US torture disclosure dilemma: film versus facts

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wearing a camouflage vest, sitting in the courtroom in Guantanamo in October. Former Guantanamo chief prosecutor Morris Davis has demanded that testimony be made public. (Graphic: AFP)

You’ve probably noticed I don’t, generally, hold positive opinions about the moral high ground of the USA, in all respects. It’s not to do with American people (several of whom I know, and admire, personally); it is, rather, about the official attitudes those people in power display and their arrogant (supply your own favoured adjective) behaviour.

So, here’s a vexed one! Disclosure, or not? Transparency, or not? The truth (unvarnished), or not?

A report from Spiegel Online International (SOI) gently, but meticulously, unpicks a moral and operational dilemma faced by various US “big suits”. Some, including Obama, come out of it quite well (he’s so frequently accused of not being able to achieve anything during his first term as President). Others – as patronising, inimical individuals who, basically, have no regard for democratic responsibility or respect.

So, I urge you to take a couple of minutes to read a most perceptive article – before you all rush to the cinema to see “Zero Dark Thirty”. And note what Senator McCain (remember him?) has to say!

Two quotes from the SOI article

“There is currently a confluence of events that will focus attention on America’s post-9/11 record of torture: a trial, a congressional report and a movie. Will they end up contributing to a more accurate accounting of what happened over the past decade? Or… ”

“On Dec. 6, 2012, Colonel James Pohl, the judge in the military commission trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) and four others charged along with him, ruled that anything an accused says in court about his treatment while in US detention is classified information that must be shielded from public disclosure. He upheld the continued use of a 40-second audio delay so such information does not get into the public domain. So much for the transparency part of the Office of Military Commissions motto: “Fairness — Transparency — Justice.”[1] [My emphasis]

Meanwhile, let us not forget that several European governments (including the UK) have been shown to be involved in ‘secret rendition’ and other such miserable – disgusting – activities.

[1]: Spiegel Online International

Image:  Spiegel Online International/AFP

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wearing a camouflage vest, sitting in the courtroom in Guantanamo in October. Former Guantanamo chief prosecutor Morris Davis has demanded that testimony be made public.

The ex-diplomat speaks out

Outspoken UK ex-ambassador, who doesn't give a f***.

I have just finished reading a blogged item by former UK Ambassador Craig Murray.

Well, here’s a man who, as we say, “puts his money where his mouth is”.

This is what one may have to endure, if one has the temerity to question anything at all about British policy.

“I was sacked for opposing – within the Foreign Office – a secret UK government policy of cooperation with torture. Not only was I sacked, I was charged with eighteen reputation wrecking allegations, ranging from sexual blackmail through financial impropriety to alcoholism, of all of which I was eventually cleared. Throughout this process and still today, the Government claimed I was lying about the policy of collaboration with torture.”

You can read the full article here. It’s worth a few minutes of your time.

Image source: jezebel.com

When is torture not a crime? When ‘we’ say so!

'We' make the secret rules, and 'we' hide the truth.

We Brits are a self-righteous lot! We supported the US in an illegitimate invasion of Iraq “to enforce democracy”, we supported their occupation of Afghanistan, we are active in the “war against terrorism” – some real, some imagined; and now it comes to light that, yes, possible torture of suspected “terrorists” was in fact sanctioned by the British government – for almost 10 years, until the so-called rules were re-written in July 2010.

Britain produces mealy-mouthed statements about protecting human rights, the rule of law, upholding democratic accountability, protests the inhumanity of foreign dictators; and then we discover, through The Guardian, that secret service officers (MI5 and MI6) were “allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas”.[1]

I never voted for Tony Bliar’s labour party when it came to general elections, preferring instead to vote for the Welsh Nationalist party, Plaid Cymru – not because I’m an extremist, but because I am a patriotic Welshman who wants to be represented by like-minded politicians on the domestic and international scene.

So, I was disappointed, dismayed, shocked to read this article in today’s edition of The Guardian. They have read the offending secret document and possess a copy of it, they claim. Yet, this paper will not necessarily be made publicly available to the imminent  official inquiry into British complicity in torture and rendition. No wonder that 10 respected human rights organisations have announced their withdrawal from what will probably turn out to be yet another official whitewash, led by Sir Peter Gibson, a retired judge who previously served as the intelligence services commissioner, the very security services shortly to be scrutinised.

The present government has, mealy-mouthed yet again, declared there is no conflict of interest in his appointment to head the enquiry.

And final discretion as to the public release of documents rests with the UK cabinet secretary.

What a shining example we give (not again!) of our sophisticated democratic ways.

By the way, we never got to the bottom of the conundrum surrounding David Kelly‘s death, either.[2]

Keep passing the whitewash!

Source [1]: The Guardian

Source [2]: Wikipedia