Who knew what in the UK about the use of torture on Guantanamo detainees? The question itself is very important. We tend to think that the power of the State in the UK has been civilised through centuries of vigilance and struggle. Has it? And are we losing it? We know what can become of a modern state that ignores the rule of law---think of the modern European totalitarianisms. I don't want anything to do with a government that facilitates torture, and I would do what I could not to live or bring up my children in a State that tortures.
And who can and should stop us from finding out who knew what about torture? John Jackson, in these three posts, takes us through the very troubling case of Binyam Mohamed. Two judges had to decide whether to make public in their judgment a summary of evidence provided by the US about the treatment of the UK-resident Ethiopian while in detention in Pakistan. It appears that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary (and also the defendant in the case) succeeded in persuading the judges not to do so.
Has David Miliband breached the rule of law?
Will International law help Binyam Mohamed?
Having read John Jackson's posts, it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the agents of the UK Government were guilty of contraventions of the Geneva Convention and that our Foreign Secretary is now involved in a cover-up in which he claims over-riding interests of state to save itself. The suspicion is fuelled partly by a strange misunderstanding of what David Miliband told the court. But we may be seeing an executive branch with no compunction in being disingenuous in its statements on a fundamental question of its respect for the rule of law.
Cover-up could be one explanation for the behavior we see. Even more worryingly, John Jackson's third post suggests that what we may be witnessing is evidence of a sort of "code of Omerta" amongst States that are party to the Geneva Convention: if you allow your courts to "tell" your citizens about our covert activities, expect to be thrown out of the charmed circle of intelligence sharing.
Those civil liberties dependent on the rule of law, that we may have thought we had secured, need to be secured again. The Convention on Modern Liberty, of which openDemocracy is a primary sponsor, brings together those who understand that rights will wither and power will become brutal if we do not fight for them repeatedly and frequently.
Comments
"We tend to think
that the power of the State in the UK has been civilised through
centuries of vigilance and struggle."
Who is this "we"?
Where have you been in the past ten years or so?
The mantra of "security" has been used to rationalise (for it does not justify) the largest expansion in State surveillance, intrusion, control, and power since the 1940s. At least then the country faced a real enemy, and the public largely stood with the Government.
Now we have a fake, invented enemy, who are exaggerated out of all proportion by the State as the excuse to impose their draconian powers.
Yes, the terrorists do exist, but they are far fewer, less potent, and so much less of a threat than they are made out to be. Even one death is a tragedy, but in the context of a country, risks must be assessed, and balanced, and kept in proportion.The numbers of deaths attributable to terrorism in this country is less than the number of deaths in police cells, and far less than 1% of the number killed on the roads; yet if we compare the amount of legislation, time, effort, and money spent on security theatre and "the war on terrorism" with that spent on combating road death or keeping an eye on Plod instead of Plod keeping an eye on us, then you will see the disconnect.
I know, the State will claim that the paucity of terrorist outrages is as a result of their vigilance and deterrence. It may be difficult to prove otherwise, but how likely this is as an explanation you may judge by assessing the success of the State in all their other endeavours. Simple competence appears to be rare; success rarer still.
Handling terrorism should be a simple, relatively minor, policing issue; not a way of life, but it is too convenient an excuse for our masters.
Keep people scared of shadowy foreigners, and you can make them jump through hoops, restrict their lives, and keep them under control.
If you think this is paranoia, perform a simple experiment. My thesis is that for any politician or functionary, the prime motivation is accession to, and retention of, power; the more the better. My prediction is that public policy as proposed by them will invariably lead to increased powers for them and the lessening of checks and balances. My contention is that this thesis has been demonstrated well over the last ten years.
Watch what they do from now on. If we see any significant diminuition in State power, any proposals to relinquish control, or any reduction in surveillance, I will own myself wrong, confess myself paranoid, and apologise profusely.
I think I'm pretty safe.
Clear skies!
The question of governance viewed from the angle of the career demands of participants is -- from the viewpoint of citizens -- how do we provide for the entertainment needs of the governmental types of personality among us, their very real emotional hunger to tell others what to do and so forth -- whilst protecting the hard won constitutional outer limits on this type of human self indulgence? The fact that rationalisations such as 'national emergency' increasingly are employed ever since especially the late-modern age to justify the exercise of raw power over others is, when one thinks of it, a sign of actual human progress. These 'public service' gentry are not now immune to the promptings of conscience in other words, in the same way for example as was a Julius Caesar or an Alexander. And so it is up to us to help along our still morally ambiguous friends and neighbours, these children of a lesser god and 'the state'.
Of course this country should not be party in any way to torture, and every individual case of possible state skullduggery needs to be fully investigated - and, if necessary, pursued to its proper legal conclusion (ministers behind bars, if appropriate).
But in the context of the legitimate charge against the British government (and others, such as leading members of the armed services) - including all those MPs who voted for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - of being party to genocide in both the latter countries, the storm over the case of Binyam Mohamed seems oddly discrepant.
He is, after all, still alive - unlike the 5 million or more Afghans and Iraqis who have die as a direct or indirect result of the illegal invasions and occupations - which continue to be imposed and 'justified' with the same original lies.
Where is the British legal establishment's pursuit of justice here? Where is the public acknowledgement that the International Criminal Court Act applies to the actions of the majority of our MPs, and especially to members of the Cabinet? That the Hague should not be a place where only the 'enemies of the West' are tried?
The acceptance by the British establishment - in particular by our mainstream media poodles - of the phoney "war on terror" is a national disgrace. It doesn't help much to know that it was entirely predictable.
Paul Carline
Mr Curzon-Price writes- 'John Jackson's third post suggests that what we may be witnessing is evidence of a sort of "code of Omerta" amongst States that are party to the Geneva Convention'.
It seems highly likely to me that such a 'code of omerta' is what NATO Secretary General George Robertson had in mind when he declared, at an informal meeting of NATO Defence ministers on 26 September 2001 that -'the campaign against terrorism will be long, arduous and will require radical new thinking' and that 'the military option is one of several aspects of a coordinated response to terrorism '. Robertson's approach incidentally was subsequently confirmed as NATO policy at the 4 October NATO summit.
Extraordinary rendition could certainly be euphemistically decribed as 'radical new thinking' for NATO member states. But participation in this practice by European NATO members, hidebound by the HRA, would make 'turning a blind eye' inevitable in cases involving their own citizens, and possibly even residents, like Binyam Mohamed. The alternative is messy and embarrasing litigation on behalf of those 'extraordinarily rendered' into US hands.
Post new comment