Top UK Officials Doubt Bush Claims

Former President George Bush has spent the past week touring media outlets to promote the publication of his new memoir “Decision Points” in which he proudly admits that he authorized the CIA to subject terrorist suspects to “simulated drowning” in an attempt to get them to talk.

Speaking to the British newspaper The Times, Bush claimed that water-boarding had saved British lives by preventing attacks on a skyscraper in the East End of London and on Heathrow airport. His claims received an immediate rebuttal from a series of British politicians from across the political spectrum in the UK.

The former Director of Public Prosecutions during the period in question, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, told the Daily Telegraph:

“I’ve never seen anything to substantiate these claims. It’s an easy claim to make, it’s much more difficult to prove. These claims are to be treated with a great deal of skepticism.”

Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General added:

“I know President Bush has made these claims. I don’t know what evidence there is for it. I didn’t hear that at the time.”

The former Chairman of the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee, Dr. Kim Howells, said that he doubted that “what we regard as torture actually produced information instrumental in preventing those plots coming to fruition.” Dr. Howells added in an interview with BBC:

“It is his claim and no doubt he will go on making it… he needs to try to justify what he did to the world. We think water-boarding is torture.”

David Davis, former Shadow Home Secretary and a former Special Forces soldier, also observed on the same BBC program:

“[President Bush] talks about being mortified about what he termed being false intelligence that led to the war in the Iraq. Do you know where that false intelligence came from – a large part of it – it came from the torture of a Mr. Al-Libi… That’s the problem with torture. People under torture tell you what you want to hear. If you want to hear that Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda, which plainly he wasn’t, that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, which plainly he didn’t; then you’ll get that information by torture. You’ll get the wrong information.”

The British Prime Minster, David Cameron, reiterated his belief that the manner in which the United States had treated War on Terror detainees had made the West less, not more, safe.

Of course the reality is that the former President is trying to defend the indefensible but it is important to note just how thin his arguments actually are. When host Matt Lauer asked Bush on Monday’s Today show, “if it is legal… would it be ok for a foreign country to water-board an American citizen?” he dodged the question. His response? “All I ask is that people read the book.”

You won’t find any answers there either, believe me, I’ve looked. Save your money. You’d think after almost a decade Bush would have some semblance of an answer to such a pertinent question.

In his 2009 Senate confirmation hearing Attorney General Eric Holder stated unambiguously that “water-boarding is torture” and that “no president is above the law.” Holder also pledged under his stewardship the Department of Justice would serve justice and not “the fleeting interests of any political party.”

By his own admission, President Bush directed subordinates to water-board prisoners in American custody. Water-boarding is torture. He was not then, and is not now, above the law. After such a blatant admission of criminal activity, the Department of Justice has an obligation to open an investigation.

AIUSA welcomes a lively and courteous discussion that follow our Community Guidelines. Comments are not pre-screened before they post but AIUSA reserves the right to remove any comments violating our guidelines.

36 thoughts on “Top UK Officials Doubt Bush Claims

  1. Tom or Zeke, thanks for answering the following questions.

    The current administration has banned water boarding, true.

    But, the Obama administration has also changed war tactics in Afghanistan so now the war effort relies very, very heavily on remote control drone launched missile strikes into Afghanistan and Pakistan, over 1000 air strikes in October 2010 alone.

    My question is:
    How exactly do you suppose is the US currently gathering the massive amounts of intelligence they need to know where and when to strike all these thousands and thousands of targets across Pakistan and Afghanistan that are so effective in killing so many Taliban?

    ( and off topic, also killing in the process thousands of innocent civilians, elderly, women, children, but that is off topic, more to do with the other Geneva Convention violating war-crime the current administration may be guilty of: "reckless disregard for civilian casualties", not to mention the other war crime of "extra judicial execution" )

    Is the US, while itself banning water boarding by American personal, just simply hypocritically out sourcing far worse varieties of full on nightmarish torture to the Afghans and Pakistanis, each of whom are client states benefiting from many billions each year in US military aid?

    Please explain to me exactly how the current war strategy of the Obama administration, which seems to rely almost exclusively on torture sourced intelligence from its client states to fight the Afghan war, how is this any different at all, ethically or legally from what President Bush did with water boarding ?

