Roll Over! Play Dead! Now here's a biccy from those nice Americans.

He didn't look as bloody smug as he did when he was pissing on Paw Broon a few months ago.

Squirming like a slug.

Great!

I hate politicians and this is a good example why, they split hairs and try to talk around the truth.

Maybe if the UK stood up against the US and its world policing ways we might actually become less of a target and so be doing ourselves a favour. Instead of trying to snuggle up in bed with them which only seems to result in getting a good reaming anyway in the last few decades.

Icon because Paris enjoys a good reaming it seems. and the UK politicians seem to have that in common with her.

Whats more important- vital information that saves civilian/military lives and access to preferential kit that saves more lives, or embarrassing the UK/US government over something that is common nature in Pakistan/Afganistan (somehow dont think that the Taliban subscribe to the UN decleration of human rights).

Nothing more than political play- Davis knows that the govt will never release the docs, but kicks up a fuss to get the wishy washy bleeding hearts to crow for him.

How will anyone knowing about the torture affect the security of the nation, other than to prevent mass rioting when they find out their government is every bit as bad as the so-called "axis of evil" they wish to destroy?

Wait a minute....... Damn! I have answered my own question.....duh!

So if the foreign office's job is to do what the US tells them - do we really need a Foreign Secretary? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just get a regular secretary to print out their emails?

... since it'll most likely expose him as a blatant liar.

The notion that the UK government didn't know and didn't sanction torture is either a nonsense, or our politians are nieve imbeciles. There is no middle ground here.

And after thinking, discover that you put a false dichotomy before us.

Those are not the two options.

And, unless we are no better than the Taliban, what THEY won't agree to doesn't mean we don't have to.

I just love the fact that we have obviously breached human rights in our relentless pursuit of individuals who *may* have participated in terrorism. To the point we actually torture them in clear breach of our commitments as a civilised developed country and the response the people of this nation get when we query this stain on our soul is;

would indeed cause real and significant damage to the national security and international relations of this country

So that reason is enough to breach anyones human rights you think may be a terrorist.

Not good enough, not by a long shot, we became what we sought to destroy and until Bush/Blair are brought to account for this debacle we will continue to carry this stain.

The reason the US authorities doesn't want this information out in the public domain is that the "serious damage to US national security" it could do is make it available to all the other detainees being tried in the US.

The UK court had to fight tooth and nail to get access to this information in the first place because the Americans didn't want anyone to have it. Now it is being used in a UK court case they are trying to keep it from becoming available to the lawyers representing other detainees in America where the information "supposedly" contained in the documents could completely destroy the governments cases against the detainees. The trials in America are being bottle fed only the information the authorities want them to see, and these documents aren't on that list.

"Whats more important- vital information that saves civilian/military lives and access to preferential kit that saves more lives"

Enough with the Lewis Page impersonation - you obviously can't pull it off.

"or embarrassing the UK/US government over something that is common nature in Pakistan/Afganistan (somehow dont think that the Taliban subscribe to the UN decleration of human rights)."

Also known as the "everyone else is doing it" excuse. Maybe you want to read yourself the "if you like it so much go and live there" speech, which is presumably a central part of your repertoire.

"Nothing more than political play- Davis knows that the govt will never release the docs, but kicks up a fuss to get the wishy washy bleeding hearts to crow for him."

Ah, the party faithful steps forward: can't agree with a Tory, must defend the party line, even if the Tory is right for once. Think for a second? We wish you had.

He's simply as insignificant as a Milipede. Infact thinking about it a Milipede probably

has more charisma thank him.

"We will not release documentation" (Pound Fist on Table)

"Er.....on how the Americans tortured suspects" (Said in a sightly less beligerant tone)

"Em......to obtain inteligence" (Did I just say the American tortured suspects?)

"Ah........because they might not release inteligence vital to our security" (Safe ground here. Nothing is more important to my Vote than mentioning safety.)

"Ahem.....and we all know how reliable inteligence obtained from torture is" (who wrote this briefing?)

Cough.....gained by torturing suspects (red face, pauses, stamering)

An 'embarrassed silence' following that statement would be about the only truthful thing coming out of his mouth. And they cannot seem to understand why we do not trust a single thing they say.

This is why everyone hates the fucking americans. Just do what we want, do it, DO IT, DO IT NOW........................

Biggest threat to the free world...

Mofos.

Milliband is not stupid. The resources of the NSA and CIA are so enormous that the MI5 / Mi6 budget would look like a Christmas party expense. We need their intel, they don't need ours but they do need support in relationships with the rest of the world. Those bases and facilities Mike Richards mentions can be established in Poland or other "eager to please the US" nations of East Europe quite easily.

Milliband is Jewish but he doesn't appear to be a Zionist. This is not a race / religion issue though I'm not sure what the Iranians and Saudis think of it. He's just trying to equate the benefit of disclosure (for one person) to the loss of intel (for a nation).

who knows he would do exactly the same thing himself. If you accept that some intel has to remain outside of the public domain (a seperate debate, but obviously some things have to be secret, ie to protect sources etc) then it becomes a matter of trust between our agencies. We don't have the right to take intel passed from the US and make it public (and vice versa). It would change the nature of the relationship. It's not a threat, just a fact. If you accept that this intel could save lives then you have a very difficult moral and ethical dilemna, though you wouldn't think so from the above piece.

