Extraordinary Rendition: complicity and its consequences
and he was highly critical of the UK and US governments. Tony Blair in particular, the dissection of whom is the focus of most of the speech, gets analytically vilified.
"we do know that the Prime Minister has a somewhat semi-detached relationship to the rule of law. He was willing to bend the rules in respect of the use of force in Iraq, and to manipulate the presentation of the legal advice he had been given. This past week he has not hesitated to attack the judgment of an English court (in the case of the hijacked Afghan plane) in a manner and with a tone that raises serious constitutional concerns.
20. The Prime MinisterÂ?s discontent with the law and the judges, and his less than fulsome commitment to international human rights standards, dates back to well before 9/11. One example suffices to illustrate, the case of Youseff v The Home Office. Although Mr Justice FieldÂ?s judgment was given in July 2004, all the material facts date back to the spring and summer of 1999. Even then the Prime Minister was looking to find ways to get around the rules of international human rights law which limited the circumstances in which Britain could return Hani Youssef and three other Egyptians to their homeland...
The way around the problem would be to obtain written assurances from the Egyptian government for the safety and well-being of Youseff. The Foreign Office sought assurances on nine grounds...
the Egyptian Government declined to give the assurances...
In response to the FCO'?s view that the Egyptian assurances were inadequate the Prime Minister wrote across the top of this letter: "This isn'?t good enough. I don'?t believe we shld (sic) be doing this. Speak to me." The contempt for human rights concerns is clear."
When the Home Office then decided the risk of torture was too high and not to deport the four, the PM's Private Secretary writes:
"[T]he Prime Minister is not content simply to accept that we have no option but to release the four individuals. He believes that we should use whatever assurances the Egyptians are willing to offer, to build a case to initiate the deportation procedure and to take our chance in the courts. If the courts rule that the assurances we have are inadequate, then at least it would be the courts, not the government, who would be responsible for releasing the four from detention...
23. The Prime Minister'?s direct intervention indicates the rather direct and personal involvement of No 10 in the affairs of different government departments. It suggests that the overriding objective is not to act consistently with applicable rules, or ensure that fundamental human rights of individuals are protected, but to gauge and then pander to public opinion: hence the strategy of shifting the blame for Youssef'?s release away from government and onto the courts...
the Prime Minister'?s concern with his legacy is driven by the fear that he is fundamentally misunderstood, and that those who seek to challenge him are out of touch... Yet it is the Prime Minister who displays these characteristics... he says that his approach reflects "?a genuine desire to protect our way of life from those who would destroy it". But our "?way of life"? includes our system of values, and our system of values includes a commitment to the rule of law. Returning foreigners to near-certain torture is not consistent with our "?way of life"? or our values. Aiding and abetting the transfer of British nationals and residents to Guantanamo - if that is established to have occurred -? would not be consistent with our "?way of life"? or our values. Turning a blind eye to extraordinary rendition - if that is established -? falls within the same category. The Prime Minister's logic leads inexorably in one direction only. "?Whose civil liberties?"?, he asks. Everyone'?s, we should respond."
No comments:
Post a Comment