Save Abu Qatada

I'd have thought this was obvious, but judging by my Twitter feed, it isn't. So here we go again, in simple words. 

The Conservatives want to export Abu Qatada to Jordan, where evidence obtained under torture will be used to imprison or execute him. 

Four objections to torture: 
1. It's immoral.
2. It's illegal.
3. If you don't like 1 or 2, try this: it doesn't work. People will say anything to make it stop. 
4. If you do it to your enemies, your enemies will do it to your people. Once Britain openly supports torture (rather than simply practicing it, as currently), nobody can object when British people are tortured elsewhere. 

The Conservatives are thinking of temporarily suspending the UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (largely drafted by British lawyers) so that they can send Qatada away. Again, in simple terms, here's why that's a bad idea. 

Currently, the ECHR says this:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 

Nice and simple. Not 'No one nice'. 

1. Human rights are acquired by being human. There's nothing in the concept which adds 'unless we don't like you'. That's the point of universal human rights: everybody's got them. Someone tweeted that you have to shoulder responsibilities to gain rights. Wrong. Babies have human rights. People with mental health issues have human rights. Rapists and genocidal maniacs have human rights. 

It's like this: to be a civilisation, you have to behave in a civilised fashion. If you decide that you'll behave in the same way as a genocidal maniac, you've resigned as a nation/state/entity from civilisation. The mark of a civilised polity is how it treats the worst people, not how comfortable the lives of the conformists may be. A nation which tolerates the vilest people is a great nation. 

2. Once we decide that human rights can be switched on and off like a tap, where do we stop? Today, cartoon beardy terrorist sympathisers. Tomorrow: Basque nationalists. The day after: student protesters in need of a kicking, secondary picketers, badger cull saboteurs, the unemployed and roads protesters. Then a leftwing government might decide that if huntsmen torture foxes on video, they don't need the right to a fair trial or a lawyer. Perhaps we'll decide that the BNP, who don't believe in human rights, don't deserve to benefit from them. And so on until rights are reserved only for golfers and 'decent chaps' who don't make a fuss.

Personalised law is no law at all.

And Qatada? We're constantly being told he's Al-Qaeda's representative in Europe, that he's a dangerous terrorist mastermind. If so, he's committed multiple crimes: the UK has instituted the most draconian legislation in judicial history over the past 20 years: Orwell's 'thoughtcrime' is pretty much a reality. Put him on trial (although I suspect he's unlikely to get a fair trial in this country, given the government and media coverage thus far). Sending him to Jordan for an unfair trial because 'he must be guilty of something' isn't justice, it's blind reaction. Not coincidentally, when I did jury service, the forewoman said to us all 'He must be guilty because he doesn't look sorry'. Laugh? I almost cried. 

Unless, of course, he's nothing more than a vicious, reactionary peddler of hate. In which case, argue with him, spy on him, ridicule him: just don't subvert one of the pillars of civilised society simply for the satisfaction of having one horrible little man murdered in some torture cell by a puppet state. I can't think of an easier way of proving to his supporters that he was right all along. 

Seriously people: grow up. Being a scumbag doesn't mean you deserve to be murdered. If you think it does, you're a moral pygmy.

Oops… I've just been radicalised

A lot of very smart, sophisticated people - perhaps people like you - roll their eyes when you raise the subject of Tony Blair's war crimes. There have indeed been far too many silly posters and internet comments along the lines of 'Bliar', and comments about his wife, and they are indeed very boring. They're mostly from Tories who didn't necessarily disagree with his master plan of bombing every Muslim country on earth, but resented a (technically) Labour PM doing it. 


But sometimes, we need to remember just how evil Blair and his New Labour (i.e. Not Labour) friends were. How about this?

A top-secret document revealing how MI6 and MI5 officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by the Guardian.

The interrogation policy – details of which are believed to be too sensitive to be publicly released at the government inquiry into the UK's role in torture and rendition – instructed senior intelligence officers to weigh the importance of the information being sought against the amount of pain they expected a prisoner to suffer.

