Slipping Standards, Rotting Minds

Just one quick observation today. A recent survey for channel 4 found that during last year the show 'Celebrity Love Island' accounted for three quarters (yup, thats right, 75%) of ITV's factual programming. Unbelivable as that may sound, such is the slippage of standards on terrestrial TV, that a show featuring a bunch of over hyped pituary retards trying desperately to ignore their hang-ups and phobias long enough to manage to fuck one another accounted for 75% of ITVs contractually obligated "factual programming". Begging the question how such a piss-poor excuse for a TV show gets to be classified as 'factual'. Unless of course the factual content is contained in the fact that this show clearly and demonstratably highlights how facile and unquestioning the population of this country now is. We will accept anything shoved our way, we will be distracted by it, and we will swallow it hook line and sinker. So, in a year when our government was waging an illegal war in Iraq, occupying Afghanistan, supporting US war crimes in Guantanamo, and so on, ITV managed to fob the entire population of the UK off with a show where a bunch of emotionally crippled attention seekers lie around on a beach moaning about how hard their lives are for a month. Factual programming?? I don't think so.

Getting Back To Agreed Standards.......

I guess one of the themes running through this blog is that there do exist between nations, and between humanity as a whole, a pre-agreed set of basic laws, assumptions and standards which we have collectively agreed in order to define the limits of our acceptance. They may not be perfect, there may be elements of these rules and laws that some want to quibble over or change to some degree, but ultimately, these agreed upon notions exist to guide humanity away from the evils and destruction visited upon us during the last two centuries when the mechanisation of war and the industrialisation and capitalisation of society have provided a glimpse of the brutality of which the human race is capable.

Hence, there exists conventions on human rights, rules for wars, norms of decency; a set of standardisations to point out those who clearly transgress from the safe middle ground. For instance, Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as:

"Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including...wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

This seems entirely reasonable, does not seek to restrict a nation or its army from waging war and engaging in acts of an offensive or defensive nature. This is the norm. For me, it does not go far enough: as a pacifist it simply seems to seek simply to make war and destruction acceptable. And yet, it exists as the norm for delimiting the acceptable act of war from the unacceptable, from the criminal. Which is why it annoys me so much when opponents of brutality and state sanctioned terror are painted as imbeciles and idiots for voicing concerns, or for daring to utter the accusation of 'war crimes' against the UK, the US, or Israel. While all these countries and their morally bankrupt politicians and leaders would happily agree that War Crimes have occurred in Somalia, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, or in Sudan, they baulk at the accusation that they too are guilty of these crimes. Yet they are. They are guilty in an objective, legally agreed sense.

These rules exist to govern these actions, they have transgressed these rules, clearly and without argument, and yet they object and react to accusations they are war criminals as if we had accused of them of the most onerous and horrific crimes. And yet, who in their right minds would disagree that the US has been guilty of "unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person" in relation to their Extraordinary Rendition flights and the facilities at Guantanamo Bay? Who would seriously defend the Israeli Defence Force and the thus the Israeli government from accusations that it is guilty of "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly"? And who could possibly defend charges that the UK government, especially in relation to its new 'anti-terror' laws, is not guilty of "wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial."? In these objective terms all of these countries governments are clearly guilty of war crimes.

These are not sensationalist claims dreamt up by the left, but objectively provable facts using guidelines agreed upon internationally by the very countries now charged with breaching them. In the same way as it is true to state that were the Nuremberg Trials occurring today, in this country, Tony Blair would be found guilty and hung. After all, the defendants at Nuremberg were not even tried with committing war crimes, but simply with "waging and executing an aggressive war". Again, not sensationalist hyperbole, but fact. Tony Blair is a war criminal, and would have been hung for his crimes at Nuremberg.

Democracy?......

Two things made me really incensed this week... (Well, there were probably more, but two sprang to mind): one watching Rob Newman talking about the us 'bringing democracy to the middle east' (in a humorous and sarcastic way - he didn’t make me angry, the implications of what he was saying did), and secondly, the news on the bbc website today regarding the us government urging Nicaragua’s not to vote for Daniel Ortega when he stands (fairly and democratically) for election as president later this year. Of course there are two interesting things about this. One, how is it democratic, or supportive of democracy, for a country to attempt to tell the population of another country how to vote. How can it be acceptable for the largest superpower in the world to attempt to dictate to Nicaraguans how they should vote? Can you imagine the outcry in the US if china began issuing statements telling us citizens how they should vote? And secondly, isn't there the usual hint of sickening irony and hypocrisy about this news - the US government telling the people of Nicaragua not to vote for Ortega? Because, of course, we all remember what happened last time the people of Nicaragua DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED by a free fair national vote of 63%, ratified by international observers, Daniel Ortega as there president don't we? He, and the Sandinistas he had led in defeating the fascist dictatorship of the US backed Somoza regime, were subjected to 12 years of the most brutal, violent and immoral repression meted out by the US government and their CIA funded, armed, and backed paramilitary front the Contras. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were deliberately targeted by the Contras after the US used AWACS planes to inform the rebels where the Sandinistas were so they could AVOID them and attack unhindered the villages and autonomous communities of the Nicaraguan people. And now the US government has the audacity to inform Nicaraguans not to democratically elect Ortega president.

Well, its been ages since I wrote anything, so I thought I better get my ass in gear. First off, the eagle eyed among you will have spotted a new link to the right of this page for a new Amnesty campaign on internet freeomd. Click it for more info........

Secondly, I am becoming increasingly pissed off at the vitriolic, hate filled bile spewing forth in most circles about the "immigration crisis" at the moment. For one there is no crisis, and for another thing, people seem to be totally incapable of differentiating between economic migrants, legal migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, and terrorists. This pisses me off, as it is irresponsbile and only further muddys the debate. I find it sickening to hear the bile and lies spewing forth from the foul mouthpieces of the Murdoch Empire, the Sun, the Daily Hate Mail and the Torygraph. Their respective editors editors have felt obliged to show little interest in the fact that the real story is that the vast majority of migrants have
come to the UK to escape repression and the grinding poverty which has been
forced upon them by the economic policies of the UK (and the US, G8, IMF, World Bank et al - i.e. neoliberalism) and a bunch of wars where we have wrecked thier countries. And then these bastards moan that we can't 'send them back' due to some lefty conspiracy to protect their 'human rights' as they will undoubtedly get tortured if we send them back to the places from whence they came. Well, maybe we should have thought about that before we and/or the US ran around the world teaching every dodgy regieme and failed state the latest in torture techniques, before legitimating torture internationally through our actions in Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib.

