Big Sticks and Small Carrots

And I say Potato

Hmm, that title doesn’t really work too well in text form. Oh well, try singing it to yourself.

Anyway, those Iranians, eh? What are they like?

Craig Murray was on Newsnight yesterday making the mostly overlooked point that neither the British nor the Iranian governments were being honest about the situation. The fact is that the border between Iran and Iraq is not clearly defined; it’s not actually possible to say with certainty which side of the border these sailors were on because it’s not actually possible to say with certainty where the border is. That hasn’t stopped both sides from claiming to be absolutely sure of their case though.

So Iran has now held the 15 British hostages for 11 whole days in clear breach of international law. Outrageous!

During the course of those 11 days in an entirely unrelated incident (note: not sarcasm) British resident Bisher al-Rawi was released from US custody and allowed to return to the UK. He had been held for more than 4 years, mostly at Guantanamo Bay. His colleague, Jamil Al-Banna, who was taken into custody at the same time, has not been released.

Last year, The Independent provided a good summary of the situation. It appears that the UK government, through MI5, was complicit in the detention of the men. That was, apparently, his reward for working as a go-between for that same MI5.

According to Amnesty International:

Their initial transfer to Bagram and subsequent one to Guantánamo Bay took place despite the fact that they had not been allowed to consult with lawyers, and despite the fact that a habeas corpus petition on their behalf was pending in the courts in Gambia.

Amnesty International has also been informed that the Gambian authorities, through the Gambian High Commission in London, hindered attempts by relatives of Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil Al-Banna to ascertain the whereabouts of the two men by refusing to authorize power of attorney instructing a lawyer in Banjul to act on their behalf, thereby significantly delaying introduction of the habeas corpus petition.

Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil Al-Banna were rendered to US custody in a manner which circumvented any judicial process, including extradition procedures, in further violation of their internationally recognized human rights.

But only a hard-left cheese eating surrender monkey would even think to suggest that Al-Rawi was kidnapped by the US authorities.

After more than four years of imprisonment and questioning, the authorities were still unable to charge Al-Rawi with committing any crime but Beckett’s statement to parliament concerning his release nevertheless implied that he was still a security risk:

This decision follows extensive discussions to address the security implications of Mr. Al Rawi’s return. The UK will continue to take the necessary measures to maintain national and international security.

Charming. Innocent until proven guilty is just soooo last Century…

Let me stress that the treatment of Al-Rawi does not in any way excuse the behaviour of the Iranian government in holding the 15 British sailors in the way that they have.

The Blair government’s attempts at moral high ground pronouncements and complaints of Iranian breaches of international laws, however, are hard to take seriously.

The European Parliament has approved a report condemning a number of European countries for their involvement in and/or silent acquiescence of extraordinary rendition.

It is only a matter of time before the PMOS utters those immortal words yet again. Move along now, nothing to see here…

And, disgracefully, they’ll probably get away with it too.

There’s a clue as to why Blair will probably get away with it here.

A further clue is to be found in the contribution to today’s debate made by Conservative MEP Charles Tannock:

I was opposed from the very start to the Temporary Committee. It has proven to be an expensive exercise. We do not have any figures but I estimate the cost to be over EUR 1 million. It has duplicated Senator Marty’s efforts in the Council of Europe and has produced nothing substantially new which was not already in the public domain. Regrettably the Left and Liberals cannot resist an opportunity to bash NATO and the United States which, in spite of making mistakes, remains a democracy which shares European common values and is our ally in the fight against global terrorism.

The Fava report is heavy on allegations and accusations, but light on conclusive proof. Inevitably some mistakes and excesses may have occurred but in my opinion there was no systematic US policy for extraordinary renditions to illegally torture abductees in third countries or any proof of the existence of CIA detention camps in Romania or Poland.

Take out the gratuitous leftie bashing (or maybe not) and you could easily imagine that the above was the work of a mindless Blairite drone.

That doesn’t excuse Blair’s behaviour in any way, of course. What it does highlight is the way that Blair’s refusal to address the whole issue of extraordinary rendition has been greatly aided not just by the silence of a large part of the Labour Party but also by a similar silence on the part of the Conservatives (a few backbenchers aside). With Cameron now looking to appeal to voters with his rebranded “liberal compassionate conservatism”, his silence on this issue is worth bearing in mind.

Remember Cully Stimpson, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Affairs? He’s the one who launched an attack on law firms representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and encouraged the media to join in. It was a small object lesson in the Bush administration’s cosy relationship with the right-wing media and the way they try to exploit that relationship. This time, fortunately, it backfired badly. The administration has had to deploy their plausible deniability defence.

Stimson has even apologised. Sort of.

There’s an audio link to the original interview here (wma). He said:

Actually you know I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there,’ and you know what, it’s shocking.

He then listed a number of firms and went on:

I think, quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.

It was an outrageous suggestion and has quite rightly been shouted down.

Note that there’s no messing around with words like “alleged” or “suspected” for Stimson. The “very terrorists” he said. That this man has any involvement in the process of giving the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay a “fair trial” is a farce.

Now he says his comments didn’t reflect his “core beliefs”.

There’s a good sign of the sincerity of this apology in the way he addressed the other allegation he made concerning payment. He now says:

During a radio interview last week, I brought up the topic of pro bono work and habeas corpus representation of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Regrettably, my comments left the impression that I question the integrity of those engaged in the zealous defense of detainees in Guantanamo. I do not.

Nice use of the word “zealous” there in his apology.

But that’s not the point. The point is to compare his apology with what he’s actually apologising for. When asked who was paying the firms, he said:

It’s not clear, is it? Some will maintain that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart, that they’re doing it pro bono, and I suspect they are; others are receiving monies from who knows where, and I’d be curious to have them explain that.

The implication couldn’t be clearer, particularly in the context of his previous remarks. The only impression these comments left was the one that they were specifically intended to leave. Regrettably, my comments left the impression… It is probably not the most honest apology you’ve ever encountered.

He has not been sacked.

But then, that’d be no way to repay a deniable lackey who walked up to the plate, sucked it up and took one for the team. He’ll probably be promoted.

Clive Stafford Smith on a new approach to the U.S. government’s defence of Guantánamo Bay internment camp.

The ink was barely dry on all the criticisms issued on the five-year anniversary of Guantánamo Bay before the US department of defence began its desperate riposte. On the day of the anniversary, January 11 2007, Cully Stimson, a “deputy assistant secretary of defence for detainee affairs” went on Federal News Radio to launch an assault on the law firms who represent the prisoners. (You can listen to his interview here.)

The deputy secretary, a lawyer with the department of defence (DoD), knows “the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks” about Guantánamo Bay. A freedom of information request has, he says, elicited the names of the lawyers representing the prisoners.

“And you know what?” he asks rhetorically. “It’s shocking.” He goes on to list a Who’s Who of the American legal profession, which he obviously had prepared to read out on the radio programme. I could name many others.

He suggests that this information should be passed along to the CEOs of American businesses who currently employ these firms, because the lawyers “are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001.” He thinks that those CEOs should “make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms.” This scandalous story, he says, “is going to have major play” in the media.

Read more. If anything, it gets worse.

(I’ve changed the link to the interview to a more useful one that that used in the original article. The link I used is from this page on Federal Radio News)