Blair: Accomplice to Rendition and torture

I thought I might have had some pleasure in seeing the whole neo-con/Bush/Bliar debacle disintegrate, as it was always going to do. however, my discontent is just compounded knowing that the perpertrators of the worst crimes of the 21st century are likely to just walk away and wash their hands of the mess they created.

Every day there is a story about Bliar that 20 years ago would have seen him drummed out of office by public pressure alone, but the media manage to report the most grevious of crimes in such a way that people are simply not aroused.

After all we have learned of Bush and Bliar over the last 12 months (and more) they still get away with murder daily. Iraq is now in a violent civil war, Afghanistan is unwinnable, Lebanon teeters on the brink, China, Iran, Pakistan and India (the real bogey men of the West) are now stronger than ever, and for what reason? - an invisible enemy created by the CIA, MI6 and Mossad that simply does not exist, but is used against us to justify the worst crimes of the 21st century. Truly sickening.

Blair and co must be brought to account unless we are willing to see the West become a confederation of oppresive criminal states. Blair has laid the groundwork for this country to be governed by a totallitarian regime in the not too distant future. He must be brought to account.

In response to the earlier comment, one should get the obvious out of the way first: signing as "9/11 and 7/7 inside jobs" adds a whole new layer to your statement, without actually backing this assertion up. Here I won't take a position on whether I think this statement has any value, except to say that you would be right to call for independent investigations in both cases. I would caution though that signing in the way that you have, fairly or unfairly, might have you written off by some as a "nutjob" (apologies for the parlance).

One of your central questions is whether, 20 years ago, Blair would have been drummed out of office if he had committed his undeniably criminal acts at that time. The answer is difficult, as the reasons why he has not been ousted by the public are many and varied.

Firstly, one could suggest that the media have, certainly on the surface, lessened their softly-softly approach to politicians, in comparison to the "age of deference" that has (thankfully) long gone. On the other hand, one could ascribe political survival in the light of serious misdemeanours as a response to a media that politicians perceive as being unfairly aggressive (criticism can then be dismissed as being driven by commercialism or careerism, rather than something that needs to be responded to with a straight answer or a resignation).

You are partly right that the media (certainly in UK/US) does soften the blow of news stories, and perhaps this in part is why "people are not aroused". Certainly if we in the UK were to see the real and harrowing images of war from newspapers in other areas of the world, in all their gory detail, we might, as a populace, have a less casual attitude to armed conflict. Furthermore it has been found, I believe, that the BBC has always demonstrated a slight overall pro-establishment bias (and, hence, a pro-government bias) since its first broadcast, thus reducing its value as an independent news source (which is one of the reasons I won't help pay for it).

But your analysis is missing one vital component: that the working and lower-middle classes are fuelling the kind of media that is obfuscating the crimes of the great and the good. For as long as we buy the right-wing tabloids, even when we purchase them only for the back pages, we are unwittingly endorsing the pro-war status-quo propaganda they perpetuate. That The Sun is Britain's most popular rag speaks volumes about how much this country cares about what is done in the name of the people.

its pathetic watching blair and bush running around like headless chickens over the situation in Iraq. 'anyone get any ideas' they seem to be asking, pathetic. can't somebody tell them it is now all over for the coalition in iraq?

no amount of diplomacy, increased troop numbers or talks are going to stop the unstoppable. this is exactly what was predicted in 2003 and it should be to the everlasting shame of the british parliament that they allowed the imbecile blair to put uk troops in an unwinnable position for his own personal reasons. he is a traitor and should be tried as such.

I now have to accept the horrifying reality that I live in a country where evidence of official complicity in torture is a political 'non event' compared to the crisis posed to government by 'hunt bans' or 'managing asylum'.

What's happened..? Politicians are willing to resign over their (consenting) private sexual behaviour, but not their involvement in war crimes and torture? If the Queen gets a fucking headache it's higher up the 'news agenda' than official atrocities in Iraq or Gaza. And if Blair was discovered to have been entertaining rent boys in Kensington, he'd resign tomorrow.

And people refer to this nauseating crock of shite as 'Democracy'. Looks more like an elective dictatorship to me. But maybe I'm the one that's crazy...?

9/11 was the catalyst (or should I say the new Pearl Harbour) for all the crap that is now happening in the Middle East. That was how the coalition ended up there. Time and time again we have found our leaders embroiled upto their necks in lies, deciet, hypocrisy and down-right criminal behaviour.

There is no doubt that the official line on 9/11 and 7/7 is so deeply flawed as to make it irrelevant as a starting point for discussing those events.

One can use standard criminal investigation techniques to look at a more probable cause. 9/11 is a far easier case to make and when one does there is overwhelming (albeit circumstantial) evidence that these crimes were commited by the state apparatus.

You don't have to be a nut-job to know that there has been a cover-up and media complicity in not fully questioning those events. If you scratch just a little below the surface of the offical stories and media reporting the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Many well respected people hold the same view and once the criminals are no longer in power we will get some sort of truthful version of those events, but I fear it will always remain the 'elephant in the room' - it's just too shameful an episode to dwell upon.

regarding rendition flights this is worth a read - Geoff Hoon gets his balls nailed to the floor!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1959360,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

you gotta laugh at the clowns in the White House;

America was engaged in a battle of semantics yesterday after NBC television said it would henceforth refer to the Iraq conflict as a "civil war".

The White House said that, rather than civil war, Iraq faced al-Qa'eda violence designed to cause escalating sectarian strife.

You can't make this stuff up - priceless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/wnbc29.xml

I sincerely hope that our glorious leader ends up on his own special rendition flight to The Hague.
Perhaps the public might be interested in "I'm a politican send / get me out of Gitmo."
Make good tv seeing all these NuLabor twats in their orange overalls enjoying the delights of Camp Xray.

There are renewed calls for an inquiry into rendition flights by the Lib Dems and the SNP. Let's see if Blair still clings to his original statement.

"...Mr Hoon had answered all the questions put to him. He said the government did not approve of any transfer of individuals through the UK where there were substantial grounds to believe they would face the real risk of torture."

Love the weasel words, "substantial grounds" and "real risk" - in my book that suggests that the government did know what was going on because the qualifiers should be "any".

@"US and UK governments are organised criminals" - I presume you are the same person as "9/11 and 7/7 inside jobs" (it's best to use a consistent name on comments threads for precisely this reason). Anyway, I respond thusly.

I largely agree with you about the way in which the mainstream media have not provided us with a thorough analysis of 9/11 and 7/7. My earlier suggesting that you could be written off as mad is not the same as suggesting that I think you're mad - actually I don't, as I have nothing to give me that impression.

My point still stands, though. We have a duplicitous, lying government because our 'people power' has changed, for the worse, and essentially we are allowing governments to get away with lying and duplicity. The middle classes have become comfortable and have abandoned voting and political involvement, whilst the working classes are inflamed about race and religion. Both are interested in lessening the redistribution of wealth. As a result, a substantial section of the population are into politics only insofar as they want to see what they can get out of it themselves.

These same British people, in the main, are specifically not interested in solving the Iraq situation, or helping the people of Darfur, or aiding the dispossessed of Palestine, or in bringing Bush and Blair to account for their lies. They want to know who to vote for so that they might pay less tax.

Admittedly these are generalisations, but you get the idea. Until we all start talking about how the populace can improve the lives of other people and not just our selfish selves, and until we actually do something about it, we will get the lying and duplicitous government we deserve.