Next up, here in Britain, we lurch closer and closer to a police state, bereft of freedom, with only a thin veneer of democracy, and people do nothing, content with their nice house, small wage rise, lower tax threshold and Sky TV. It struck me the other day that we will soon be in a position where our kids will read a book like Orwell's 1984 and it won't seem like a nightmarish vision of the future, but an accurate portrayal of reality. The state pass more and more legislation allowing them to spy on us, keep personal information about us, trade this information for profit (more anon), remove and curtail our liberties and freedoms, all in the name of 'protecting' us. But from who?? The mythological terrorists? the bogeyman? Ourselves? The only people we need protecting form is the state and the corrupt and moribund politicians who are solely focussed on their own comfort, and on profit - both for themselves, and for the businesses and corporations who are their masters.
Alongside the proposed ID card which would allow them to hold a database containing our fingerprints, DNA, biometric data, and full background information from the day of our birth, through our schooling, our school reports, our jobs, our taxes, our bank accounts, our movements, our beliefs, and so on, they now propose that this information be expanded with the information that businesses collect on us daily. So they would buy information on our credit and debit card transaction, out internet usage, our phone conversations, our shopping habits, our holiday destinations, and so on. They would buy this information from business, and they would sell the information they held on us back to business to allow business to 'better tailor their products to our needs'. Frankly, that terrifies me, and yet the general public sit and accept it without even a whimper of objection. The few that rise above this apathy are singled out and labelled as 'terrorists', 'troublemakers', 'dissidents' and 'loonies'.

For instance, there is Brian Haw. He is a husband and a father, a committed Christian, and a protestor against the Iraq war. He felt so strongly that the war was illegal and atrocious, and was so upset that it was being waged in his name by 'his' 'democratically elected' government, that 5 years ago he went to London, and set up opposite the Houses of Parliament with some placards to protest against the war. He has been there constantly since. For five years he has lived and slept on
the pavement, heckled and berated by passers by, spat on, assaulted, threatened. The police harass and intimidate him. And yet he has stayed. This has upset the sensibilities of Parliament so much that they have written a new law just for him. As part of their new 'Serious and Organised Crime' law (SOCPA) which covers international drug trafficking, terrorism, threats to national security and so on, they included a passage which makes it ILLEGAL to hold any protest within one square mile of the Houses of Parliament. Despite the right to free assembly and the right to freedom of protest being enshrined in our laws, the European Union Human Rights
Act, to which we are a signatory, and international recognised standards of human rights, it is now illegal for a citizen of this country to protest outside our own parliament, to which we elect people to represent us (apparently). A few brave individuals instantly protested this abomination of a law, and were promptly arrested, fined heavily, banned from protesting, and threatened with jail. One man held a picnic opposite parliament, with no placards, he simply sat there drinking tea wearing a T-Shirt that read 'protesting is not a crime'. He was promptly
arrested and charged, fined, and banned from protesting. As for Brian Haw, he
successfully challenged the ruling by arguing that he preceded the law and so it didn't apply to him. Yesterday, at 3am, 50 police arrived and dismantled his display, removed his placards, stole all of his personal possessions, and served him with a court order informing him that if he has more than twenty people visiting or standing with him at any time, uses a megaphone or loudspeaker, displays placards, or rings a hand bell, then they will arrest him. Apparently he threatens the security of the Houses of Parliament. What a joke. I wonder how these politicians and police and judges can sleep at night. But more than that I wonder how the
population of my country became so lazy, so blind, that they would sit passively
by and watch this dictatorship, this fascism, take hold. We, the Brits, love
to hark on about how our grandfathers fought and died in the World Wars to save England from the threat of fascism and totalitarianism in the guise of Nazism. And yet this terrible evil threat which so many millions died to defeat has snuck in through the back door, in the guise of a "democratic" "Labour" party. While we sit passively by and allow this to be done to us, the state becomes more and more paranoid. They pass more and more laws to keep us down, and more and more laws to give our freedoms, our birthrights, to the corporations and businesses that I truly believe are destroying the world. When I go on protests now I risk being arrested not for whatever offence I may or may not be committing (i.e. trespass, obstructing a highway, public order offences, etc) but being arrested under the 'prevention of terrorism act'. Terrorism? When did protest become the same as crashing planes into buildings? Companies can now apply for it to be illegal to protest against them. Whole areas, streets and neighbourhoods can be designated 'no protest zones'. Now, in many places there is a designated protest zone, where protestors are herded into prebuilt steel cages, well away from the eyes of the public and media, to be
'allowed' to protest.The police and state have more power and we have less, and yet
this seems to worry no one.

Sometimes I despair. I'd leave the country, but where would I go?? This situation is happening everywhere. As the US brings freedom and democracy to some places at gunpoint, its allies too are forced to fall into line of risk its wrath. Hence Canada and England and Europe looking more and more like the police state which is America. The only places left to go are the 'undeveloped' places. Because they
are the only places where the big business/corporation/EU-US neoliberal agenda
has not been able to take root yet. Or, thankfully, the places where the
people still have cojones and see when they're being shafted, and actually
respond. Places like some of Latin America, where the businesses have promised development and progress, and used these promises to blind the people while they rape and pillage and steal their natural resources. Thank god the people responded. Assuming Morales resists the inevitable corruption that comes when you have money and power, thank god he's kicking the businesses out and taking back the resources. These people are realising something that we long ago forgot - that development is
something which can only be achieved collectively by the people on the ground.

