THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Law lords 'simply wrong', says Straw

Staff and agencies
Friday December 17, 2004

Foreign secretary Jack Straw said today that the law lords were "simply wrong" to imply that terror suspects were being arbitrarily held without charge.
In a ruling yesterday, eight out of nine law lords found that nine men being detained in the high-security Belmarsh prison were being held unlawfully.

Mr Straw confirmed today that the government would look very carefully at the judgment and consider possible changes in the law. However, he insisted that it was for parliament, and not judges, to decide how best Britain could be defended against the threat of terrorism.

Yesterday's ruling gave new home secretary Charles Clarke a massive headache on his first full day in his job, and dealt a huge blow to the centrepiece of the anti-terror programme introduced by his predecessor David Blunkett in the wake of September 11.

The law lords found the detention without charge of foreign nationals suspected of links with terrorism breached the government's human rights responsibilities. Lord Hoffmann described the legislation under which the men are being held as more damaging to Britain's national life than terrorism itself.

But this morning Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The people concerned have a right of appeal to a special immigration appeals tribunal, which is chaired by a high court judge, and on each of the cases of the people currently detained the decision to certify them as requiring detention was approved by that court.

"In that respect, the law lords - I understand their anxieties, and all of us have anxieties about these powers - are simply wrong to imply that this is a decision to detain these people on the whim of the home secretary."

Mr Straw, who as home secretary introduced the Human Rights Act into British law in 1998, said that provisions in the legislation made clear that the final decisions on what the law should be were for MPs to make, not the courts.

"We anticipated a situation where the senior courts of the land may decide that a provision in an act of parliament was incompatible with the human rights act," he told Today. "The final say on whether that act should remain in force was not given to the courts but given to parliament.

"Nobody - and that includes senior judges - wanted a situation where suddenly we had made a supreme court supreme over parliament, rather than having a system which is fundamental to our system of democracy, having parliament as the ultimate arbiter on behalf of the British people."

Mr Straw said that Mr Clarke had made clear in his statement responding to yesterday's judgment that the government would carefully consider what action it should now take.

However, he added: "Notwithstanding the very strident remarks of the law lords - and I respect their rights to make these judgments - the court of appeal, a very senior court in this country, unanimously found in favour of the government when these same issues went before them.

"The government's responsibility - and it is a prime responsibility - is to protect people from the threat of terrorism. On this huge dilemma of how to balance liberty and order, the most important liberty is the right to life. If that liberty is taken away by the terrorists, then we have not met our prime obligation as a government."

Mr Straw said: "It would much better if we could simply live in a society where such threats didn't exist and we could deal with all threats in society through the normal court system.

"Very sadly, we are not able to do so, and it is for that reason that parliament - and it is ultimately a matter for parliament - judged that these powers were appropriate and right."

Obvioulsy the law lords ruling isn't liked here, Kara, since I posted that yesterday already - with no reaction at all. :wink:

Forgive me but I think this arguement is the weakest I have heard to date in trying to excuse this administrations policies and decisions that they have made regarding Iraq and terrorism in general.

A person can always find someone worse than themselves but that does not mean you can then lower the bar on your standards as long as you make sure that you are not at the bottom of the barel.

Greece was pretty good.

Greece was pretty good.

Alexander the Great was Macedonian.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:

What good does filing lawsuits against the military in other countries do? We don't put in ourselves in the position of being judged by any international court. It is not as though they can force us into anything is it?

Then we wonder why so many people feel so threatened by the US.

If they feel threatened, it's because their own leaders are biting off more than they can chew. Perhaps they should show a little appreciation for our benevolence and relatively few excesses when you consider what many of them would do with such power. Look how Chirac thinks he's the leader of the free world, when in reality he's just a blowhard who's true power measures only slightly higher than total irrelevance. Imagine how drunk with power that fool would be if his position afforded him the power of the U.S. Presidency. And Germany is going to play arbiter of the human rights to the world? Really? Had Germany been blessed with the resources of the United States, would the world be better or worse? Perhaps in an ideal world, the U.S. is a merciless brute… but in the real world, they are probably the kindest, fairest Alpha we could reasonably hope for.

Forgive me but I think this arguement is the weakest I have heard to date in trying to excuse this administrations policies and decisions that they have made regarding Iraq and terrorism in general.

A person can always find someone worse than themselves but that does not mean you can then lower the bar on your standards as long as you make sure that you are not at the bottom of the barel.

