Helen said... Craig Murray was a diplomat in a prestigious position. That carries duties as well as privileges. One of those duties is not making political statements, particularly, as in this case, he either cannot or will not produce any evidence.
Sabretache said... Helen: - A pretty standard defence of establishment response if I may be so bold. He most certainly DOES have the proof for his allegations. They are in the documents that the government seems so determined to suppress. You clearly haven't read them - or know very much about the matter other than establishment-speak about the case.
Anonymous said... I suppose it is because of this government (and the disastrous domination of academia by the left) that Murray & co fail to see how ridiculous their position is. The appearance of human rights is a consequence of civilisation, not its rerequisite.
Sabretache said... anon 3:34. I suggest you read the the latest Treasury solicitor letter then tell us whose position is ridiculous. If you still claim it is 'Murray & Co', perhaps you'd care to tell us what you would do were you required to be complicit in obtaining intelligence information by, for example, boiling people alive. Understandably HMG do not want us knowing about such things, much less seeing government documents that prove it. That is what happens at the behest of our staunch ally, Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. The regime is at least as bad, if not a whole lot worse than the dictator we affect such self-righteousness about removing in Iraq. Murray has the guts to stand up and cry foul - and is vilified for it. In the words of Jack Straw "Craig Murray has been (is and intends to remain??) a serious embarassment to the entire F&CO". HMG are doing their damndest to ensure he pays dearly for that.
Helen said... Sabretache, Craig Murray is establishment. He can't have it both ways. And neither can people on this blog who keep complaining (not you, as far as I know) about the civil service becoming politicized. As long as it is against the Labour government it's OK? What happens when they do it against a Conservative government? And no, he has not produced the evidence but has climbed down rather fast when he was asked about it by such freedom-loving establishments as the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. Of course, if I had my way, I would simply shut down all the embassies and tell ambassadors to go and earn a decent penny.
Anonymous said... Sabretache, my point was that it cannot be the primary
business of HMG to care about human rights abuses in other countries. Of course
they are being two faced because of all the "ethical foreign policy nonsense". But the business of diplomacy is to play the world, not to change it. Aside from these considerations, Murray ought to remember that the only reason why anyone was listening to him was because he was paid to be an HMA. And the job is to promote government policy not to undermine it, or to sell his own. If he wants to do that he is welcome to become a politician.
Sabretache said... Helen: Murray WAS establishment; and while so, he obeyed the rules. He did NOT make political statements, he simply declined to be complicit in torture and worked damned hard to persuade his masters in London to recognise
what was going on. They in turn decided that his refusal to turn a blind eye rendered him unsound and a host of scurrilous accusations were levelled against him. He was cleared on all counts but nonetheless forced out (locked out of his own embassy whilst still the Ambassador no less). You clearly have (a bit of) one side of the story - the official one it seems. I suggest you get a copy of his book from Amazon before HMG succeed in suppressing that too. I have. I've read it and you are way off base.
As for declining to prove his case (ie HMG complicity in the grosses forms of torture for the purposes of fighting the intelligence 'war on terror): he does just that in the book with corroboration from the documents that HMG are so strenuously trying to keep you from seeing.
As I said earlier, the depressing thing is I have little doubt the major outline of the story would have been little different under any other government. But never mind eh? - we're the goodies - with guns in our hands and God on our side. The enemy of our enemy is our friend and never mind that he's the worst kind of dictator imaginable. The whole thing is going to end in tears - big time; and I am NOT being party political.
Anonymous said... I tend to agree with Helen. craven behaviour towards the United States is appalling, particularly when it involves complicity with the scum they associate with. On the other hand, I don't think the FCO would be doing its job if it didn't realise that the choice for the moment is between a bloody dictatorship, or an Islamic state in Central Asia. That's an invidious choice, but that overall point is far more important than whether a few people are shot or tortured. The FCO is not a state-funded version of Amnesty International. The question ought to be: what's in the UK national interest? Murray may well be right to say that the US strategy in the region is likely to create more trouble rather than less in the long run. But they don't have "the long run" to find out, and they don't have many good options. None of that seems to have been reflected in his correspondence with London, or in his speeches.
Sabretache said... Anon 11:22: There are two substantive issues here:
1. How UK Foreign policy objectives should be represented in Uzbekistan - or elsewhere
2. How a politicised Civil Service deals with people it regards (rightly or wrongly) as
Frankly your post, whilst theoretically reasonable, indicates that you have not read either the book or all those embargoed documents. Your expression "... whether a few people are shot or tortured" is an anodyne travesty worthy of a NuLab spin-doctor. The Uzbeks Security forces used the grossest forms of torture systematically to get 'dissidents' to confirm what the Karimov regime wanted, for their OWN purposes, the US/UK to believe - simple as that - and we lapped it up. Do you even know, or care that Karimovs troops killed over 600 pro-democracy demonstrators at Andijan on 13th May 2005 - just over 1 year ago? With allies like that + all the rest, is it any wonder the Muslim world hates us with a vengeance?
However, all that aside. What about 2?
There are reasonable procedures for removing any senior member of staff that is judged to be inadequate. But that is NOT how NuLab operate. The documents prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a systematic campaign of dirty tricks and character assassination sanctioned at the highest level (including Jack Straw and Downing St) and directed against Craig Murray. The sort of behaviour that we have come to expect from NuLab against anyone who is effective in exposing their incompetence and duplicity. EXACTLY the same tactics were employed against James Cameron first secretary in Bucharest for exposing the visa scam that forced Beverly Hughes' resignation - ie 'granting visas for sex and having a 'love-nest' flat in town. They couldn't even think up something original.
The politicisation of the Civil Service is near complete. Is it any wonder they don't want us to see the evidence for ourselves?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The following is taken from the comments section of a piece posted by Iain Dale on his Diary site on 11th July. I've posted it here to keep my thoughts straight as the thing develops further. The F&CO legal deadline is tomorrow 13th July although Craig is already in breach of the Treasury solicitors revised requirement by leaving the disputed documents on his site. There are links to further posts on this with further outbound links Here, Here, Here and Here .