All this bullshit we're offered by the lackys and theorists of the neoliberal
new world order about 'trickle down benefits' from big business making big bucks is seen by people like Morales, like Chavez, like the Zapatistas, the indigenous, the masses or poor people at the coalface, for the crock of shit it is. What is more, as the world succumbs to climate change, as oil and gas run out, we need to realise, collectively, that we actually need less development. That the only hope for long term survival is to buy less, use less, waste less. For their to be less travel, less business, less consumerism. These people we in the west so patronisingly refer to as 'peasants', 'tribal', 'indian', etc, know more than we could ever understand about the natural world, about the respect needed to live in harmony with nature, about how to live naturally in a symbiotic relationship with our world. But we laugh at them, kill them, displace them, force them to move to the shitest parts of the worst cities, just so we can steal their land, its contents, its riches. Whilst they much hate and resent us, you can imagine they also must smile to themselves, as
they know that ultimately we will bring this whole system crashing down around
us, and they will be left as the only people with the knowledge to survive
when the world returns to its primordial state. And one of the ways that this neoliberal order, this US led global hegemony (which is noting more than the continuation of the previous British empire, which began this process of neoliberalism, 'free' trade and globalisation) has managed to be so successful (apart from being a sickeningly powerful military force led by a bunch of religious fundamentalists with their fingers on the nuclear button) is by instilling this animalistic sense of individualism in us. Since the start of the last century there have been concerted attacks on anything which represented collectivity. The
unions were busted, the idea and the spirit of the working class was crushed,
and it was all replaced with this rampant individualism, couched in the religion of consumerism. The British people lie down while our hard earned freedoms and liberties are stolen because we see ourselves not as a group, a collective with common cause, but as individuals. And what can one person do? Besides, why would each individual wish to react, when it might place in peril their job, their money, their future earning potential, their ability to watch TV, take three foreign holidays a year, and enjoy the expropriated products and services of the 'third' world. We are far to comfortable buying our 'made in china' electronics, and using them to purchase holidays in Indonesia, where we can lie in the sun while the
locals are forced to work 14 hour days to manufacture, for 10 pence a day,
clothes which we happily buy for £40. We see it as natural. They have to work in shit conditions for shit pay making our luxury goods, after all, if they don't how are they ever going to develop?? The hypocrisy is sickening. We like to kid ourselves they are undeveloped because of some natural law, or because or their sheer stupidity and laziness. we never stop to think that it is the very system of globalized neoliberalism which has caused this disparity. We have systematically stolen their resources, subjugated them to our laws, stolen anything of any real value, then sold them the dream of McDonalds, TV, Nike, of unfettered consumerism as the goal to be attained. We need to learn again what so many people struggling against this global power in the undeveloped corners of the world already now. The only power we have is the power of collective action. Individualism is destroying
us. Here in Britain, when we do talk about issues like Climate Change, its
always in terms of what single action or actions can be taken by government, by business, by individuals. The middle classes, once they have got rich and sent their children off to university to be tutored in the ways of business, build their dream eco-homes, and pat themselves on the back, because they have done their bit. But we don't realise, it is all of us, together who must act. Whole communities must come together and rediscover the benefits of acting in the interest of others, not only
of ourselves. All these ideas we have been told are old fashioned, backwards,
are, conversely, our future. We can only hope to consume less, use less, have less impact on our environment if we see things through a collective groups lens, not from within our own little gated communities. But the problem is that the government, at the behest of the criterion of business, refuses to place an economic value on things like community, environment, planet. They will never act of their own free will to safeguard tradition, communities, the environment, for the simple reason that they are unable to make a profit form doing so. Likewise, individuals are prone to only seek to make changes to their own lives, their own patterns of energy use and consumerism, if there is an economic benefit to it. We have to start
to see that our blindness to anything non-economic will ultimately destroy us.
That's why I don't believe we should expect governments, even OK ones like
Bolivia or Venezuela, to do the right thing, to save their people, or their
countries. That's why I think we must fight them to prevent them removing the last spaces we have to be free in and to experience and live liberty in. Not as an end in itself, but in order to give us the room to act collectively to establish a better and different order, freed from the shackles of their greed and corruption. We need to look at the whole story of human history and see that everything which has been achieved to the benefit of the greater good of mankind has been achieved through
collective action. The vote, the abolition of slavery, civil rights, human right.
No individual won these changes. No government introduced these changes through their own benevolence. These changes occurred because we, the people, made the tiny groups that try to run our lives scared, and in doing so, forced their hand.





One last example of the way my country's going, before I get back to work!!! The government is in the process of changing the rules which govern being in the army. The current illegal and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have prompted an unprecedented number of soldiers to either refuse to serve in the first place, or go AWOL once they see what they're facing. One recent example was Ben Griffin, who resigned from the SAS and refused to go back to Iraq, declaring "I didn't join the army to carry out American foreign policy". Blair is now forcing the new 'Armed Forces Bill' through Parliament, which recommends sentences up to life imprisonment for those refusing to serve in a war, whether it's legal or not. Although this
would breach the Nuremburg principles which enshrine in international law the responsibility of everyone to "refuse to obey illegal and immoral orders from any government". The Bill also proposes that those who get a free education while in the Forces must remain a soldier until they're 40! This bill will have its third and final reading on the 22nd May. It's sailed through the first two readings without a whisper of opposition. Imagine this scenario. A normal civilian member of UK society could go out, commit premeditated murder, and get a sentence of 'life' meaning, in reality, 16 years, of which he may serve less than 12. The latter half of his sentence would be spent in a low security prison with satellite TV, a gym, sports pitches, free education, the chance to work and earn money, and conjugal visits. Conversely, a UK soldier who refused to go to Iraq because the war is illegal and he
DID NOT want to commit premeditated murder against an Iraqi civilian, could face
life in prison, meaning, in reality, 35 years in a high security military jail. We are now punishing those with a conscience more than those without. This country is fucked.

The IDF found guilty of murder

A UK coroner has ruled on the death of British journalist and documentary maker James Miller, 34 from Devon, who was shot in the head by a soldier of the IDF whilst shooting a documentary on the conflicts in Gaza in 2003. James had been wearing a clearly identifiable flak jacket and helmet marked "Journalist" when he approached an IDF armored personnel carrier waving a white flag and shouting "I'm a British journalist" in May 2003. He was attempting to gain their permission for safe passage from the area at the time, having spent the day shooting footage for his documentary into the lives of children in the Gaza Strip. He was shot once with a high-powered assault rifle clean between the eyes. Despite a soldier from the IDF admitting to firing the shot, an Israeli investigation in April 2005 cleared the soldier of misusing firearms. Mr Millers family, like those of Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie, received no help from the Israeli authorities whatsoever, and have claimed that the Israeli authorities willfully and deliberately hampered the official investigation into the death.

