No they fear the reaction of the people, and their elected representatives if they were to address the allegations (of torture) levelled against them. But on a related point, I am still waiting for you to tell me why Blair has not had the courage in the last five months to call a debate on Iraq in the House of Commons, and ask for a confidence vote over the issue? He is obvioulsy fearful he might get the same outcome as Howard did in the Australian Senate?
[/QUOTE]
Why on earth are you asking me,you are a British citizen are you not?You know i dont have any more influence with the goverment than you do,i didn`t even vote for Blair,so if your so sure your goverment has been torturing people or that it is scared of something,why dont you do something about it.If i felt as stongly about my goverment about these things then i would write to them or start a petition or whatever.
The point of a democracy is that the party with the majority,rules and if it is not the party you voted for thats too bad,you just have to live with it.It`s not perect but i can not think of another political system that i would rather live under.
Why on earth are you asking me,you are a British citizen are you not?You know i dont have any more influence with the goverment than you do,i didn`t even vote for Blair,so if your so sure your goverment has been torturing people or that it is scared of something,why dont you do something about it.If i felt as stongly about my goverment about these things then i would write to them or start a petition or whatever.
The point of a democracy is that the party with the majority,rules and if it is not the party you voted for thats too bad,you just have to live with it.It`s not perect but i can not think of another political system that i would rather live under.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t lose your rag.
Internationally respected organisations like Human Rights Watch have more influence than myself, and they asked Powell to answer *** Recent reports indicate that at least some of the evidence…was derived from interrogations of detainees held by the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism***. But he failed to address these points whatsoever. These allegations have also been printed by the Washington Post, the Guardian and others, yet no rebuttal. So how much success would anyone else have to get the truth out the American and British governments?
It is arguable whether UK is a full constitutional democracy with it lacking a constitution, and a Prime Minister exercising supreme executive powers without recourse to parliament? But what cannot be denied is that despite repeated pleas from many in his own party, and opposition parties Blair has refused to call a parliamentary debate on the Iraq issue, let alone ask for a confidence vote on this issue. What kind of democracy is it when a leader sends soldiers to fight a war that the vast majority of people oppose, and whose elected representatives have not been able to get a chance to debate or vote on?
Instead Blair’s government has been trying to ban the upcoming march against this war on the 15th in London…what does that show?
I am not losing my rag Malik,i am simply acknlowledging the futility of asking me these questions when i have no control over these events.What i do believe though is that if he is found out to be guilty of torture,then he should pay the price for that,as should any leader who commits torture,Saddam included.
What you and i disagree on and i dont think that will ever change,is that i have faith in our system of goverment and you so obviously dont.As i explained above if i thought they where guilty of this,then i would do something about it,until then,they are the elected goverment of this country and i have to trust that they will do the right thing.Now i know what you will ask me now,so i will attempt to clear it up here,you have not convinced me,that the goverment is guilty of these things,yet.
What i do believe though is that if he is found out to be guilty of torture,then he should pay the price for that...
[/QUOTE]
So you agree that the United States government should answer the charges that it has extracted some of its so-called "evidence" through torture? This is what Human Rights Watch has challenged Powell and the US government to do, but they have failed to do so...thereby putting into doubt many of the claims they have made.
Now as for the British government (whom no one is accusing of torture) -why won't they allow a full parliamentary debate and vote on the Iraq issue? Do you put faith in a Prime Minister exercising the "royal perogatives" on behalf of the Queen or the elected representatives of this country?
If there are charges brought forward against the US for torture,of course they would have to defend it.If you think then the evidence is tainted,so be it,thats your choice.You obviously will regard the testimony with suspicion.
As to the Uk goverment as i have said i am not in the corridors of power,so i dont know why he has not called for the vote you want but then we havn`t gone to war yet,so who is to say he wont.
What i do think,from what i have seen this morning on the news channels,from around the world,is pretty much what i thought would happen anyway,those who are vehemently anti-war were never going to believe what he said,even before he gave his address,they where pooh poohing it.Those who where looking for some assurances from him are feeling better about backing the goverment on this and those who where for going in and taken out Saddam before,now just want to get on with it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
If there are charges brought forward against the US for torture,of course they would have to defend it.
[/QUOTE]
At least we agree on that.
I believe the evidence will tainted not just as long as the US refuses to counter the allegations put forward by Human Rights Watch and others. But also the blatant lies being told about the Anthrax attacks in America, and linking them to Iraq, as well as the fallacies being spread about the so-called Al Qaida links which have been dismissed by the CIA, MI6 and the European governments.
You know as well as I know that the Blair government was elected on the basis of a clearly set out manifesto of policies, which we know did not include waging war against Iraq our sending our forces abroad in this pursuit. If Blair was truly confident of the British people and elected parliamentarians (especially in his own party) standing by him, then he would call a vote. Yet he is content to use royal prerogative powers to bulldoze through policy decisions not supported by the people and many members of his party. We will never see the level of democratic parliamentary opposition to him because he will not allow a vote, that others have or are allowing in Australia, Turkey and other countries.