I don't condone what went on at guantanamo by the way, but nor do I condone pompous tories carping from the cheap seats, or the self-righteous anti-American grandstanding above.

I really LOVE the way politicians can look us in the eye while vomiting the garbage they cover us in!

My only reason for wanting to live another hundred years is to be around to read what really goes on behind the scenes once it gets released into public records. (I laughed out loud when the French enquiry to relinquish sovereignty to improve their economic situation was declassified! Pity so many of those around at the time are no longer with us.)

Paris because her secret stuff get released well before 50/100 years are over...

David Miliband = Turture collaborator

That's the only conclusion I came to when I heard this scumbag avoiding answering the question as to whether or not they (he - the buck stops with him, but they'll conveniently forget that if it came up) knew about the ongoing torture.

Instead all the ass-hole repeated (a good few times, even when pressed) was the same line about the UK not condoning torture. In other words, he knew it was going on and he did nothing to try and stop it. In other words, he effectively condoned it.

Now where's the war crime tribunal?

The USA is a great friend and formidable enemy yes?

So what part of the equation should the UK be on?

S'easy really (one enemy can cost a thousand friends)

The judges simply assume that these documents prove everything that Mr. Binyam Mohamed claims they prove and convict the government accordingly.

The govt can still release them to prove them wrong.

Problem solved

by most contributors seems to be that Miliband was going to great lengths to avoid admitting that the UK Government did/does know about the torture of Binyam Mohamed. If it wasn't a serious issue, the lengths he went to to avoid telling the truth would be laughable.

It is a great shame to our nation that we do not expect the truth from our politicians and other 'peers' anymore, and the world can see this. Great Britain no more!

Mike - stand at the next election & I'll vote for you.

Hell, I'll even manage your campaign...

If this is USA style "intelligence", then I believe we are better off without it here in the UK.

Geneva Convention BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Torture is torture ! What a twat ?

It is bad enough that we do it to animals, but to infer that, on this occasion (in defence of the state/realm) it is OK to do it to humans, is tantamount to condoning the Nazi gas chambers, 'cos the Jews were a threat to National Socialism.

I f*cking well hate ALL politicians.

They still think we are uneducated peasants eating turnips, getting pissed and sh*gging sheep. Well OK, but not as often.

ALF

A little off-topic, so my apologies, but please bear with me as it has some relevance.

I am often moved to applaud the opinions of my fellow posters on the register (and, indeed, in other forums). Strong opinions are offered, rebutted, discussed and refined. Cries for liberty and equality are sent up and the unwarranted and unwanted totalitarianisms of the modern age are condemmend and criticised. By way of example, I give you the AC post of 18:06 on the 5th in this very thread. It is that post that has moved me to make this one...

...for therein lies the issue - Anonymity.

Are we so scared of having strong opinions and of voicing them that we have to hide ourselves behind the AC label? If so, what are we scared of? The draconic state that we demonise and criticise? The unseen hand of power behind it? Censureship and condemnation by our peers on this site or others? Or perhaps we fear for our livelyhoods, our jobs and the future of our families?

Whatever our motivations, we *must* understand that hiding behind the mask of anonymity reduces and weakens our arguments; it is, in effect, allowing the 'other side to win'. If we truly believe in what we say then we also truly have nothing to fear, and even if we do find a reason to fear for our own safety; even if they do "come for us", then surely that gives us the chance to air, publically, our concerns and to have them answered, or in denial of our questions, to have our concerns reinforced. Surely such would galvanise us into a more cohesive whole and a stronger movement.

Right now, we amount to whispering voices behind closed doors and shuttered windows, but the time is nearing for us to open the doors and windows and begin shouting our concerns from the rooftops; and we're never going to achieve that under the label of anonymity.

Don't be afraid to stand up and be counted.

This is a call for no more AC.

Thank you for reading.

Thanks for the supporting words, Sarah!

If someone does actually fear for their job, then I'd ask them to take a long, hard look at the employment laws of their nation and the contract that they have signed with their employer.

As a general rule of thumb, you cannot be fired, or have any form of disciplinary action taken against you for expressing your opinions. If my employer tried to do that to me, I'd welcome them to the court....

now...repeat after me... I am *NOT* afraid....

I use AC under an assumption that those that need to know or want to know probably jolly well know already.

So it is a public thing. Some meetings require that a commenter states name, company (and position?) before making a comment, some do not require that formality.

Nonetheless it is a great way to share views on important stuff.

"I use AC under an assumption that those that need to know or want to know probably jolly well know already."

Nope. Someone may want to know just so they can say WHICH AC you are when you post. Or even just so that they don't have to point out WHICH AC they are responding to (e.g. "AC @13:44").

And this is a comment.

Posted as AC, just because I can. I mean, seriously, I'm not afraid of saying stupid things loudly (I do that more often than not), but sometimes anonymity can prevent the stupid /ad hominem/ flamewars.

--

Pierre

I agree - I don't want to hide my opinions. Nothing to hide nothing to fear. The whole affair stinks. We know this govt and the US govt is complicit in acts of torture and will do anything to cover it up. Probably including silencing its criics . . . oh . . . what am I saying!

Anyway - come out of the closet. Speak the truth and shame the devil!

BH just like the one hovering overhead right now . . .