Moral flexibility
The Independent: Britain gives approval to torture, claims Amnesty
Blair… told MPs: “We do not agree with the use of torture.” Pressed over whether that was an absolute rule, Mr Blair added: “I mean absolute in this sense, that you say ‘Look, it is simply the civil liberties of the suspect, or simply the liberties of freedom from terrorism’. You have to balance those two things.”
That’s a definition of absolute you’ll be unfamiliar with. When we say absolute, we mean “not limited by restrictions or exceptions“. What Blair means by it, well, you’d have to ask him. I think it means Tony condones torture, whatever the nauseating wordplay he uses for sake of appearances.
What a whacky topsy-turvy world the Blair household must be. “Fish for tea, Tony?” “Absolutely, in the sense that that you say ‘Look, it is simply fish for tea, or simply pork chops for tea’. You have to balance those two things.” “Oh darling, you are a card!”
How did it come to this? A bunch of arseholes blow themselves up on the tube and the next thing you’ve got the Prime Minister saying in public that we (well not we obviously, we let our tame thugs do the actual beating, mock drowning and sexual assualts) should take suspects, suspects mind you, and inflict pain on them to find out what they may or may not know. That’s what “you have to balance those two things” means. Try and explain it any other way, please do. Tony Blair buys your “freedoms” with the pain of others.
BBC News: MI5 ‘given secret prisons data’
Security service MI5 has received information given by terror suspects held in “secret prisons” outside the US, the BBC has learned.
It costs two pounds a month to join Amnesty International. I joined this morning because suddenly we need to protest to the British Government about its human rights record. Our own government. I’d urge you to do the same.
Posted on November 26th, 2005 at 9:42 am
| See also • Dirty deeds done dirt cheap • Render unto Caesar • The Guardian: UK accused of complicity in torture |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Uncategorized |
Great post. My coffee came outmy nose as I read those lines this morning… can we really be having this discussion in modern Britain about torture? What evil are we fighting?
What evil are we fighting?
Oil resources.
Done. I’ve also blogged about it…
“Pressed over whether that was an absolute rule, Mr Blair added: “I mean absolute in this sense, that you say ‘Look, it is simply the civil liberties of the suspect, or simply the liberties of freedom from terrorism’.”
Or, to put it more succinctly, ‘No.’ And he wonders why he has a reputation for lies, evasions and distortions.
Will someone give him a slap please the next time he comes out with crap about ‘civil liberty of freedom from terrorism’ - and point him in the direction of a text book to explain what civil liberty _actually_ means.
Here in the States our loony VP Dick Cheney has been seriously bloodthirsty in supporting torture.
Thankfully, it appears he and Dubya, their support evaporating, are headed to the scrap heap of history ala Watergate.
I doubt they will last out their term of office.
Bob, it’s been darkly humourous, hasn’t it? You have George saying “we do not torture” (he maybe even believes it) while Dick’s been lobbying hard to torpedo the McCain amendment. Priceless.
I joined this morning because suddenly we need to protest to the British Government about its human rights record.
The British government has had an appalling human rights for hundreds of years, New Labour have inherited it, not created it. Granted Tony Blair and his cronies are taking it to new levels, in an obvious way, but British foreign policy has always revolved around destroying others to advance the interest of the goverment and the social elite.
To fight the lies of New labour we need to turn to previous governments whose lies have been exposed, as they used a lot of the same techniques as Blair and Co.
Uponnothing: I agree with you entirely - the “suddenly” was completely redundant in that sentence.