Kara wrote:

I'm chiming in here on Cyclops' side. Anti-American?? What utter nonsense. Those who bring their minds to bear on the problems of this country, ponder the state of the US in the world, look at where we are and what we are doing with an open but disinterested outlook are only doing their job of bearing the responsibilities as a citizen of a democracy (well, a republic.) We must inform ourselves, and not by soundbites or the evening news. I see Cyclops not as a wimp to be brought in line by a Master of the Universe type (you know who you are...) but as a questioner and thinker, not slave-like follower of some party line.

[/b]
I could not agree more with everything you said.

revel wrote:

Forgive me but I think this arguement is the weakest I have heard to date in trying to excuse this administrations policies and decisions that they have made regarding Iraq and terrorism in general.

You're forgiven. Though, before you start feeling too smug, you might want to actually try to refute some portion of it. :wink: You may find that if you don your realistic glasses, in favor of the absurdly idealistic pair you usually wear, some of the sentiments contained in that argument are damn near irrefutable.

revel wrote:

A person can always find someone worse than themselves but that does not mean you can then lower the bar on your standards as long as you make sure that you are not at the bottom of the barel.

I suppose "not at the bottom of the barrel" is another way of saying the very top of the barrel... but in choosing that definition you show a heavy bias. In this case; an Anti-American bias. Doubt it? The challenge remains open. Name history's more benevolent Alpha.

ican, You make a lot of conjectures on the extremist Kurds that the 9/11 commission refers to. Where's the evidence you're basing them on? What are your sources? What is your evidence that the main Kurdish forces didn't attack Ansar al Islam after 2001? What is your evidence that Saddam had negotiations with the Kurds enough to "ask them to attack Ansar," thereby "responding to US demands?" What is your evidence that Saddam could have attacked and removed Ansar with his own forces?

I quoted the Council On Foreign Affairs as a reference to what I had written about Ansar al-Islam being Kurdish Islamist separatists, and in that capacity, that for which I specifically quoted the COF, it is relevant and not a red herring, ican. I post the information on Ansar al-Islam because you've claimed ... that this information is merely my opinion.

Bin Ladin seemed willing to include in the confederation terrorists from almost every corner of the Muslim world. His vision mirrored that of Sudan's Islamist leader, Turabi, who convened a series of meetings under the label Popular Arab and Islamic Conference around the time of Bin Ladin's arrival in that country. Delegations of violent Islamist extremists came from all the groups represented in Bin Ladin's Islamic Army Shura. Representatives also came from organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas, and Hezbollah.51

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

revel wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:

What good does filing lawsuits against the military in other countries do? We don't put in ourselves in the position of being judged by any international court. It is not as though they can force us into anything is it?

Then we wonder why so many people feel so threatened by the US.

If they feel threatened, it's because their own leaders are biting off more than they can chew. Perhaps they should show a little appreciation for our benevolence and relatively few excesses when you consider what many of them would do with such power. Look how Chirac thinks he's the leader of the free world, when in reality he's just a blowhard who's true power measures only slightly higher than total irrelevance. Imagine how drunk with power that fool would be if his position afforded him the power of the U.S. Presidency. And Germany is going to play arbiter of the human rights to the world? Really? Had Germany been blessed with the resources of the United States, would the world be better or worse? Perhaps in an ideal world, the U.S. is a merciless brute… but in the real world, they are probably the kindest, fairest Alpha we could reasonably hope for.

Forgive me but I think this arguement is the weakest I have heard to date in trying to excuse this administrations policies and decisions that they have made regarding Iraq and terrorism in general.

A person can always find someone worse than themselves but that does not mean you can then lower the bar on your standards as long as you make sure that you are not at the bottom of the barel.

Revel, I understand you specific point in your post was aimed at O'Bills remark, but I take issue with your premise that we must "excuse this administrations policies and decisions that they have made regarding Iraq and terrorism in general."

I know you take issue and a lot of people take issue that I feel (and maybe some others) feel that before we go to war we must have a legimate reason. We didn't.

There is no need to try and "excuse" these policies. The US has drawn a line in the sand against terrorism. If you toe the line, you are deemed a partner in the fight against terrorism. If, however, you continue to support and foster terrorism, you are an enemy in that fight. Saddam was such an enemy. The list of his evil deeds is quite long -- the world is a better place without Saddam in power. The people of Iraq are better off than when Saddam was in power.

The list might be "quite long" but in the list we were not
in any danger from Saddam Hussien and he was not doing anything that he hasn't been doing for a long time including the times that we were supporting him, so that excuse to me just don't cut it.

That being said, obviously there are problems in Iraq right now. The action taken against Saddam was not met with 100% support. But I'm confident democracy will take hold, and the country will stabilize in the long, if not short, term.

Maybe so, I hope so, but that still does not excuse our action in invading the country in the first place nor does it excuse our actions after invading it.


When I look at the situation in Iraq, I'll freely admit I look at it through my "American-colored" glasses.