This week saw the UK coroners investigation into James' death. Having heard evidence from senior Metropolitan Police Det Insp Robert Anderson that Israel had been "uncooperative" during their own investigations into the shooting and had refused access to interview soldiers and witnesses, Coroner Andrew Reid had told the jury at St Pancras Coroner's Court, London, on Thursday to return a verdict of unlawful killing. He said they had to decide in the context of the case whether he had been murdered or was a victim of manslaughter. After around an hour of deliberation, the jury decided that Mr Miller had been deliberately shot on the night of 2 May 2003. A jury spokeswoman said: "We, the jury, unanimously agree this was an unlawful shooting with the intention of killing Mr James Miller. "Therefore we can come to no other conclusion than that Mr Miller was indeed murdered."

Whilst this ruling can't ease the grief of Mr Miller's family, nor bring justice to the IDF and the soldier responsible for his death, it is important in so far as it is further proof of the cold calculated nature of the IDF and its operations on illegally occupied Palestinian land. Which makes you wonder why the hell licences for British arms sales to Israel last year amounted to nearly £25m, almost double the previous year (the licences covered the export of armoured vehicles and missile components). Israel was one of 11 countries described by the UK Foreign Office in its 2005 annual human rights report as "major countries of concern" and yet still gained government licensed military equipment. The sales cleared for Israel are the highest since 1999. This was before Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, sought assurances from Israel that equipment supplied by the UK was not being used against civilians and in the occupied territories. In 2002 the government said it was tightening controls on arms exports to the country after it found that assurances had been breached. So, it seems, nothing changes, and despite the evidence of abuse, despite the deaths of British and American journalists and activists, despite the unnumbered and unrecorded deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians, we continue to sell them arms, to let them act with impunity, and to maintain their charade of being humane, moral, and civiliased upholders of democracy, justice and human rights.

Fined for having a picnic.....

Yesterday a man was fined £500 for having a picnic in Parliament Square. The reasons behind this seemingly farcical fine lie in S.132(1)(b) of the Serious Crimes & Police Act 2005. This makes it an offence to take part in a demonstration in a public place in a designated area without prior authorisation under S.134(2). The ‘offence’ in question took place in Parliament Square on 28th August 2005. Parliament Square is now a designated protest free zone under the "Serious Crimes and Police Act" as "unrestricted exercise of freedom of expression close to the centre of Government and Parliament poses a threat to democratic freedom" (a quote from the judge in the case).

So, apparently, exercising your legal, moral and human right to freedom of congregation, freedom of expression and freedom to protest opposite the Houses of Parliament now constitutes a threat to democratic freedom. And in order to protect this democratic freedom it has been necessary to curtail the democratic freedom of groups and individuals to exercise their freedom democratically. The clearly Orwellian nature of this doublespeak aside, I would proffer only one question: which seems more free and democratic at this point in time? The Houses of Parliament (a bunch of predominantly white middle class men elected under an unfair and undemocratic voting system to represent the queen, our head of state, aided and abetted by a bunch of uber-rich white upper middle class men in gowns and wigs who aren’t even elected – which is to say The Lords) or ordinary members of society gathering peacefully outside their seat of ‘representative’ government to gently suggest that ‘our’ government listen to our views and, say, stop the illegal war to impose ‘democracy’ in Iraq? Perhaps the constant presence of dissenting voices outside their cosy parliamentary offices is finally beginning to upset the residents at Westminster.

After all, it is widely recognised that the original legislation banning protest outside our seat of government was bought in to try to remove Brian Haw. Brian Haw is an anti-war protestor who has been camping out in Parliament Square since 2001 (yup, that’s right, he’s been sleeping on some cardboard laid out on the pavement for over 5 years to protest against the illegal invasion of Iraq), displaying such threatening placards as ‘Don’t Attack Iraq’ and ‘Troops Home Now’. This has clearly upset the conscience of our members of parliament so much that they have designated such radical and dangerous protests as "Serious Crimes" and legislated to ban every UK citizen from protesting with a mile of the Houses of Parliament.

But back to Mark Barrat, the unfortunate man facing a £500 whole in his bank balance for having a picnic in the designated no protest zone. Mark's court case took up just one afternoon of court time, and he represented himself and did not contest any of the 'facts' of the case. His defence was twofold: first - did a picnic by a campaigning group and a banner-making workshop (with no planned demonstration that day) really constitute a demonstration in terms of the law? and second - did the use of this law really accord with human rights legislation in terms of the rights of freedom of expression and free assembly?

The SOCPA (2005) act does not define a demonstration, and so the judge’s written verdict relied on a dictionary definition and seemed to imply that since Mark was known as a campaigner against this draconian legislation, and as the campaign held picnics each week on Parliament Square, then being at that picnic was of itself a demonstration. This interpretation has huge human rights significance. It would suggest that the designated zone is pretty much a no-go area for anyone who holds political views - any attempt at meeting others or having political or campaigning discussions could be met by arrest, not insignificant fines, and a criminal record for life!

Indeed a further protestor, peace campaigner Milan Rai, is in Bow Street Magistrates Court next week facing the even more serious charge of being the organiser of a protest within the no-protest zone around Westminster. He faces a fine of up to £5000 and a maximum of five years in jail. And his alleged crime? Milan and a co-campaigner stood in the middle of Parliament Square and quietly and solemnly read out the names of all those killed in Iraq – US and UK soldiers and Iraqi civilians. And, in the name of protecting the democratic freedom of Parliament (as laid out in the SOCPA legislation) Milan Rai now faces the very real threat of an extended stay at her majesty’s pleasure for having the temerity to utter the names of the war dead close enough to Parliament to trouble the conscience of those upholders of freedom and democracy who therein reside

The value of an Iraq's life

We learnt a few interesting facts and figures today which, like everything else we learn day by day at the moment, only serves to cast more doubt and more disgrace on the heads of our political and military leaders for the murder, death, lawlessness and horror they have visited on Iraq, and on anyone else suspected of being a “terrorist”. First of all we learnt the value of an Iraqi’s life in the estimation of the “coalition of the willing”: £1,400. One and a half grand for the life of an innocent man woman or child murdered in Iraq. This money is not due to the thousands of Iraqi’s the coalition claims to have killed legitimately – the famous “enemy combatants” and “foreign fighters” who we are constantly told are undermining democracy in Iraq – and is only paid out to victims of “collateral damage”.

