Tony Blair and the anomaly of Guantanamo
Posted on Thursday 15 July, 2010
Filed Under War on terror
EVEN given Tony Blair’s widely hailed virtuosity in non-denial denial and his grandmaster-level ability to deliver evasive answers on the hoof, the former prime minister’s publicly-stated position on Guantanamo always did come across as just that little bit equivocal.
Four years ago, United Nations human rights investigators called for the immediate closure of the notorious US concentration camp on Cuban soil.
On the evening the report was published, one of the audience on Question Time pressed the panel for their opinions. Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain tentatively ventured the idea that it might not entirely be a good thing.
That gave the press pack the chance to push the prime minister at a press conference in Berlin the following day. ‘I have always said it is an anomaly, and sooner or later has to be dealt with,’ Blair responded. Thanks for making that so wonderfully clear, PM.
Maybe the hacks were feeling unusually idle, or perhaps they were not allowed follow-up questions. But such a statement is essentially meaningless. It represents neither praise nor condemnation, nor indeed any discernable moral or ethical stance whatsoever.
The reason for such studious ambiguity comes into sharper focus today, following the Guardian’s publication of previously classified documents that highlight the extent to which New Labour was complicit in the Guantanamo operation.
Even as I write, a team of around 80 lawyers is sifting through 500,000 documents relating to this affair. It may take them a decade to work through them all. No doubt, then, other revelations are ahead of us. But the outline of what occurred is already entirely clear.
To cut to the chase on this one, the suggestion is that Blair expressly ordered Jack Straw, the foreign secretary of the day, to break the law by refusing to assist British nationals detained by the US.
Moreover, Blair explicitly sanctioned the rendition of British citizens to Guantanamo, where some of them were held for years without ever being charged with any wrongdoing.
Certainly, the interrogation techniques that were practiced there can be described as ‘robust’, as the euphemism of choice would have it. Bush administration officials have only recently admitted – albeit after repeated denials – that sometimes they met the legal definition of torture. The British government can reasonably have been expected to be aware of this.
In the post 9/11 climate, it was clearly legitimate to make a judgement call on what needed to be done to protect Britain from the prospect of a re-run of the attacks on New York and Washington. There were prima facie grounds for suspicion that some of the men at the centre of this case were involved in terrorist activity, to an extent undoubtedly of sufficient gravity to merit remand in custody in this country.
But the decision illegally to hand British citizens and residents over to the US, and thus to put them at risk of systematic ill-treatment, was clearly anomalous, and will have to be dealt with sooner or later. The simple expedient of contracting out the dirty work does not remove the taint of complicity.
<<Go back
Comments
38 Responses to “Tony Blair and the anomaly of Guantanamo”
Leave a Reply
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
“Certainly, the interrogation techniques that were practiced there can be described as ‘robust’”
Come on Dave you can do better than that, your description of the horrors of Iranian techniques shows this to be the case.
“In the post 9/11 climate, it was clearly legitimate to make a judgement call on what needed to be done to protect Britain from the prospect of a re-run of the attacks on New York and Washington.”
Presumably in hindsight it would have been legitimate pre 9/11 also. Or put another way, it is always legitimate.
No Dean, prior to 9/11 it was impossible to protect Britain from a rerun of something that had not happened in the first place.
And as I make clear, the word ‘robust’ is a euphemism for torture.
Just remind me, Dave, which party was Tony in charge of? And who again was it you voted for?
PS I hope all you cunts are voting for me on the Worst Blog poll! ;o)
http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2010/07/top-100-worst-blogs-poll.html
“No Dean, prior to 9/11 it was impossible to protect Britain”
But the implication in your question is that it should and that it must in the future.
Indeed, Britain should – to the best of its ability – protect its citizens from terrorist initiatives. And it should do so in the future, too.
How would that be achieved? More CCTV cameras, checkpoints, identity cards, stop and search powers for the police? Detention centres? Guantanmo Bay lite?
Do you think it should not be achieved? Do you think that terrorists should just be given carte blanche?