  2. Always nice to hear from you Judo – great questions.

    AI holds Democratic or Republican administrations to the same standard. Intelligence comes from many sources and can be legitimately obtained. However, if the Obama administration is outsourcing torture or condoning it then it would be guilty of precisely the same crimes as its predecessor. If you have evidence that that is the case, please share it. Innuendo doesn't cut it though.

    However, the failure of the Obama administration to adequately investigate acts of torture – such of those ordered by President Bush – may amount to complicity and we have no hesitation in describing it as such.

    We are greatly concerned about the use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere and doubt the accuracy of the Pentagon's claims about the lack of civilian casualties. The principles of proportionality and military necessity apply to the use of drones as to any other weapons system deployed in armed conflict. It is far from clear that these principles are being observed by drone operators in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

  3. Tom or Zeke, thanks for answering the following questions.

    The current administration has banned water boarding, true.

    But, the Obama administration has also changed war tactics in Afghanistan so now the war effort relies very, very heavily on remote control drone launched missile strikes into Afghanistan and Pakistan, over 1000 air strikes in October 2010 alone.

    My question is:
    How exactly do you suppose is the US currently gathering the massive amounts of intelligence they need to know where and when to strike all these thousands and thousands of targets across Pakistan and Afghanistan that are so effective in killing so many Taliban?

    ( and off topic, also killing in the process thousands of innocent civilians, elderly, women, children, but that is off topic, more to do with the other Geneva Convention violating war-crime the current administration may be guilty of: “reckless disregard for civilian casualties”, not to mention the other war crime of “extra judicial execution” )

    Is the US, while itself banning water boarding by American personal, just simply hypocritically out sourcing far worse varieties of full on nightmarish torture to the Afghans and Pakistanis, each of whom are client states benefiting from many billions each year in US military aid?

    Please explain to me exactly how the current war strategy of the Obama administration, which seems to rely almost exclusively on torture sourced intelligence from its client states to fight the Afghan war, how is this any different at all, ethically or legally from what President Bush did with water boarding ?

  4. Always nice to hear from you Judo – great questions.

    AI holds Democratic or Republican administrations to the same standard. Intelligence comes from many sources and can be legitimately obtained. However, if the Obama administration is outsourcing torture or condoning it then it would be guilty of precisely the same crimes as its predecessor. If you have evidence that that is the case, please share it. Innuendo doesn’t cut it though.

    However, the failure of the Obama administration to adequately investigate acts of torture – such of those ordered by President Bush – may amount to complicity and we have no hesitation in describing it as such.

    We are greatly concerned about the use of drones in Pakistan and elsewhere and doubt the accuracy of the Pentagon’s claims about the lack of civilian casualties. The principles of proportionality and military necessity apply to the use of drones as to any other weapons system deployed in armed conflict. It is far from clear that these principles are being observed by drone operators in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

  5. Tom:

    The point is President Obama is acting in defense of the people of America and President Bush before him did no more and no less.

    We have human rights too, you know, Tom. As peaceful civilians we have the human right not to be attacked by terrorists.

    We should be grateful to both Bush and Obama that each of them has done what it took to protect firstly our human rights to live free from terror attacks, while also trying as best they could to respect the human rights of others when ever possible.

  6. Tom:

    The point is President Obama is acting in defense of the people of America and President Bush before him did no more and no less.

    We have human rights too, you know, Tom. As peaceful civilians we have the human right not to be attacked by terrorists.

    We should be grateful to both Bush and Obama that each of them has done what it took to protect firstly our human rights to live free from terror attacks, while also trying as best they could to respect the human rights of others when ever possible.

  7. And besides Obama and Bush the son, don't forget about Bill Clinton, who while trying to stop the Serbs from committing genocide in Kosovo, authorized with no military justification the bombing of the Serb Radio and Television headquarters on 23 April 1999, killing 16 Serbian journalists, who were protected non-combatants working in a non-military target according to the Geneva Convention.

    And Bush the Father, when during the invasion of Panama, he authorized the napalming of civilian residential neighborhoods in Panama City in the middle of the night of December 20, 1989, in which at least 3000 innocent civilians were slaughtered in the ensuing firestorm that swept through the impoverished barrios, incinerating thousands of women and children in their sleep.

    ( I couldn't find any war crimes Jimmy Carter committed.)

    So why call only for Bush the son to be prosecuted ?