Semantics aside, if you are “collateral damage” then, by definition, you were innocent. If you are innocent and you are killed you have been, a priori, murdered. So, what we learn this week is that the Americans murder Iraqis then value their lives at £1,400 pounds. Or the equivalent of an eight year old Daewoo Nubira in metallic green, a Sony LCD TV, or one years car insurance for a newly qualified driver. Not a great deal in other words. The specific information came to light as part of a newly launched US military investigation into claims that US marines brutally murdered at least 26 innocent Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of a marine in a roadside bomb blast. What should be called, but sadly in our mainstream media never is, terrorism. For terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians with the intention of causing terror harm, distress, injury or death.

Thus, interestingly, the death of a US marine in a roadside bomb, whilst a sad and unnecessary loss of human life, does not back up claims that Iraq is a hotbed of terrorism, as the targeting of military apparatus and personnel is entirely legitimate (in relation to the ‘terms of war’ or ‘rules of engagement’ at least). Unless of course that what the media actually mean to imply when they talk a about ‘terrorism’ in Iraq is that the US armies proclivity for gunning down any civilian within firing range makes the country one of the worst centres of terrorism outside of Bin Laden’s cave complex. The story does give an interesting insight into the mindset of the US (and probably all) military personnel, and the contempt with which they approach the lives of those in whose country they are illegally stationed. We learn that following the death of a US soldier in a roadside bomb, the rest of the troop began going door to door around the immediately surrounding houses.

First they burst into the house of the Waleed’s, shot the head of the house, then turned and gunned down all but two of the remaining family members. They later claimed to have ‘heard the sound of a gun being readied to fire’. Which of course justifies gunning down a family with high calibre assault rifles. The marines then claimed to have heard gunfire from a second house. They kicked down the door and casually tossed a hand grenade into that home. Imagine. Without even pretending to try to verify the identities of those within the house, they throw a grenade in. Then they call it “collateral damage” as if people being blown up by a grenade are an unfortunate and unforeseen consequence of throwing incendiary devices into family homes. The “collateral damage” in this house included eight members of the same family, including four children under the age of ten. The marines then entered a third house and gunned down four young men inside, claiming they were “insurgents”. Because in the eyes of a young US marine on his first tour of duty any man of middle eastern origin is considered an “insurgent”, a “terrorist”.

The marines later collected the 24 corpses of the dead Iraqi’s and delivered them to a nearby hospital claiming they had been killed by shrapnel from an insurgents bomb blast. The hospital found that in all cases the cause of death had been a gunshot or gunshots to the head or chest at very close range. For suffering this unimaginably brutal and needless death the relatives of the dead were paid £1,400.

Elsewhere in the news this week the meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee unearthed some interesting evidence for the government’s claims that 90 days detention without trial was an absolute necessity in the “war on terror”. Remember at the time the new anti-terror bill was being steamrollered through parliament we were told that the police required 90 days of detention without trial for terror suspects, and that there was “compelling” evidence to back up this claim? Evidence so “compelling” that at the time they were unable to tell us what it was? Well, yesterday we found out. We discovered that (and hear I quote the Committee themselves) “the only written material that you [Charles Clarke] based the 90 day detention proposal on were three police press releases and two sides of A4 describing one case.”

Furthermore, as if this wealth of evidence weren’t enough to bring us all smartly into line behind an unconstitutional piece of legislation which would terminate peoples legal right to presumption of innocence without proof, and peoples basic human rights to not be incarcerated for 3 months for no reason other than the unpublished view of an unnamed “security source”, we also learnt of another “compelling” piece o evidence on which Charles Clarke based his informed position. The opinions of Lord Carlise. Lord Carlise is an important law lord and judicial heavy weight, so one assumes that if Charles Clarke is taking is advice then his opinions are well founded. But no. We learnt this week that Lord Carlise’s reasons for backing 90 days detention without trial were based on one single case.

As is this weren’t bad enough, we then learnt that Charles Clarke took Lord Carlise’s suggestion of 90 days detention without ever bothering to investigate, research, look into, or familiarise himself with the one particular case Lord Carlise based his opinion on. So, we now know that in New Labour speak “compelling evidence” means a couple of press releases, two sides of A4, and the opinion of a senile and unelected old codger based on a single case you yourself never bothered to look into. Wow. That’s almost as compelling as the case for Saddam having WMD……

More Musings on Memory

I know that this blog seems to be getting stuck on one theme, but I guess I’m trying to figure out a few ideas in my head. Mostly, I’m trying to figure out why we (or at least the majority) seem to have such a short attention span, why whilst we may find current events appalling, we seem to be unable to accept the inevitability of this based on what we know about previous activities by our governments. For instance, last week marked the sixth anniversary of Jack Straw releasing General Pinochet, the ex-Chilean CIA backed fascist dictator, who was wanted on an international arrest warrant for his crimes against humanity during his regime. At the time I remember the incredulity amongst large sections of the British public that our home secretary, a Labour Home secretary, would release a man who carried out appalling human rights violations which many Labour ministers must have marched against in their youth. And yet now, these same people seem to have feel difficulty believing that a Labour government would systematically ignore its principles.

This same collective amnesia applies in other areas too. For instance in relation to the ongoing troubles in Palestine. Whilst it no longer makes the news, the situation is unchanged, if not worse. There are still ‘targeted assassinations’, most recently in Balata refugee camp, there are still road blocks, check points, the apartheid wall, the daily humiliations heaped upon the Palestinians, the continuing efforts to undermine democratic structures and civil institutions in the Occupied Territories, and yet people seem to believe that the situation there is ripe for the Palestinians to ‘seize the initiative’ and set up a ‘viable state’. Likewise, in a case which bought to mind the previous indiscretions of the Israeli Defence Force, especially with regards to Tom Hurndall, a young Israeli activist anarchist and refusnik, Marita Cohen, was shot in the head with a rubber baton round during a demonstration against the seperation wall last week. And yet, where this was reported in the news, it was reported in a shocked sense, apparently oblivious to the previous form the IDF has in this area.

