Tony Blair was aware of the existence of a secret interrogation policy which effectively led to British citizens, and others, being tortured during counter-terrorism investigations, the Guardian can reveal…
British intelligence officers were given written instructions that they could not “be seen to condone” torture and that they must not “engage in any activity yourself that involves inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners”.
But they were also told they were not under any obligation to intervene to prevent detainees from being mistreated.
“Given that they are not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this,” the policy said.
The policy almost certainly breaches international human rights law, according to Philippe Sands QC, one of the world’s leading experts in the field, because it takes no account of Britain’s obligations to avoid complicity in torture under the UN convention against torture.
Tony Blair, not only complicit in torture, but guilty of torturing logic with his old arguments that we had to throw (what I’m guessing he would claim were old fashioned) values such as habeus corpus out the window in order to safeguard our ‘way of life’.
A law, any law, is only as valid as the imposing authority’s ability or willingness to enforce it. Mr. Sands, being an expert on International Human Rights law surely knows this. (I am assuming it is law and not torture that is the field in which he is an expert). I honestly can’t envision Blair being ushered in irons into the Hague, can you? The lesson of 35 years ago said out loud by R.M. Nixon but already known was (and is) “If the President [P.M.] does it then it can’t be illegal.”
(Spot’s Corollary: Maybe the President can get away with it, but the Presidency is forever damaged)
This is not always true on the national level as was proved by Wm Clinton who violated the rights of a plaintiff to obtain justice in a sexual harassment civil suit by perjuring himself under oath. In that case he did not get away with it. He was not punished NEARLY enough, but he was disbarred and there will be forever a blot on his name in the history books.
On the international level it is a different kettle of fish.
But this begs the former question–was it illegal? Perhaps, but what ya gonna do about it?
“But this begs the former question–was it illegal? Perhaps, but what ya gonna do about it?”
Obviously it’s a tough one, but highlights how skewed all forms of international law are. We happily put tin pot dictators up in the Hague for war crimes, as they have no power and no means to fight back. While the US and her client states such as the UK continue to make the laws and enforce their own means of military ‘justice’ on the world, then there is very little we can do about this kind of thing.
“If the President [P.M.] does it then it can’t be illegal.”
So that also stands for Slobodan Milosevic, that bogey man who killed far less people by military means than good ol’ JFK (Vietnam), LBJ (ditto) Nixon (ditto and Cambodia etc), Reagan (direct involvement with terrorism in Nicaragua etc) G Bush (Iraq ptI), G W Bush (Afhganistan & Iraq II)…he was a president and ended up on trial. The diff was, he wasn’t anywhere near as powerful a prez.
I realise the powerful do these things and get away with it, that’s a fact of power and international relations for thousands of years. What angers me most is the rhetoric that we’re above these things and different, which for some bizarre reason, many people seem to believe.
there is nothing new under the sun.
So it is as it ever was. The closer we get to the total collapse of society and the meltdown of humanity the happier I am. These are but hopeful signs to me of the conclusion of what has been garbage all along.
Did you ever think of the idea that nothing can ever be TOTALLY corrupt? As a thing or institution deteriorates it becomes worse and worse until finally it just is “no more,” at which point it becomes one with it’s environment. call it “nature” call it “chaos” doesn’t matter. It just ceases to be what it once was and adopts a new paradigm. But until the point of absolute disintegration it will still hold some aspect of the goodness with which it was originally constituted.
When that last good bit goes, so does it and becomes something else. I’m waiting for the something else.