New Britain: A Saudi Satellite Slave State
Strange that politicians love to talk tough when the going is good, but become incapable, gibbering idiots as soon as there is any sign of trouble.
Is it because they are spineless cowards by their nature or are they just so slippery that they cannot stick to anything to prevent them from slithering from the moral high ground to the gutter to the sewer?
If their brave talk is to be believed, we shall soon have every real and imagined criminal rotting their lives away in Titan Prisons and every real or, more probably, very unreal and imagined terrorist on a CIA extraordinary rendition flight to Guantanamo Bay, as New Britain and wheezy old America rid the world of anyone who does not share their grotesquely intertwined views and The War on Terror is won to universal cheers of “Hurrah!” and only small and local explosions, causing minor collateral damage to non-believers.
Unless, of course, somebody with a lot of money tells the government of New Britain to jump, in which case, our brave leaders will shout in unison: “Yes, your Lord Highness-ship, and how high may we entertain Your Most Excellent Majesty by jumping today, Your Wonderful-ship?”
When Saudi Arabia decided it did not like the idea of any tin-pot New British government looking too closely into bribery and corruption surrounding a massive arms deal, there was no attempt whatsoever to employ brinkmanship, but immediate, utter, humiliating and grovelling capitulation.
Just like Gordon Brown and Darling of the Treasury abasing themselves before the barked orders of the rich in the non-dom tax evasion scandal, Tony Blair ran with brown trousers and bicycle-clips to anyone in authority, telling them they had to be nice to his masters: the rich and the truly powerful.
The mother of Parliaments had become a common prostitute to service the lusts of the rich.
The Guardian describes how low the former nation of New Britain had sunk as it declared itself a banana republic to be bought and sold like a harlot:
The British government was powerless to resist the Saudi threats that forced it to close down the BAE corruption investigation, its lawyers insisted in the high court yesterday.
[...]
Philip Sales, QC for the crown, said the government could not “magic away” the threats from the Saudi ruling clan.
But the judge said: “Every time a hostage is taken or a ransom demanded, the answer by the government is: ‘We do not yield to threats’.”
The high court has heard unchallenged allegations that it was Prince Bandar, the alleged beneficiary of £1bn in secret payments from the arms giant BAE, who threatened to cut off intelligence on terrorists if the investigation into him and his family was not stopped.
[...]
Moses said: “What you are saying is that the law is powerless to protect our own sovereignty - the law cannot be deployed as a weapon to protect the sovereignty of this country.”
The judge said: “Your answer is, yes, it is powerless. No lawyer or court can protect one of the essential features of sovereignty, which is control over one’s own domestic criminal law system.”
Asked if that meant nothing could be done to resist this kind of threat “from a powerful foreign state”, Sales replied: “Correct - we cannot compel Saudi Arabia to adopt a different stance.”
So, if you are a criminal or a terrorist or the dictator of a foreign power and you want to test the mettle, the iron resolve of a New British prime minster, just shout “Boo!” and watch them collapse into a heap of uncontrollable tears and slimy entanglements of snot, like a toddler who has had their dummy taken away.
Oh, Brave New Britain!
Bush Blames Britain For His Torture Lust
First there was the Old Testament and then came the New Testament. The first was about smiting with swords and being exceeding wroth and killing everyone in sight. The second one was about peace and forgiveness and salvation through faith.
George Bush and Tony Blair were each pretty hot on the Bible, or so it appeared, perhaps to the degree that they thought that God was whispering in their ears when they committed their nations to what many, if not most, of the people of Britain and America regarded as illegal wars and military atrocities.
The problem is, to which Testament do they viscerally attach themselves?
Here is a clue from The Telegraph, referring to Bush’s inability to speak intelligently or use the English language to communicate anything resembling a coherent idea:
What has tended to fascinate comics as much as the man in the street is the degree to which Bush’s remarks are intentionally dumb - whether the master-plan is one of deliberate obfuscation. “George Bush can speak perfectly well,” says US comic Patton Oswalt, “just not when he’s being compassionate or concerned about human beings. That’s when he stutters and says stuff like, ‘Hey, it’s hard to put food on your family.’ But you know when he gets really downright poetic and articulate and focused is when he’s talking about war and death and murder and retribution. All of a sudden he’s Dylan Thomas.”
So, it would seem that Bush is one of the Old Testament style psychopaths, hell-bent on plagues and retribution, charred flesh, genocide, mayhem, hellfire and brimstone. Tony Blair may have looked like the trainee vicar, but he was not just going along for the ride. He may be stupid, but not that stupid.
In a BBC interview with Matt Frei, George Bush claims that British people will be grateful that America has become the world’s Torturer in Chief:
Frei: But, given Guantanamo Bay, given also Abu Ghraib, given renditions, does this not send the wrong signal to the world?
Mr Bush: It should send a signal that America is going to respect law. But, it’s gonna take actions necessary to protect ourselves and find information that may protect others. Unless, of course, people say, “Well, there’s no threat. They’re just making up the threat. These people aren’t problematic.” But, I don’t see how you can say that in Great Britain after people came and, you know, blew up bombs in subways. I suspect the families of those victims are - understand the nature of killers. And, so, what people gotta understand is that we’ll make decisions based upon law. We’re a nation of law. Take Guantanamo.
Is that the same Guantanamo which contravenes international laws and where prisoners have been tortured?