Then we have the continuing information leaking about the Stockwell shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes. On Panorama this week I witnessed the distasteful spectacle of a senior Metropolitan Police Officer explaining that the Met does NOT have a "shoot to kill policy" but an "immediate incapacitation" policy for its Special Branch Firearms officers. Asked to explain what an "immediate incapacitation" policy was he calmly explained that this was a policy where the marksmen shot the 'suspect' in the head, but that shooting someone in the head does not constitute a shoot to kill policy. Semantics aside, there’s little chance that anyone shot in the head is going to survive is there? Especially when they’re shot at point blank range seven times with exploding ‘dum dum’ ammunition as Jean Charles de Menezes was. And yet the sophistry seems to work, as I have yet to hear anyone explain that the Stockwell shooting was almost inevitable if you trace its lineage back to its origins in the shoot to kill policy of the British army in Northern Ireland. So I guess I’m just trying to figure out how we can make these connections and make people see that you can’t believe something is inherently good if the evidence points to the contrary, that a leopard never changes its spots.

Interesting to see the leaked UN report out this week condemming Guantanamo as breaching international law:

"A leaked draft of the document, written over 18 months by five independent experts in international law appointed by the UN Commision on Human Rights, says the inmates atGuantanamo are being denied their rights to mental and physical health to a degree that sometimes amounts to torture"
(The Independent, 14/02/06 p.24)

The US responded "The law of war allows the US - and any other country engaged in combat - to hold enemy combatants without charges or access to counsel for the duration of the hostitlities". Which is clearly a statement full of holes. Such as where this mystical 'law of war' comes from, or what is classified as a war (the war on terror for instance? a war which is, by definition, almost indefinate), or decides when the hosatilities are over (for instance in Afghanistan, where hostitlities are officially over, or Iraq where only 'major combat hostilities are over)?

I meant to say earlier, when talking about the very real presence of police and state violence and oppresion in the UK (something the general public seems loathe to admit exists, in contrast to the very real evidence of those of use who have been prevented from legitimately protesting under anti-terror legislation over the last two years, of those of us who have been beaten black and blue by riot police on demonstrations and at free parties), that even recently there have been questions raised - questions noticably absent from the discourse of the mainstream media. Actually, thats not quite true. One notable case has been discussed in great detail: the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by Metropolitan Police Officers last year. But then that was almost unavoidable, occuring when and where it did.

It seems that for all their attempts to deny, distort and re-write the truth, the Met might actually face some real criticism, and maybe even succesful legal action, over their horribly amateur and misguided actions. But the incident was not entirely in isolation. At the more general level of police violence, and seeming immunity from prosecution or censure, there have been, and continue to be, incidents where the Police's actions seem excessive, disproportional, and downright biggoted and retributional in nature. Two recent examples spring to mind.

Last month, while the mainstream media's attention was focussed firmly on protests against the Danish cartoons, a man died in suspicous circumstances in South East London. On 10th January Police looking for suspects in the murder ofWPC Breshenevsky in Bradford raided a house in the the Somali community in the Woolwich/Plumstead area of London. The house the Police raided did not contain the suspect, but another man was present and alone in the house at the time. Inside was Nuur Saeed who was later found outside seriously injured. It seems he fell head first from a second story balcony. He died on January 22nd from a massive brain injury. It may indeed have been an accident, but the lack of interest in the story, and the ongoing allegations of harrasment within that area's Somali community against Police in light of the WPCs murder, beg further investigation. (For further info see here and here)

Last August another young black man died in London in unclear circumstances. Paul Coker died on the floor of a cell in Plumstead Police Station (For more info click here). His family are now facing the same wall of silence that the de Menezes family are so angry about. Again, the death may have been accidental, but in light of the all to regular spectre of 'death in police custody' type headlines, one wonders at what point we might, collectively, wake up and smell the oft lamented stench of 'institutional racism' within the ranks of the Police?

I guess what’s bothering me throughout the last two posts, what I'm trying to get at, is the feeling that the current conjecture (i.e. the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, etc) is, at its simplest, the manifestation of our modern consumer-capitalist, neoliberal western world. And as such it reveals to us in concrete terms things which, in normal circumstances, stay hidden below the threshold of our normal vision. So, the presence of Guantanamo Bay, flying in the face of international law and global moral opinion, merely serves to highlight the racist, violent and controlling nature of our new world order.

The war in Iraq, in all its brutality, reveals to us the close ties between our system of politics and our economic beliefs (through the inexorable ties between the military-industrial complex and the neoliberal global economic order). Overall, the many ignorals of law, ethics, and common decency reveal the vicious nature of this globalizing force, emerging from behind its polished sheen of accountability, progress, development, and democracy. Which is why I'm so angry and amazed at the relative lack of protest directed at the leading governments in this movement, the UK and US, from within their own borders.

True, there is a groundswell of opposition to the war in Iraq, to the war on terror and its attendant attacks on our civil liberties, but the people more generally opposed to this new world order seemed so stunned at the brutal displays of power, violence, and disregard for law, that we seem, collectively, to have been stunned into silence. It seems to me that the ongoing events present the perfect opportunity to make the linkages from what manifests itself in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the daily brutalities of neoliberal globalization (both at home and abroad): prisoner abuse is as likely in Britain's asylum holding centres, deportation centres, and prisons as that the government is now forced to admit is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan; police brutality and draconian legislation curbing freedoms to assemble and protest are happening in Britain, not just in some far away land; the impoverishment of the lower classes through the privatization of services and the casualisation of work are prevalent globally; the disregard for law and human rights is not only characteristic of Guantanamo Bay; and the desire to be bound only by those treaties and institutions which remain in our interests does not only characterise our actions abroad in exceptional circumstances.

Typical. Now its the UK troops again....

So, no sooner had I finished considering why it is impossible to win a 'war on terror' when you cant even uphold basic human rights, let alone legal rights, and what pops into the news? Another UK troop abuse scandal. As with all the others this is 'an isolated incident', 'a few bad eggs', 'totally abhorrent', etc, but it makes you wonder how stupid they think we might be that they keep trotting out the same old excuses. It's not that I believe its a deliberate policy or anything of that nature, but I do believe that there is a tacit acceptance of these kinds of behaviour, and that it is only when they come to light publicly that the armies PR machine jumps into action defending the kind, loving nature of the British army, and reminding us of how they have won 'hearts and minds' in Basra.

The army know that their troops are in a highly tense and volatile situation, and it is therefore in their interests to let them blow off steam however this can best be achieved. From turning a blind eye to drug use and the presence and use of prostitutes, to allowing theft and assaults to form a part of routine activity overseas, the army is stuck with the problem of how to control thousands of men stationed overseas, away from their friends and family, and facing real and imminent danger. And their answer has been the same as always - the easiest way to relieve tension is to let the men get a little carried away now and then.

