Blunkett advised Tony Blair to bomb Al Jazeera

Anyone that saw Al-Jazeera in 2003/4 will know that the 'propaganda' Blunkett referrs to is the coverage of the slaughter of civilians by US/UK forces, the airing of pictures of dead US/UK servicemen and wicked murders at the hands of extremists.

The point that these were factual news reports seem to matter not because propaganda now means PR. And if bad PR can be stopped by killing a few innocent journalist then so be it.

Blunkett's statements just goes to show how removed from law and decency the people running this country are. British people should be ashamed at their government, it really is no better than those running Germany in the 1930's.

Just another confirmation that the new establishment doesn't understand, let alone value, the basic concepts of law and decency.

Like all those who KNEW they were right, down the ages, they take the view that anything they do is good (because they are good people with good intentions), while anything their opponents do is bad (because they are, obviously, evil people). This is the kind of thinking that lay behind the practice of burning heretics at the stake. It was also prevalent in the early, blood-soaked stages of the French Revolution, and throughout the Soviet "communist" and Nazi regimes. Such people have no patience with reasoned argument, logic, and trying to understand the other guy's point of view. After all, if the other guy is known to be the embodiment of evil, we can easily predict that everything he says is bound to be deceitful and wicked, can't we?

I know it's a trivial example, but this kind of special pleading always reminds me of an incident in the colourful life of world chess champion Bobby Fischer. Back in the 1960s, when he was just rude, self-centred and controversial, and was not yet wanted by the US federal government, Fischer mounted an insistent campaign to get FIDE, the world chess body, to ban quick draws in under 30 moves. This was on the grounds that the Soviets, who dominated chess in those days, were getting an unfair advantage by having quick effortless draws with each other, and saving up their energy for foreigners like Fischer.

Eventually FIDE conceded, and a new regulation was established forbidding draws in under 30 moves. At the next Chess Olympiad, Fischer agreed a draw in about 20 moves in one of his first games! When the arbiter asked why he had disobeyed the rule that had been brought in at his specific request, Fischer uttered the immortal words, "That rule is for the commie cheats - not me!"

Blair would have been more diplomatic and said "the rules of the game [sic] have changed".

Surely by suggesting to "take out a propaganda mechanism", Blunkett is admitting to inciting a terrorist act. Oh, i forgot, war crimes aren't terrorism.

Perhaps Blunkett is getting ready to turn "Queen's evidence" on Tony when he appears over in the dock at The Hague.

And which of the two (Blunkett or Bush) do you think had most influence on Blair?

This is just another example of the discredited and pathetic Blunkett trying to muscle in on anything that will raise his profile and return him to high office. He's a spent force - in more ways than one might care to consider. Brown (assuming it is Brown who gets in) isn't going to take him seriously at all.

As we have said before: "Anyone who votes for these scum has blood on their hands."

Those who DO support the Bliar crims presumably accept their naive mantra that "those who harbour terrorists ARE trerrorists."

So perhaps those who provide support and comfort to war criminals are themselves war criminals.

It's an astonishingly -- well, maybe not, given David Blunkett's track record in the Court of Appeal -- cavalier attitude to international law. The fact that a TV transmitter is broadcasting propaganda does not make it a legitimate target, particularly if it's in the middle of a city. They only become fair game if they're also being used as part of the military command and control structure. See Anthony Dworkin on the subject (also here). Admittedly people just claim that's what the station was doing and they can get away with it, but he should have known that you do need that as an excuse.

http://notsaussure.wordpress.com/

It's even more cavalier when you consider that al Jazeera is not even Iraqi, it's a Qatari-based company with journalists from all over the Middle East and beyond and it was hated by Saddam Hussein. Tareq Ayoub, the jounalist who was killed when America finally did bomb the TV station was Jordanian I think.

Hardly a way to win much-needed allies in the region.

I look forward to Monday's programme. A member of Blair's govt confessing to conspiracy to commit a war-crime would be a bit of a scoop :o)

OhmyNews have published my story on this

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=322733&rel_no=1&back_url=

Meanwhile Richard Norton-Taylor has written in the Guardian about the hearing on Monday. He is not convinced by the legal reasoning for the secrecy decision. I had not seen the text previously.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1921199,00.html

Hello Tom Paine, if you are reading this. There was an argument that came up in the discussion about the Freedom of Information Act - that the security of UK citizens has more priority than avoiding diplomatic difficulties with allies. As UK citizens work for al Jazeera there is a public interest in protecting them. Is this an argument that has been addressed in the decision in favour of a secret trial?

-----------------

From Richard Norton-Taylor- (following a quote from Beckett on national security)

In his little-noticed ruling the judge, Mr Justice Aikens, elaborates on these claims. The contents of the memo would be read "throughout the world", he warns - a prospect, it seems, too awful to contemplate. There would be "different views on the implications of what was stated" in the memo. "It is reasonable to conclude," he warns, that some individuals, parts of the media, and "even some states", might react "very unfavourably" to the memo's contents. This might be "for no other reason than the topic under discussion was US/UK policy concerning the state of Iraq at a delicate time". And he comes with a trump card. He says: "It is also legitimate, in my view, for the court to bear in mind the ever-present threat to national safety which is posed by the possibility of terrorist acts by extremists in the UK."

-------------------------------

This seems to assume that all media come from London. There are other sources reporting on this story, including the actions of the courts.

The fact that a TV transmitter is broadcasting propaganda...

That's not a FACT. Was you watching Al-Jazeera during 2003/4? If you were you will have noticed that the 'propaganda' was actual news reporting of the type not yet seen in the west for a long time, i.e. journalists on the ground filming crimes against humanity and crimes against the international laws that used to protect EVERYONE. Not so anymore.

I find it hard to accept that seemingly educated, articulate and intelligent people still have their heads shoved so far up their own arses that they cannot tell fact from fiction. Pathetic British people - wake up, you're in a fascist state. What are you going to do about it?

"David Blunkett is channelling the proceeds from his memoirs - expected to reach almost £1m - into a company he has set up with his first three sons."

see http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1873837.ece

The memoirs contain reference to his admitted war crime.

The money is therefore "proceeds of crime" and under current legislation can (& in this case should be) confiscated on the grounds of suspicion (sic.) of a crime.

I'm really depressed, not only about Blair but the whole political shower. Iraq was an interesting test case for MPs to show either that they could use their brains or that they had some morality - preferably both. The result demonstrated that we are in serious trouble. In the context of Iraq, the Official Secrets Act is merely a device to keep criminals out of trouble and has nothing to do with the good of the country.

yes, depressing isn't it?

if the british people could show either that they could use their brains or that they had some morality the bastards would never have been re-elected in the first place

albeit with only 20% support, but that's 'democracy' for you - 4 out of 5 people are not represented in this government.