In response to the publication of the report “Visit to Guantanamo Bay” on the 21st January 2007 by the Foreign Affairs Committee, I would be grateful if you could circulate my comments below to all member MPs of the FA committee.
This report is a travesty. It is a disgrace to the House of Commons and to the British public, in whose name is was ostensibly written. This shameful publication espouses moral ambiguity and half-baked reasoning in almost every paragraph. About the only section in which the authors were able to write with any convincing authority was in their initial paragraphs about the history of the base.
If I had wanted to read a selection of White House and Number 10 press releases, I could have simply looked them up on the internet rather than having to wade through your publication.
Your delegation had an opportunity to visit one of the most polarising and monumental icons of tyranny of my generation. Instead of asking serious questions or attempting to meaningfully audit our government’s foreign policy, you dutifully reported the calorific value of daily rations served to inmates and the frequency with which they received X-rays.
Your report alluded to and often referred to external sources which document the countless allegations of abuse, torture, suicides and force feeding, the brutal policies of isolation, denial of habeas corpus and the newly created kangaroo courts to try and potentially execute these men. Yet the gravity of these affronts to basic, fundamental and universal human rights never quite seemed to carry any weight in the conclusions of your report, let alone merit an urgent requirement for action on behalf of our government.
The actions of my government in leading this country into an unprovoked and catastrophic war in the face of massive public opposition were deplorable. The behaviour of Parliament in standing mute and subservient for five long years as repeated, unspeakable atrocities to the ideals of Democracy and human rights were committed in our name is even more despicable.
Unless this committee has any genuine intention of speaking out to represent the views of the public or those of the oppressed, then the next time you consider a similar visit, please save tax-payer’s money and just let Tony Blair’s minions at the Foreign Office write the report.
Ms Sandy Hodgkinson US State Department Deputy Director for War Crimes
Dear Ms Hodgkinson,
I am writing to you to thank you for your comments on the fate of the released Guantanamo prisoners as reported by the BBC. Your statement that “The US position is clear – we will not send individuals to places where we believe it is more than likely they will be tortured” really tickled me. Honestly, I can say that it was one of the funniest things I had ever read. In fact “HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA” that is brilliant! The US kidnapped these inmates from around the world, in defiance of the public views of every single civilised government in the world, let alone the overwhelming world public opinion opposing extraordinary rendition and the physical and legal treatment of prisoners by the US at Guantanamo Bay. After kidnapping these men & children, denying them any form of modern legal protection, physically and mentally tormenting & torturing them before finally declaring them innocent of your own government’s unfounded charges – you have the gall to whine that the rest of the world is behaving hypocritically by not offering to these men political asylum or pretending that you care that they might be tortured when returned home after you have accused them of terrorism?
For the avoidance of doubt, if your government has any concerns that these innocent men are at risk of ill treatment on return to their own countries then it is TOTALLY the responsibility of the US government to ensure their safety and well being. After all, you kidnapped them. If this involves granting those innocent men and children asylum in the USA then that is what you are morally obliged to do. You are only fooling yourselves with you descriptions of these men as “no longer enemy combatants” when you failed to offer any evidence to anyone that these men were in fact anything other than ordinary. Why has it become Albania’s problem that your intelligence services are consistently incompetent and routinely kidnap innocent people? Could it be because it would be embarrassing to the US government to admit that the vast majority of inmates at Guantanamo, those to whom the former Defence Secretary referred to as “the worst of the worst”, are actually innocent of any and all crimes that the US accuses them of? The world thinks so.
Anyway – please make sure that you are roster’d for future public statements – you are quality entertainment value.
I am writing to you in the hope that you could provide me with some professional advice and general guidance with regards to UK law. I recognise that this is an unusual request but I assure that I can definitely make it worth your while.
I am currently considering participation in number of off-shore business ventures, which might be considered by some, to be less than ethical. The business opportunities in question are all import/export related and range from supplying contraband goods and arms to the supply of child slaves to the global markets. Clearly I have no intention of breaking UK law, but in light of BAE’s narrow escape from your Al-Yamamah corruption investigations, I’d like to ensure that I am better prepared, legally, should I ever be personally implicated in a similar scenario. Be prepared – that’s what my Granddad always told me!
Can you give me any indication whatsoever as to how much cash I would have to donate to the Labour Party or just how big a contract I’d have to generate for the National Balance of payments to get one of your investigations shut down should someone squeal to the law?
I appreciate that there are a number of variables and that you would need to consider “the wider public interest”. However, I am struggling to understand what qualifies as public interest given that, in the BAE case, you have stated that “No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.” yet MI6 have said that they do not concur with the government suggestion that Saudi Arabia would stop providing intelligence information should your enquiry continue, which means that national security was never threatened.
If BAE can bribe Saudi government officials but get away with it, does this mean that I should only bribe governments who supply intelligence related to the war on terror, or does it mean that I should focus my dollars on those governments who are prepared to buy massive quantities of UK arms? I am finding it all so confusing but your professional opinion would assist me greatly in making these pressing investment decisions.
Of course, should be able to aid me, you would not find me ungrateful and there would be a healthy percentage for you should any of these proposed ventures prove successful. Similarly, there is always a place for learned legal council like yourself in the commercial sector where knowledge of the inner workings of government and the SFO is always a valuable commodity!