Thus the spectacle of Nicholas Witchell, reporting the abuses, attempting to legitimate the brutality by explaining that the Iraqi's being beaten had 'probably been throwing stones at the British patrol'. Where is the moral equivalence between throwing stones at troops dressed in body armour and armed with assault rifles, and getting the shit kicked out of you by three or four soldiers armed with batons? Not that moral equivalence should even come in to it. As I mentioned t'other day, there's little or no hope for the 'war on terror' (however badly conceptualised and vacuous this term) if the UK and US troops can't start treating others with the basic standards of human decency. And so, from Guantanamo to Abu Graib, from Bagram to Basra, the lack of humanity threatens not only the day to day lives of those on the receiving end of this brand of 'freedom and democracy' but also the wider status of 'the west' as the pinnacle of human development. Perhaps, finally, the old lies are beginning to unravel?

Guantanamo Bay: Human vs.Legal Rights

Last night I watched Channel 4 news, where John Bellinger, counsel to the US State Department and the man who provided the legal justification for the war in Iraq, stated that holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is OK, because they have no legal rights. This clearly seems abhorrent at face value, but as Mr Bellinger continued to speak, I became struck by a notion that periodically lodges in my head when I think about the current state of Human Rights and International Law. And that is how culpable we, the public, are in allowing to pass without criticism comments, statements and observations which clearly breach commonly held moral assumptions, common sense, truth, or the law. On the one hand it seems that the speed and pace with which certain governments, leaders, and sections of the mainstream media bombard us with ‘facts’, information and claims is so rapid and unrepentant that we don’t have time to analyse what is being said and respond accordingly, because by the time one has it is no longer ‘current’, no longer ‘news’. The most obvious example comes from the run up to the war in Iraq, when so many lies and deceptions were thrown at us that we seemed unable to answer and defeat each point by point. It was as if we were being deliberately drowned in a sea of obfuscation. On the other hand it seems, conversely, that the lies we are presented with are so staggeringly and clearly untrue that we are frozen in incomprehension and withdraw to try and understand the implications of being so brazenly lied to. Either way, the net result is the same: lie upon lie passes us by with little or no challenge, analysis or retort. We are therefore subject to the spectacle of being told things which directly contradict things we were told previously, or even being told two dialectically opposed facts by the same person, almost in the same breath, with little or no opportunity to highlight these inconsistencies.

So I decided to download and transcribe John Bellinger’s comments on last night’s news, and deconstruct the inaccuracies and contradictions in his statements. As the man who provides the final say in legal issues to the US State Department, it is fair to say that he sings from the standard issue George Dubya songsheet, and represents (more eloquently than many of his colleagues) the stated views of the White House. I began by considering his response to a question from Jon Snow asking whether prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (and by extension other US prisons for ‘Enemy Combatants’ outside US territory) are subject to the Geneva Conventions:

“People have an aspiration that they would like the Geneva conventions to apply, and we typically apply the Geneva conventions, but all one has to do as a lawyer is to look through the terms of the Geneva conventions and they, one, don’t apply by their terms to Al Qaeda, they apply between high contracting countries. Al Qaeda is not a contracting party to the Geneva conventions”

I then downloaded and read the majority of the Geneva Conventions, and whilst I am not a lawyer and wouldn’t claim to have much idea about international law, it became abundantly clear that any party committing themselves to the Geneva Convention is expected to apply them, carte blanche, to anyone it interacts with in a combat situation (as no party to the Geneva Conventions can absolve itself, or another party, of liability for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, c.f. Convention I, Art. 51; Convention II, Art. 52; Convention III, Art. 131; Convention IV, Art. 148). The idea of ‘enemy combatant’ is present within the Conventions, but only as a descriptive term for any individual fighting for the army, guerrilla force, or combative force you are opposing. Furthermore, it is clear that any enemy fighter captured must be considered as a Prisoner of War. The only other possibility is that they are considered as a mercenary (subject to repatriation to their country of nationality and trial there) or a civilian (at which point they must be released or charged in a civilian court). On the subject of classifying the prisoners at Camp Delta Mr Bellinger asserts that “it’s probably right that these people are not entitled to be classed as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.” Probably? One minute he is claiming as an irrefutable fact that these men are not protected by the Geneva Conventions, the next he is suggesting they “probably” aren’t! He continues,

“Well, it’s not clear that they do have legal rights. All of us as lawyers, myself included as the legal advisor to the State Department, think that in general terms that all human beings need to be treated according to law and the rule of law. The problem is when one is dealing with essentially an army of terrorists who are trying to kill civilians. The legal rules that apply to people like that are simply not clear. So I can understand that people would like to apply the Geneva conventions, but anybody, you barely have to be a lawyer to read the terms of the Geneva Convention to see that these people do not qualify as prisoners of war.”

So, essentially, in the same breath as he claims that all people should be subject to the rule of law, he denies these men their right to protection under the only piece of international legislation drawn up to deal with, and protect, people in exactly the situation of those men captured by the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. And when one actually takes the time to think about what is being said one sees a classic example of the blurring of issues to attempt to deflect our attention from the lies we are being told. The discussion focuses specifically on Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay. In Camp Delta there are a number of prisoners (the exact number is unknown as the US admits there are prisoners held there who even the red Cross have not been allowed access to – a clear breach of international law). Depending on the questions raised we are lead to believe either that, a) these men are Al Qaeda terrorists suspected of involvement in unspecified plots or actions, or b) these men are ‘enemy combatants’ from Afghanistan or Iraq who were captured fighting the US (and are usually accused of having links to Al Qaeda). In this instance Mr Bellinger implies that the men in Guantanamo Bay are involved in “trying to kill civilians” – that is to say, they are terrorists. However, earlier in the week it had been announced that (according to a report by two lawyers, Mark Denbeaux and Joshua Denbeaux) more than half of the detainees, who are being held without charge, have never committed any "hostile acts" against the US. They estimated that 55% "are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies", after analysing government documents regarding the prisoners. Furthermore, according to the documents, only 8% were classed as al-Qaeda fighters and 60 prisoners "are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the [US] government asserts are terrorist organizations". So, whilst Mr Bellinger claims it is perfectly acceptable to hold these men, without trial, in a country they are neither from nor were fighting in, as the Geneva Conventions don’t apply to terrorists, it is actually the case that over half these man have not been involved in any acts hostile to the US. And only one in ten is associated with Al Qaeda. So, these men are held, without trial, illegally, without the protection of international law, at the behest of the US government who, in many cases, are not even able to verify the identities of the men they are holding (the report suggests that some of the detainees were caught by people seeking US bounties and their identities were never properly verified).