Good at last,you know what i believe and i know what you believe,fantastic.Having said that,just in case you had not heard,there is a series of programmes this weekend on the Discovery channel,if you get it,it starts at 9pm Sat and Sun nights,i think you might find them interesting,i know i will be watching them,the series is called "behind the terror"or something along those lives,just thought i would give you a friendly heads up.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
Good at last,you know what i believe and i know what you believe,fantastic.Having said that,just in case you had not heard,there is a series of programmes this weekend on the Discovery channel,if you get it,it starts at 9pm Sat and Sun nights,i think you might find them interesting,i know i will be watching them,the series is called "behind the terror"or something along those lives,just thought i would give you a friendly heads up.
[/QUOTE]
I'll try to catch them if I have the time. I hope you'll be watching Newsnight tonight as Jeremy Paxman prepares to grill Tony Blair?
:k: Good point, Malik. As long as each of these allegations are not effectively addressed by Powell, i am not certain how the US admin. rationally expects individuals to accept all the public statements that they make.
**AMERICA laid out its “evidence” to justify war on Iraq yesterday - but it was not enough. In a 90-minute speech to the UN Security Council, US Secretary of State Colin Powell used footage from satellite videos and taped conversations in an attempt to prove Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction.
But sceptics said the US could have digitally altered pictures and manipulated tapes. The Institute of International and Strategic Relations, in Paris, said: “Mr Powell makes serious charges, but there’s no proof. You can’t attack on the basis of photos. That would be dangerous.”**
Britain was virtually isolated in backing Mr Powell’s tough rhetoric. Russia, France and China, who have a veto over a second UN resolution which could lead to war, said the work of UN weapons inspectors must go on. Mr Powell, who at one point held up what he said was a phial of deadly anthrax, claimed satellite pictures showed material being moved from Iraqi missile and terror sites before the arrival of inspectors. …
But sceptics said the US could have digitally altered pictures and manipulated tapes. The Institute of International and Strategic Relations, in Paris, said: "Mr Powell makes serious charges, but there's no proof. You can't attack on the basis of photos. That would be dangerous."
Very true. Some of the so-called "evidence" extracted through torture, outright lies told about the Anthrax and Al Qaida links, and top it all off based on a UK govt gathered by stealing from internet ans student articles. Its all coming apart fast...
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Malik73: *
**But sceptics said the US could have digitally altered pictures and manipulated tapes. The Institute of International and Strategic Relations, in Paris, said: "Mr Powell makes serious charges, but there's no proof. You can't attack on the basis of photos. That would be dangerous."*
Very true. Some of the so-called "evidence" extracted through torture, outright lies told about the Anthrax and Al Qaida links, and top it all off based on a UK govt gathered by stealing from internet ans student articles. Its all coming apart fast...
[/QUOTE]
Malik which so called evidence,was extracted through torture exactly,you know if i could just find that out i might be tempted to look at it again.
Malik which so called evidence,was extracted through torture exactly,you know if i could just find that out i might be tempted to look at it again.
[/QUOTE]
The US administration has claimed over the months that it has got "evidence" from detainees in Guanatanamo and Bagram etc, including one that points to "Al Qaida" links. HRW and others are alleging that this was extracted through torture, and that the US government must answer these charges. Yet Powell failed to do so, and that failure on top of all the other failures (UK dossier scandal, false links to US Anthrax attacks and Al Qaida etc) have tainted this so-called "evidence". In fact it has failed to convince any country, and has led more people to state that the US-UK has not made a case for war - including the UK pilots who were captured by Iraq in 1991.
HRW and others are alleging that this was extracted through torture, and that the US government must answer these charges.
[/QUOTE]
Guess what M,just because the HRW and others ALLEDGE something does not mean the US or anybody else drop everything to answer said allegations.However if the HRW wished to CHARGE the US or UK or anybody for that matter,that might be a different thing,can you imagine if they had to answer every allegation that you make,when would they have time to run the country.
Guess what M,just because the HRW and others ALLEDGE something does not mean the US or anybody else drop everything to answer said allegations.
[/QUOTE]
The HRW and Washington Post and other reports are based on testimony from people who have alleged torture in American or their allies custody. The US to answer these charges. It also has to explain to the families of the two men who dies in American custody, and to the families of the hundreds upon hundreds of men still held in places like Guantanamo for over a year without being charged or put on trial. The US administration has failed to answer these charges as requested by HRW (an organisation respected by all on these forums), and on top of all the other fallacies that have been exposed in the Powell speech, the whole thing is tainted and is being dismissed as such.
P.S. Utd, have you managed to convince the other 162 to 177 countries of the world yet?