Well, the last time I looked I am still an American. Unless like everything else American has been redefined as those who support Bush.

We in America enjoy freedoms that were not enjoyed in Iraq while Saddam was in power. We understand the importance of democracy, and how important it is to have a democracy in Iraq. We should understand that a democracy in that region will be a debilitating blow to terrorism -- the insurgents and terrorists over there trying to blow up the democratic process clearly understand it. A democratic Iraq will not be a place where terrorism will thrive.

All that might or might not be true. However it is not our place to forceably force democracy at gun point. If nothing else, it don't work.

I do not have much sympathy for those Iraqis who view the US as an imperialist invader that must be fought. The US military only wants to remain in Iraq until things have stabilized, then it will leave. These thugs may or may not understand that, but they are clearly not willing to allow the democratic process to take hold. They wish to strongarm their way back into control. As I said before, I don't have sympathy for that. They don't agree with us, they wish to fight us,and that's why they call it war.

I imagine that those that in Iraq who are fighting for their own country do not really care if you have sympathy with them or not. Those that are not fighting but are just in the crossfire probably wish you would keep your democracy so that they can keep their lives.


The US, and a few of our allies, have taken the lead in the fight against global terrorism.

Iraq was not part of the global war on terrorism until we invaded it and made it so.

If not us, who? The UN has demonstrated time and again that it is an inept, corrupt, and impotent organization, incapable of taking a stand against terrorism. Will we look to France to lead the fight against terrorism? That notion is laughable. Anyone else willing to step up to the plate? ..... Anyone? ... No?

There was no need for anyone to step up to the plate because Iraq is not AQ.

Seeing that the US is the one leading the charge, we justifiably call the shots.

Some people's justice is not obviously others.

You may wish to view that as arrogance (and I suppose it is), but the reality of the situation is that if the US is going to lead the war on terror, we will not kowtow to the wishes and demands of the French who have chosen, in typical fashion, to watch from the sidelines and be critical.

Again, Iraq was not part of our war on terror which commenced right after the attack on our nation on 9/11 of which Bin Laden and AQ started. The whole world was in sympathy with us then because we were in the right when we went to Afghanistan because the Taliban who was in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over Bin Laden. That made sense and was a good and just action for us to take. Iraq is/was not and no amount of justification can make it so.

revel wrote:

Kara wrote:

I'm chiming in here on Cyclops' side. Anti-American?? What utter nonsense. Those who bring their minds to bear on the problems of this country, ponder the state of the US in the world, look at where we are and what we are doing with an open but disinterested outlook are only doing their job of bearing the responsibilities as a citizen of a democracy (well, a republic.) We must inform ourselves, and not by soundbites or the evening news. I see Cyclops not as a wimp to be brought in line by a Master of the Universe type (you know who you are...) but as a questioner and thinker, not slave-like follower of some party line.

[/b]
I could not agree more with everything you said.

Cyclops has said some things in the past that have caused me (and others) to suggest his views were "anti-American." He has explained several times, and generally to my satisfaction, that he is not anti-American, but he just wants to understand the mindset of the Iraqi insurgents, and feels it is important that the US do so. In that, he is correct. What Kara said about critical thinking is also correct. One must be careful, however, that one's critical thinking does not spill over to rooting for the enemy. If you find yourself hoping the forces doing battle with the US military are successful, you have crossed the line and are anti-American. When you empathize with the enemy, you bring yourself closer to doing that ... and it is a very fine line.

So you are saying here that if I hope that we give up and go home then I have crossed the line and I am therefore anti-American? So be it. I do not wish death for our troops and I hope that someday Iraq does become whatever it is that they wish it to become. I hope someday that somehow Rumsfeild and his fellow partners are held accountable for the whole Iraq adventure that they dreamed up long ago and forceable made to come about. But I don't wish that the way for them to be held accountable is for the US and/or our troops to attacked. Again, if that means that i have crossed the line, I can live with that in myself.

I've been accused by some of looking at things "simplistically"; of having a "black or white" view. Okay .... maybe so. Depending on the issue, I often respond to such criticism with an equal amount of scorn at the nuance and relativism some try to thickly layer on an issue. The US is at war with some insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. If you claim to not be anti-American, you better be supportive of the US troops fighting the good fight over there.

In my view you have just crossed some kind of line that I am not articulate enough to pinpoint.

If instead you try and tell me the issue is deep and wide and we must empathize with our enemy, you shouldn't be surprised if I view that as a bit anti-American. If you support the enemy of the US, you are not supporting the US. Period.

At the risk of laying on the thickenss of an issue; lets look at it another way.