In light of these facts it seems distasteful to hear My Bellinger claim in his next breath that “what we have said though is that we are complying with our international legal obligations.” There are a number of issues which might call into question America’s compliance with international law. As well as Guantanamo, off the top of my head, one might consider the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign state, without the mandate of the United Nations as breaching international law; or the US corporate restructuring of the Iraqi oil markets in order to facilitate US profits at both the oil head and the petrol pump; or the illegal imposition of non-negotiable terms and conditions in the documentation transferring power from Paul Bremer to the Iraqi government. There are undoubtedly more examples, but these will serve for now. Perhaps the most salient question is that of ‘Extraordinary Rendition’, or kidnap as it might more simply be known. This process involves the US illegally removing a citizen or combatant from a country where they have been detained and removing them to a third country other than the US, often covertly, where they are detained, and many would argue, tortured. Mr Bellinger attempts to explain this as follows:

“Let’s say that someone who might have been connected with the World Trade centre bombings, the London bombings, lets say that person is found in some third country, and that third country intelligence service says ‘we found this individual, he hasn’t committed a crime in our country, we’re going to expel him’, and we happen to find that in an additional country, he is wanted somewhere else. So, that person can be expelled from the country where they’re found to the country of their nationality, and that helps overall in the fight against terrorism rather than letting those people simply walk free. This is the sort of cooperation amongst intelligence services that is fairly useful.”

There are so many inaccuracies and untruths in this statement it is difficult to know where to start. Firstly, if an individual is found in one country, where he is innocent of committing a crime, but is wanted for a crime in another country there is legislation in place to deal with this – extradition. Of course the US may be loathe to pursue this particular path as it would necessitate having some evidence that would stand up in a court of law. Secondly, it is interesting to note that Mr Bellinger doesn’t claim the captured individual should be returned to the country where they are wanted for a crime, per se, but to the country of their birth. What the legal precedent for this is, or what the benefit of this is, is not clear. Though considering what we know about the extraordinary rendition flights crossing Europe to Romania and Poland from other parts of the world, it would appear that the US has been capturing huge numbers of Romanian and Polish terrorists and criminals and repatriating them to the countries of their birth!

What is perhaps most disturbing about his current trend within the US and British administrations for ignoring the precedent of international law is their own proclivities for calling on other leaders, governments and countries to uphold the rule of international law. Places like Iran, Venezuela, and Palestine currently. How hypocritical it must look to the ordinary citizens of these countries to be told to uphold the international law which the UK and US flout so openly. Worse, perhaps, for those with a sense of history. A sense of history which might extend to remembering that the US is one of only two countries to have vetoed a motion in the UN calling for all countries to uphold international law: during the US supported Contra counter-insurgency against the democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua the UN proposed a motion calling on all countries (i.e. the US) to uphold the rule of international law. The US vetoed this proposal, against the wishes of every other country in the world. The same US government who ignored international law in supporting insurrections against democratically elected governments in Guatemala, El Salvador, Iran, or Chile, or who ignored international law when carpet bombing Cambodia and Vietnam (in breach of Protocol I, Art. 51 , Sec. 5a and Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b of the Geneva Convention), or who ignored international law in using chemical and biological weapons against the Vietcong (prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare). But we are not meant to raise issues like this, are we? They’re outdated, yesterdays news, irrelevant to the ‘facts on the ground’ for the ‘war on terrorism’. But how are we supposed to combat terrorism if it is not within the framework of international law. The precise reason why we consider these people terrorist is that they go against the otherwise universally accepted notions we have of law, order, civility, and morality. How are we to combat them by disregarding our own sense of these things?

I started this rambling monologue by noting that I am not an expert on international law. So even if there are legal arguments to be made about these issues (status of captured fighters, rendition, invading foreign countries, etc), is it not the case that we should colour all our judgements with the lens of morality? However abhorrent another’s actions, however vitriolic and hateful their stated aims may be, it is imperative we treat them the same as any other member of our society. Imperative because only in being above hatred, bitterness, revenge and recrimination will we be likely to act in a just manner. And justice is supposed to be the guiding principle of our laws and international relations: it’s why they are enshrined in law and have guided national and international politics since the end of the World Wars. So how else are we to interpret the US decision to exempt certain human beings from their basic legal rights? As an attack on their human rights and as a clear sign of the disregard and disdain the US has for things it can not understand. For to deny someone their legal rights is to deny them their human rights, as human rights are enshrined in law, and to do this is to dehumanise them, to make them no more than an object, a thing. The kinds of things we find barbaric and totalitarian in the regimes around the world we criticise and censure. For what kind of country would force-feed detainees, without anaesthetic, simply to keep them alive long enough to try in a kangaroo court without knowing the charges against them or having access to a lawyer, and then execute them? The New York Times reported this week that in Guantanamo Bay hunger strikers are being strapped to chairs for hours to force-feed them through tubes, before being restrained to stop them vomiting and placed in solitary confinement for extended periods to stop them drawing encouragement from each other. It is claimed that their treatment is regularly so rough that they are left bleeding from the nose and mouth. Having been captured abroad, these men have been incarcerated (and often tortured) in situ, then hooded, bound and flown to Camp Delta, where they are placed in orange jumpsuits (contrary to Convention IV, Art. 90 of the Geneva Convention), caged, tortured further, not subject to due legal process, and then prevented forcibly from starving themselves to death, despite most having no proven links to terrorist networks or evidence of serious wrongdoing. In some cases people have been detained on a case of mistaken identity. How does denying these men their Human Rights to legal recourse, the right to life, the right to equality before the law, the right to recognized as a person before the law, the right to dignity, in short, the right to be treated as a human being help bring them to justice? How does it reflect and impact on how the UK and US are perceived abroad? How does it not play into the hands of the very people the UK and US claim to be fighting to eradicate. How does it give us a right to call on others to uphold the rule of international law? How does it give us the right to talk about freedom, justice and democracy?

Just making sure I can make this seemingly simple piece of kit work....

Well, it looks like I can. More anon......