What? But the government - including one David Milliband, Foreign Secretary, kept saying things like this:

MI5 and MI6 do not "participate in, encourage or condone" either torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

Which obviously isn't true. 

…government ministers' use of a controversial power that permits them to "disapply" UK criminal and civil law in order to offer a degree of protection to British intelligence officers committing crimes overseas… It was operated by the British government for almost a decade.

So you can torture - in breach of domestic and international human rights laws - as long as you really want to. 


It shouldn't be much of a surprise that secret services commit torture all the time. Any citizen of a country trading with Saudi Arabia, to pick a random example, has abetted torture. But what's particularly awful about this is that the security services have been corrupted by this New Labour clique. There's no recognition that torture a) doesn't work: people will say anything, b) is immoral and c) makes it more likely that your own people will be tortured if they're captured. 


Instead, the briefing is worried about being caught:

…such a revelation could result in further radicalisation, leading to an increase in the threat from terrorism."The policy adds that such a disclosure "could result in damage to the reputation of the agencies", and that this could undermine their effectiveness.

Well, it's certainly radicalised me. Though admittedly, I was already rather radical in an armchair kind of way. But in all seriousness, how can any Western government persuade any other country that it's operating fairly, that human rights should be taken seriously, that international agreements mean anything? 

Bah Humbug!

Now you know me, and you'd trust me never to say anything critical about my august employer, The Hegemon.

So like me, you'll read its annual report with drooling and fervent admiration. You won't mentally footnote every claim, and you certainly wouldn't choke on the proud references to our sterling work on behalf of various repressive dictatorships (for a cynical, carping, nitpicking attitude towards this country - which very sensibly bans academic freedom of speech and the right to free assembly, and allows close relatives of our friends to film themselves torturing and murdering business rivals with impunity - you might like to click here, or here).

The growing profile we enjoy in the United Arab Emirates is apparent from the relationships we have developed there. In February 2010, senior staff from the University visited Abu Dhabi to present an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Social Science to Deputy Prime Minister, His Highness Lieutenant General Sheikh Saif Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

The award was presented in honour of His Highness’s considerable contribution to urban development, in particular his leading role in designing security and safety measures for the protection of residents of, and visitors to, the UAE.

What do we mean by 'security and safety measures'? Well, we mean sending troops to crush the disenfranchised citizens of Bahrain, and we mean death threats, the state kidnapping of  academics, the closure of civil society groups and a range of oppressive activities.

'And the award for most academics arrested in a term goes to…'

Should a university really be supplying courses to - and giving awards to - people who lock up my colleagues? This is what Human Rights Watch says about NYU and the Sorbonne, who have failed to protest the imprisonment of their employee, Nasser al-Ghaith:

As partners of the UAE government, these non-profit institutions are not only well-placed to condemn these outrageous attacks but have a responsibility to do so. These public institutions claim to be doing more than turning a pretty profit with their glamorous, starchitect-designed outposts in Abu Dhabi. They promised the world that they will serve the public good by creating a powerful UAE center of "ideas, discourse, and critical thinking" and that their branches will serve as a "bridge between civilizations," as the Sorbonne Abu Dhabi motto says.

The Hegemon certainly doesn't have 'star architects', but we do seem to be advising and training the security apparatus, so we're morally culpable for what's going on.

(Mind you, what to expect from an institution whose billionaire tax-avoiding Chancellor was suspended from the House of Lords for fiddling his expenses to the tune of £41,000?).

War - condemned to repetition

Bablylon Wales republishes an interview with the great Welsh photographer Philip Jones Griffiths. It's fascinating anyway, but I've just taught a session on the Vietnam war, and this question is stuck in my head:

In light of the recent 'torture' pictures coming out of Iraq how well, in your view, did American troops treat the civilian population in Vietnam?

When Lt. Calley was questioned during his trail for the My Lai massacre he was asked, "You threw babies in the air and shot them on the way down?" The reply was, "Yes sir, in the air." Iraq is only different because every soldier seems to have a digital camera.