No it is an issue we have to face. But your article was not exactly forthcoming with the details and linked into a piece on Guantanamo would appear to partially let Blair off the hook. This kind of context is not always to be seen in your writings, the same goes for the lack of detail.
In the Cold War, the expression ‘Comsymp’ for Commie Sympathiser – a sort of Slavic or German or Japan crunching of words together, like Gestapo – had a limited vogue and then faded away but I note Mark Syeyn still uses Chicom for Chinese Communists.
What would be the equivalent now?
Shariasymp?
Qaidasymp?
Osamasymp?
“We ain’t gonna listen to them goddam Qaidasymps, no sirree! Douse them in pig-piss twice a day and play the Call to Prayer backwards at ‘em!”
My personal view is that Guantanamo was just insulting to Cuba. However the terrorists have to be dealt with. They could have been interrogated on the battlefield then shot. That would have been the best solution. Putting them in prison gives their friends the apologist loony lefties something to rally round on. The prisoners could be given a choice Guantanamo or Alaska. Whats the betting!
For Bush supporters: Chimpsymp?
Here is something 100% new to me – Gitmo-related but only just:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=1513
quite astonishing
No Dean, prior to 9/11 it was impossible to protect Britain from a rerun of something that had not happened in the first place.
So measures should be taken to prevent something happening a second time but not a first time? Clearly disingenuous. As is, “Do you think that terrorists should just be given carte blanche?”
This is like that “we all have the right not to be blown up mantra”. It could be the repression together with certain aspects of foreign policy that is driving recruitment to the kind of groups that carry out 9/11 type atrocities? These could do with a look at before advocating repression as a means of preventing atrocities. Unless, of course, I’ve missed some subtlety here which is always possible.
I know it’s considered awfully indecent to posit 9/11 as a reason to take a look at American (and allied) behaviours prior to that date but if the aim is prevention they ought to be looked at. And that’s without getting into the desperately immoral nature of those behaviours.
The atrocities of 9/11 have been used as excuses for America and its allies to engage in all manner of self-serving operations, invasions, repressions, etc, without treating the crimes themselves as crimes. Wasn’t there even a case of a state (Moldova?) killing some innocent Pakistanis to show “willing” in the “war on terror”. Perhaps if the crimes of 9/11 were treated as crimes we could get on and look at the politics of cause and effect without being accused of saying that “terrorists should just be given carte blanche”. If we don’t do that then we may as well say that imperialists should be given carte blanche.
My co-blogger Gabriel Ash (again) puts this very well here. It’s part one of a two parter from summer 2007 but I think his argument still stands.
I see that the latest issue of the ‘Socialist’ Worker has an article by a Pakistani comrade about the violence in Pakistan. Can any of these clever people tell me how they justify support for religiously inspired violence with having a proletarian section in a country in turmoil? I mean, do they say to their Pakistani comrades ‘Never mind old chap, it’s just a little bit of anti-imperialism’?
FUNNY OLD WORLD INNIT?
Note how Congressman Peter King has moved from being an IRA cheerleader to being a sworn foe of militant Islam …
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/congressman-peter-king-calls-for-inquiry-into-funding-of-islamic-supremacist-mega-mosque-at-ground-z.html
… whereas a British female lawyer who shall remain nameless here has shifted from being an IRA lawyer to being an Al Qaida lawyer
Levi 9909 may be in error.
It may NOT have been Moldava – was it Macedonia?
And wasn’t there some extre doubleplusungood skulduggery, like planting guns, ammo and explosives on the corpses?
And this will be of interest to readers here …
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/07/09/the-ad-cbs-standards-and-practices-dept-doesnt-want-you-to-see/
Oh my!
The kufr are fighting back at last!
See, Levi 9909 …
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4299935.stm
I can’t remember where I put the house keys but on issues which affect my life not at all my memory is still pretty good!
DO ~ “Indeed, Britain should – to the best of its ability – protect its citizens from terrorist initiatives. And it should do so in the future, too.”
“Britain” – “its citizens” – “terrorist initiatives” ~ why, the very phrases are plucked from the Telegraph style guide. What was that Uncle Orwell said about language?