If an administration during some point in America's history decides that the french were just too tied up in the unproven allegations of the oil for food scandal and just generally too anti american and they have some known terrorist in their country so they are harboring terrorist and so we decide to invade their country and amerianize it because after all, who wouldn't want to be americanized and then there are those in America that do not support such action at that time and they voice their opinions, are they going to be supporting the enemy of the US and not the US? I think it is more like not supporting the actions of the current administration. [/rant]

A few comments on your reading of the Chapter 2.4 paragraph of the 9/11 Commission Report:

The Kurdish forces to which the commission was referring did not destroy the group of extremists operating in Iraqi Kurdistan. They delt them major defeats; they did not destroy them.

Main Entry: 1de·feat
Pronunciation: di-'fEt, dE-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English deffeten, from Middle French deffait, past participle of deffaire to destroy, from Old French desfaire, from Medieval Latin disfacere, from Latin dis- + facere to do -- more at DO
1 obsolete : DESTROY
2 a : NULLIFY <defeat an estate> b : FRUSTRATE 2a(1) <defeat a hope>
3 : to win victory over : BEAT <defeat the opposing team>
synonym see CONQUER

Main Entry: de·stroy
Pronunciation: di-'stroi, dE-
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French destruire, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin destrugere, alteration of Latin destruere, from de- + struere to build -- more at STRUCTURE
transitive senses
1 : to ruin the structure, organic existence, or condition of <destroyed the files>; also : to ruin as if by tearing to shreds <their reputation was destroyed>
2 a : to put out of existence : KILL b : NEUTRALIZE <the moon destroys the light of the stars> c : ANNIHILATE, VANQUISH <armies had been crippled but not destroyed -- W. L. Shirer>
intransitive senses : to cause destruction

What separates us from despotic regimes, such as the one of Saddam Hussein, is that we do not detain people, our own or foreign, for years without charges or trial.

The list might be "quite long" but in the list we were not
in any danger from Saddam Hussien and he was not doing anything that he hasn't been doing for a long time including the times that we were supporting him, so that excuse to me just don't cut it.

Again, Iraq was not part of our war on terror which commenced right after the attack on our nation on 9/11 of which Bin Laden and AQ started. The whole world was in sympathy with us then because we were in the right when we went to Afghanistan because the Taliban who was in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over Bin Laden. ...

Ticomaya wrote:

I've been accused by some of looking at things "simplistically"; of having a "black or white" view. Okay .... maybe so. Depending on the issue, I often respond to such criticism with an equal amount of scorn at the nuance and relativism some try to thickly layer on an issue. The US is at war with some insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. If you claim to not be anti-American, you better be supportive of the US troops fighting the good fight over there.

In my view you have just crossed some kind of line that I am not articulate enough to pinpoint.

At the risk of laying on the thickenss of an issue; lets look at it another way. Laughing

If an administration during some point in America's history decides that the french were just too tied up in the unproven allegations of the oil for food scandal and just generally too anti american and they have some known terrorist in their country so they are harboring terrorist and so we decide to invade their country and amerianize it because after all, who wouldn't want to be americanized and then there are those in America that do not support such action at that time and they voice their opinions, are they going to be supporting the enemy of the US and not the US? I think it is more like not supporting the actions of the current administration.

revel wrote:

At the risk of laying on the thickenss of an issue; lets look at it another way. Laughing

If an administration during some point in America's history decides that the french were just too tied up in the unproven allegations of the oil for food scandal and just generally too anti american and they have some known terrorist in their country so they are harboring terrorist and so we decide to invade their country and amerianize it because after all, who wouldn't want to be americanized and then there are those in America that do not support such action at that time and they voice their opinions, are they going to be supporting the enemy of the US and not the US? I think it is more like not supporting the actions of the current administration.

I was planning on responding to this, but upon reflection, it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you can rephrase?

Ticomaya wrote:

revel wrote:

At the risk of laying on the thickenss of an issue; lets look at it another way. Laughing

If an administration during some point in America's history decides that the french were just too tied up in the unproven allegations of the oil for food scandal and just generally too anti american and they have some known terrorist in their country so they are harboring terrorist and so we decide to invade their country and amerianize it because after all, who wouldn't want to be americanized and then there are those in America that do not support such action at that time and they voice their opinions, are they going to be supporting the enemy of the US and not the US? I think it is more like not supporting the actions of the current administration.

I was planning on responding to this, but upon reflection, it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you can rephrase?

read it again tico. she's making a good point.

I read it and didn't choose to respond either as the whole premise of us "Americanizing" anybody is ludicrous. Democracy/freedom does not automatically equate with Americanization.

If, however, the French decided to finance, support, foster, protect, and encourage terrorism, sooner or later I believe they would be a legitimate target.