Conversely, there are fewer people like Griffiths around: hounded out of war zones by press officers intent on making sure no atrocity photos appear. But, as Griffiths implies, the loss of a moral compass is so profound that the soldiers take their own photographs of atrocities they commit. 

'Britain does not participate in or condone torture'

Said Jack Straw, government minister, reading from the same script the Prime Minister and other ministers regularly reel off.

Oh yeah? It's not what the judge thinks - here's the paragraph which he withdrew under government pressure, and which has now been restored by the Court of Appeal.

"168. Fourthly, it is also germane that the Security Services had made it clear in March 2005, through a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, that "they operated a culture that respected human rights and that coercive interrogation techniques were alien to the Services' general ethics, methodology and training" (paragraph 9 of the first judgment), indeed they "denied that [they] knew of any ill-treatment of detainees interviewed by them whilst detained by or on behalf of the [US] Government" (paragraph 44(ii) of the fourth judgment). Yet, in this case, that does not seem to have been true: as the evidence showed, some Security Services officials appear to have a dubious record relating to actual involvement, and frankness about any such involvement, with the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed when he was held at the behest of US officials. I have in mind in particular witness B, but the evidence in this case suggests that it is likely that there were others. The good faith of the Foreign Secretary is not in question, but he prepared the certificates partly, possibly largely, on the basis of information and advice provided by Security Services personnel. Regrettably, but inevitably, this must raise the question whether any statement in the certificates on an issue concerning the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed can be relied on, especially when the issue is whether contemporaneous communications to the Security Services about such mistreatment should be revealed publicly. Not only is there some reason for distrusting such a statement, given that it is based on Security Services' advice and information, because of previous, albeit general, assurances in 2005, but also the Security Services have an interest in the suppression of such information."

Speaking truth to power?

I should tell you how my 'discussion' with The Hegemon's Maximum Leader about the ethics of giving honorary doctorates in law to the interior minister of an oppressive state with no academic freedom went.

Er… not brilliantly. Apparently, if a committee votes on something, then it's ethically right. My suggestion that business trumped humanist values was pointedly ignored, and she accused me of not wanting to admit students from countries with poor human rights records.

This is a sign of media training - I didn't mention students. I merely thought we shouldn't give doctorates to those in charge of abusing human rights - but that was a discussion she clearly didn't want to have (along with the question of whether a university should reward people who banned academics from teaching and publishing).

We can't turn away students from such regimes, on two grounds: firstly, we need their money. Secondly, a cursory glance at the court reports reveals that the UK is one such regime.

Still, it was fun having the discussion, though now she knows my name. My real one. We have a little list…

Doing our bit for Human Rights

What kind of country is the UAE?

According to Amnesty, it's the kind of country in which Sheik Issa bin Zayed al-Nahyan can be filmed shooting at, feeding sand to, beating, electrocuting with a cattle prod and then driving a motor car over and have sodomised Mohammad Shah Poor (an Afghan businessman with whom this charming member of the royal family and half-brother of the President had a dispute) and yet be acquitted on the grounds that his 'friends' drugged him, leading to this behaviour.

Here's some of the film:


The UAE also has a horrendous record on rape investigations, plays host to a large number of unpleasant UK tax exiles. This is what the US State department has to say about it:

There are no democratically elected institutions or political parties.

Problems remained in the Government's respect for human rights. Citizens do not have the right to change their government. The Government restricted freedom of speech and of the press. The press practiced self-censorship. The Government restricted free assembly and association, and it restricted religious freedom by banning proselytizing of Muslims. The Government restricted the rights of workers, many of whom were not protected by labor laws. There are no labor unions. There were poor working conditions for some laborers, failure to pay wages, and abuse of foreign domestic servants in an economy in which 98 percent of the private sector workforce is foreign. There were no independent human rights organizations. Trafficking in women as prostitutes and very young foreign boys as camel jockeys continue to be serious problems, despite government pledges to end these practices.