Rather like “Britain” and its “citizens” should be protected from subversive initiatives – by the British state? Now and in the future. Osler of F. Branch awaits.
OK Richard, clarify me on this one.
Do you think the state should *not* try to stop attempts to plant multiple bombs in public places, with the potential to cause hundreds of deaths?
Do you think that such plots should simply be given free reign?
They won’t answer your entirely reasonable questions, Dave, because they have no answers.
I am guessing Dave would only want the state to prevent such things as long as it didn’t upset his liberal ideals. So the extent of that state power has limits. When Dave gives no details of what the state can and can’t do it is difficult to engage in any sort of debate. And we should also factor in the seeds sown by the state in bringing this upon us, maybe the state are the problem?
The State will do as the state does. It NO role of Marxists to suppport it in that action. A bit “basic” that, even for you, Dave? You were around (I think) the left in the 1970s? Did you spend your life tipping off the state about the suspected/possible PIRA fixers and members that we all came into contact with?
No, don’t answer that. Let me guess.
What would you, Dean, Richard Harris, Beast no 666, be telling the Pakistani working class if you lived there?
So … morally speaking, a leftist who becomes aware of plans to kill dozens of people – and most of them will be working class, of course – should just let the perpetrators get on with it?
“morally speaking”
BTW: I’ve been reading Mathhew Cobb’s excellent new history of the Resistance in France during the occupation. During which the Resistance dynamited those Paris cinemas which the off-duty German military frequented, along with French civilians.
Now “morally”…
You are drawing a comparison between targeting off duty soldiers of an occupying power and targeting ordinary working class people?
Or am I missing something?
On your “moral compass”, those who knew of such Resistance activities should have turned them in to protect the innocent…
“So … morally speaking, a leftist who becomes aware of plans to kill dozens of people – and most of them will be working class, of course – should just let the perpetrators get on with it?”
But the past is (always) another country in moralism land.
You’re not answering the question, are you, Richard?
And I suspect you are not going to.
“What would you, Dean, Richard Harris, Beast no 666, be telling the Pakistani working class if you lived there?”
Something about US imperialism, George Bush, ruling class oppressors, corrupt government. Overthrow the state, kick the Yanks out.
P.S. Anyone got any rat poison?
Dave – you’re a bit of a question dodger yourself but in this instance you seem to be conflating police work with ever more repressive state powers and possibly more wars. There is a long distance between preventing violent crimes – no matter how appalling – and making emergency type powers permanent together with the establishment of a surveillance infrastructure without parallel anywhere else in the west. Let’s not forget that these emergency type powers are open to abuse. The Guildford 4 were the first people to be charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and I think the first arrest under New Labour’s anti-terrorism law was of an 84 year old chap for saying that Jack Straw was talking “rubbish”.
levi9909. It is always amusing that lefties use the occasional screw up by the State like the Guilford 4 the Reanault 5 etc as justification not to protect the public. I assume levi you are for total carnage on our streets.
Nope, I’m for crime being treated as crime and people, all people, being presumed innocent until proven guilty. I’m also for Dave answering questions that the points he makes beg.
levi9909. I agree with your first sentence, Dave can make his own point. It is his blog.
He can but, on past form, he probably won’t.
“But the decision illegally to hand British citizens and residents over to the US, and thus to put them at risk of systematic ill-treatment, was clearly anomalous, and will have to be dealt with sooner or later. The simple expedient of contracting out the dirty work does not remove the taint of complicity.”
Dave,
Clearly anomalous? What masterful understatement.
Surely the point has to be made that those imprisoned, for whatever reason, must be given habeas corpus?
For centuries, rulers, monarchs and despots routinely locked up their opponents on whatever grounds they chose, in fact one of the criticisms by the West of the Soviet Union was the arbitrary detention of individuals.
So it is incredibly hypocritical for the West to use these measures when it suits them and detain people who clearly are not connected with any nefarious activities.
And if they were, they should be charged or released, it is as simple as that.