Frei: The Senate yesterday passed a bill outlawing water-boarding. You, I believe, have said that you will veto that bill.
Mr Bush: That’s not -
Frei: Does that not send the wrong signal…
Mr Bush: No, look… that’s not the reason I’m vetoing the bill. The reason I’m vetoing the bill - first of all, we have said that whatever we do… will be legal. Secondly, they are imposing a set of standards on our intelligence communities in terms of interrogating prisoners that our people will think will be ineffective. And, you know, to the critics, I ask them this: when we, within the law, interrogate and get information that protects ourselves and possibly others in other nations to prevent attacks, which attack would they have hoped that we wouldn’t have prevented? And so, the United States will act within the law. We’ll make sure professionals have the tools necessary to do their job within the law.
The ‘professionals’ to whom America contracted out their torturing had all the tools a torturer could possibly desire. It was, in a way, torturers’ heaven.
As far as the legality of all this goes, Bush may be on shakier ground. Waterboarding may sound like a lot of fun, something like waterskiing or surfboarding, something you would do on a fun, exotic holiday; but it is actually the process of repeatedly almost drowning the torturee, to the point where they can easily be actually killed.
According to The Guardian:
But Bush was undercut by a senior official in his administration who admitted yesterday, for the first time, that waterboarding is illegal. Stephen Bradbury, head of the justice department’s office of legal counsel, giving evidence to a congressional committee, said: “Let me be clear, though: There has been no determination by the justice department that the use of waterboarding, under any circumstances, would be lawful under current law.”
Still, when you make a pact with the devil, perhaps you cannot later pick and choose which bits you like and dislike.
We went to war with Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction which it could deploy within 45 minutes and because it supported and gave succour to Al-Qaeda.
The fact that neither of these things was true can hardly now be used to say that the war was illegal and wrong. Nothing should be allowed to undermine the War on Terror.
Like torture: if it is a bad thing, why would Britain and America support it?
Note: Where the word torture has been used in this article, it may be used interchangeably with the equivalent American euphemism “enhanced interrogation technique”.
Impunity For State Sponsored Death Squads
As Homer Simpson said: “Mmm, doughnuts, is there nothing they cannot do!”
As Jacqui Smith might have said: “Mmm, the War on Terror and anti-terror legislation, is there no end to repressive legislation we cannot squeeze unnoticed onto the statute book under the guise of being tough in the War on Terror?”
Apparently not. Now, even coronors courts are to become the emasculated playthings of the Home Secretary, where proceedings may have to be conducted in secret and without a jury or access by anyone other than Jacqui Smith or her successors, not for reasons connected with national security, but purely on whim and diktat, despite the fact that this little piece of spiteful deviousness to curtail even more freedoms is stuck onto ant-terror legislation.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
“On first inspection we find this an astonishing provision with the most serious implications for the UK’s ability to comply with the positive obligation in Article 2 (of the) ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] to provide an adequate and effective investigation where an individual has been killed as a result of the use of force, particularly where the death is the result of the use of force by state agents.”
The legislation would mean that if anyone was killed by agents of the New British state or any other country or, in fact, under any circumstances in which the Home Secretary felt that she or he was entitled to interfere for no given reason, then nothing connected with a possibly unlawful killing would ever enter the public domain.
Andrew Dismore MP, the Labour chair of the Committee [Joint Committee on Human Rights], said: “We are seriously alarmed at the prospect that under these provisions, inquests into the deaths occurring in circumstances like that of Jean Charles de Menezes, or British servicemen killed by US forces in Iraq, could be held by a coroner appointed by the Secretary of State sitting without a jury.
“Inquests must be, and be seen to be, totally independent and in public to secure accountability, with involvement of the next of kin to protect their legitimate interests.
“When someone dies in distressing, high-profile circumstances their family need to see and feel that justice is being done, and where state authorities are involved there is a national interest in accountability as well.”
According to The Daily Mail:
Helen Shaw, co-director of Inquest, a pressure group which works with bereaved families, said: “The public will find it difficult to have confidence that these coroner-only inquests, with key evidence being suppressed, can investigate contentious deaths involving state agents independently.”
The group said the proposal could even affect the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, the innocent Brazilian shot dead at a Tube station in 2005.
So, let’s say your son or daughter worked for the state as a civil servant on sensitive issues to do with something like growing vegetables. He or she is then run over and killed by a drunk driver who happens to be a senior policeman.
An inquest is then held in secret with only the coronor and the Home Secretary privy to the details of the case. It is announced later that your child was passing secrets to a foreign power and was killed while attempting to cross a busy road when drunk and high on drugs. The driver of the vehicle involved is receiving grief counselling and will be awarded massive compensation.
So, what are you going to do about it, eh, scum?
-
Recent Posts
-
About and Stuff
At the moment it is about wondering whether this is really such a good idea after all.
Site Podcasts 
Audio RSS Feed
-
Popular Tags
anti-terror laws banking bankrupt britain Business catastrophe conspiracy corporatism corruption crime and punishment cyber crime data loss data loss scandal deception delusions disasters dodgy deals failure fiasco freedom free markets george bush gordon brown government Home Office human rights hypocrisy ID cards idiocy imbeciles incompetence Jacqui Smith jobs for the boys lies market forces money New Britain New Labour NHS politicians scandal stupidity tony blair untrustworthiness War on Terror