The law prohibits, under penalty of imprisonment, criticism of the Government, ruling families, and friendly governments, as well as other statements that threaten social stability; however, the law was rarely enforced because journalists practiced self-censorship.

The Constitution does not provide for freedom of assembly and association. There are no political organizations, political parties, independent human rights groups, or trade unions 

A de facto ban dating from 2002 prohibiting 10 prominent intellectuals from publishing opinion pieces in the country's Arabic and English language media continued. In 2002, six academics from Al Ain University were also banned from teaching. Some of these academics were also among the 10 intellectuals banned from publishing editorials. Academic materials destined for schools were censored. Students were banned from reading texts featuring sexuality or pictures of the human body.

So what am I saying? That it's not a great place, all in all. No free press and specific evidence of a lack of academic freedom. So how do we treat these infringements of human rights, especially ones which touch on education? We give His Highness Sheik Saif Bin Zayed Al Nahyan (a relative of Torture Man and minister of the interior with responsibility for the police) an honorary doctorate in a ceremony conducted at the Abu Dhabi's Police HQ, where presumably the long arm of the law dealt with poor Mr Poor's case with such dedication.

in recognition of his many achievements.

His Highness Lieutenant General Sheikh Saif Bin Zayed Al Nahyan is a pioneer in the realm of change and development and has made an outstanding contribution to society. The award was presented in honour of His Highness’ considerable contribution to urban development, in particular his leading role in designing security and safety measures for the protection of residents of, and visitors to, the UAE.

What a role model. And obviously the good Lieutenant's sterling work in the UAE is a core concern of The Hegemon. This honorary doctorate has nothing to do with the business it's currently conducting with the UAE police at all.

More like the Fleming version of Bond

MI5 has been doing a lot of PR in recent years. Adverts in liberal newspapers stressing the caring, sharing side of the secret police - a little hollow if you're from the six counties or any kind of dissident.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that they're all smartly-dressed young men Googling the bad guys. For a real insight, try reading this judge's report, in which he details MI5's complicity in torture and refusal to be honest with government and the courts.

Just like Fleming: his books are packed with sado-masochistic torture and contempt for democracy.

Does violence breed violence?

There's an established body of work dealing with the cultural effects of trauma: the Northern Irish, Sarajevans, Palestinians and plenty of other groups are witness to the fact that psychiatric disorders always follow in the wake of conflict.

Joshua Tabor is a prime example. The US soldier came home and asked his four-year old daughter to recite the alphabet. When she couldn't, he waterboarded her (i.e. semi-drowned her, a technique officially listed as torture).

Still, I might try it in my seminars. That'll teach them to misprounounce "þæt þu lagu drefde, / siþþan þu gehyrde on hliþes oran / galan geomorne geac on bearwe".*


From The Seafarer. 'That you disturb the ocean / after hearing on the hill's brow / the mournful singing of the cuckoo in the grove'.

Atten-SHUN

Already overrun with ex-bizzies expounding the joy of 'kettling' peaceful protesters, my esteemed institution is toying with the idea of a degree for squaddies. As we've just merged with the Law school, how about 'Spotting an Illegal War for Dummies', and 'What Actually Constitutes Torture and Why It's A Bad Thing'?

Put the pliers down, Torquemada!

A while ago, I posted links to research showing that religious people buy more porn. Now, as Pharyngula notes, religious people are more likely to condone torture. Guys! You're meant to be horrified by crucifixion, not inspired! It does explain all those rather detailed paintings of hell (and the past 2000 years of history).

Torture made easy

Maybe it's an indictment of the state of American journalism, but it's taken Playboy to demonstrate waterboarding. Playboy's journalist bet that he could manage 15 seconds of this simulated drowning: he lasted 5-6 seconds before panicking and ending the experiment - even without the guns, shouting and intimidation that one assumes came with the 'real' experience. One Guantanamo inmate had the treatment nearly 200 times in a month. Do you think he provided detailed, accurate and honest testimony? Or might he have said anything that would end the torture for a few minutes?

Here's war-supporting 'liberal' journalist Christopher Hitchens trying it: