, hide-bound, provocative...
(except on torture. Not in my name, I’ll do it myself should anything make me wish to; same with killing in civil society. If I think I must then I don’t want it done on my behalf. Either of these would be a wholly personal act, for which I would step up to pay the price).
If I think I must then I don’t want it done on my behalf
Really , I`ve never been much impresed with that arguement . Its the same as if you don`t like killing a fluffy bunny rabbit your should give up meat. Killing is what armies do and unless you are suggesting that they should only protect people who are capable of slaughter themselves I see more squeamishness than morality.
Still I shall think about what you say ..
Beautifully said, HG, and very bravely.
Your comment should be compulsory reading for all those people who believe the role of the state is that of persuading us all to drive on the same side of the road.
You have quoted from the paragraph on torture and execution N, (what a terrible sentence to write, it makes me shudder), I readily concede to the state the violence to fight a war on the rules worked out and practised in our particular state. Torture and execution of prisoners are forbidden; if those rules are to be changed it must be by all of us, not by the state's executive, we didn't give that power. We would have to be reconsulted. What I said is that the decision to do such acts is mine; under our state, I have conceded it to no-one, and certainly not the state.
I don't want to be brave C, as I once said to a midwife. It's HORRIBLE being brave. For a start it requires that I am afraid. That's horrible too.
But you and the Guardian almost never complain about any of these other places only America and Israel . So cruelty is obviously not the only agenda is it ?
The danger is HG that it appears with all Western Liberals that you eat the fruit but hate the farmer. You live under America`s protection but hate it and furthermore have entirely unreasonable expectations about the possibiity of moral perfection dealing with the real world .
Take the Belgrano incident which the Liberal press have not stopped on going on about ever since . Noone except a few hot house grown exotics cares , everyone else accepts that wars create such situations , everyone else reffered to the troops as "ours" , not simply the "British" as unforgivably , did the BBC.
THis soul searching is only perceived as weakness by our enemies and the moral equivalnce between the USSR that was consistently argued by the Left establishment gave endless encouragement to that disgusting empire , currently returning to form.
People seriously talk about George Bush as if he was equivalent with Saddam Hussein for god’s sake, Bush ,a man considerably less powerful that our monarchical PM and answerable to an aggressive free press a democracy , a system of jurisprudence that only our arrogance considers inferior to our own. I have heard this comparison many times and that is the sort of thing that makes me and others consider that the Liberal Left have lost their marbles and should be given a Lolly to suck until they calm down . Now why is all criticism so remorselessly skewed against this country and its allies ?
My initial feeling aboput your version of the state is that you are reading a contract into a phenomenom , its a bit like seeing the donkey`s tail and then its head and concluding the tail causes the head. It is not a contract it is a vastly less perfect thing than you imply and could never be perfect as your algebraic version of history. The fact it works at all , here ( unlike it many other places) is cause for gratitude.
I wonder if you are forgetting ther wish for perfection is often the enemy of good.
Torture and execution of prisoners are forbidden;
Not by our enemies. No civilisation can survive unless it can negotiate with its values . Guess who said that? In practice the US are commonly regarded as the army you would most like to be captured by.Just how much better than the rest of the world, do you seriously expect the West to be HG.
' your version of the state is that you are reading a contract into a phenomenom '..
It's often thought of as process and accretion culminating in a contrat between the individual members of a state and their expression as a society. A phenomenom suggests it is a found object occurring without any construction or input by its citizens. That sort of state gets imposed sometimes, but it's not the English state, (or the American.)
Yes, GW Bush is much more a representative of a wider state than the monarchical prime minister Blair, an important and very rarely made point. When America acts it does so with far greater democratic validity than most states, including ours.
It is more than half a century since England was threatened, despite the cold war, or the nuclear stand-off, and the fear of communist accession to power by the ballot box in Europe, was not mirrored in England. ( Although the Labour pary's make-up is not appropriate in a one man one vote pluralist democracy, it's very different from the Conservative party structure, though we're not supposed to worry about it). And there has been, under this regime, an enormous shift in when the state should act towards others with violence, which, as your point about the discrepancy between democratic answerability in America and in England underlines, makes sticking to the given rules much more important in England.
Acting in support of our allies is a bitter problem; ostensibly the UK is in the European Union; I am not pressing a view here, but the major difficulty with the EU is that it doesn't leave room for a special alliance with America; we really must make up our minds on in or out. Or we let down both sides. It won't do. Our monarchical PM chose one ally but doesn't accept the consequences that we should leave the Union.
Incidentally, it isn't so that I and the Guardian belong in the same phrase, sentence, paragraph, room..
And if I was a soldier I hope I would fight bravely, and do what I must, but if I tortured, or executed prisoners, it would not be a state act; it would be me, individually and personally responsible, and faced with excusing myself to all.
HG, my blog is playing up. I found another link to that story and will attempt to paste it here..
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=i-want-blair-on-trial-for-war-crimes&method=full&objectid=19282377&siteid=66633-name_page.html
It's often thought of as process and accretion culminating in a contrat between the individual members of a state and their expression as a society.
THat is usually called the Whig version of history isn`t it ?I don`t see it that way but I am getting somewhat out of my depth..glub glub..wave wave drown
In fact I feel rather guilty , you may very well be right about rendition . The problem is that many of those who leap on the subject have already lost all credibility for me .Most unfair to lump you HG with the usual suspects .
Sorry
Let's make for the beach N, I can't swim very well either.
Flash, tell about africanised bees.
Still didn't find it Lilith, but then you put the gist on yours, so am gobsmacked.
Reading the Scottish papers is much better than reading the Guardian or something, even though where they're coming from is unknown to me at least.
Gullibility, the new mindset.
newmaina saud:
"In fact I feel rather guilty , you may very well be right about rendition . The problem is that many of those who leap on the subject have already lost all credibility for me."
Yes it's scarey (for me) to have some ideas in common with the type of people who populate the Labour party.
Post a Comment