  8. And besides Obama and Bush the son, don’t forget about Bill Clinton, who while trying to stop the Serbs from committing genocide in Kosovo, authorized with no military justification the bombing of the Serb Radio and Television headquarters on 23 April 1999, killing 16 Serbian journalists, who were protected non-combatants working in a non-military target according to the Geneva Convention.

    And Bush the Father, when during the invasion of Panama, he authorized the napalming of civilian residential neighborhoods in Panama City in the middle of the night of December 20, 1989, in which at least 3000 innocent civilians were slaughtered in the ensuing firestorm that swept through the impoverished barrios, incinerating thousands of women and children in their sleep.

    ( I couldn’t find any war crimes Jimmy Carter committed.)

    So why call only for Bush the son to be prosecuted ?

  9. In his Nov 13 mail Mr Judo speaks of thousands of civilians killed by Obama's drone strikes in Afghanistan as an "OFF TOPIC" issue…. "OFF TOPIC" for him, but the CRUCIAL TOPIC for human rights activists.

    Mr Judo then equates Obama's drone attacks to Bush's waterboarding, leading Mr Parker to believe Mr Judo is uncompromisingly & consistently focusing on human rights here.

    BUT THEN, the very next day, Nov 14, Mr Judo uses his equating of Obama with Bush to make the VERY DIFFERENT point, but indeed the point he has been intending to reach all along ……… that BOTH Obama & Bush are ACTUALLY DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA and THEIR human rights THROUGH THEIR VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN / IRAQ ….. INCLUDING ( by implication ) the OFFTOPIC SLAUGHTER of rthousands of civilians !!

    This also implies that, while unfortunate, the killing of Afghan civilians is A JUSTIFIABLE PART & PARCEL OF ANY WAR "IN DEFENSE OF" THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!

  10. Governments have an obligation to protect their citizens from acts of terrorism but promoting national security and human rights are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    The attack on the Serb Radio and TV station during the Kosovo is an interesting case. The Law of War does protect civil radio transmitters but recent jurisprudence suggests that this may not be an absolute protection. The ICTR prosecuted the former manager of the Mille Collines radio station in Rwanda for genocide suggesting that media outlets can play a major role in conflict and thus logically may become military objects.

  11. In his Nov 13 mail Mr Judo speaks of thousands of civilians killed by Obama's drone strikes in Afghanistan as an "OFF TOPIC" issue…. "OFF TOPIC" for him, but THE CRUCIAL TOPIC for all human rights activists.

    Mr Judo then equates Obama's drone attacks with Bush's waterboarding, leading the unsuspecting Mr Tom Parker to believe Mr Judo is uncompromisingly & consistently focusing on human rights issues here.

    BUT THEN, the very NEXT day, Nov 14, Mr Judo uses his equating of Obama with Bush to make the VERY DIFFERENT point, the point he has been intending to get to all along ……… that BOTH Obama & Bush have been ACTUALLY DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND THEIR "human rights" THROUGH THEIR OWN PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN / IRAQ ….. INCLUDING ( by implication ) the "OFFTOPIC" SLAUGHTER of thousands of Afghan civilians !!

    Through this implication Mr. Judo suggests that, while unfortunate, the killing of Afghan or any other civilians by America is AN INEXTRICABLE PART & PARCEL OF ANY WAR "IN DEFENSE OF" THE "PEACEFUL" AMERICAN (& ISRAELI ? ) PEOPLE from the terrible "terrorists" !!!

    & finally, Mr Judo slyly brings in the issue of the war crimes of Clinton of Clinton & Bush 1 in Yugoslavia & Panama…… WHY ??

    To show his own consistent concern for human rights ?

    NO … it is to try to make any prosection or even critique of Bush look ridiculous, untenable … & impossible !!

    In conclusion, Mr Judo with apparent innocence asks, "Then why only prosecute Bush ?"

    This "innocence" of his is aimed at doing 2 things.

    1, it tries to blunt & bypass the American people's JUST demand for Bush's prosecution .

    2, it denies Bush's pivotal & HISTORIC role in INVOLVING AMERICA in ENDLESS WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST & CENTRAL ASIA .

    For neither the Serbian war nor the invasion of Panama led to endless wars in their respective regions …..

    Whereas Bush's invasions of Iraq & AfPak have inaugurated the state of PERMANENT & SPREADING WARS throughout West & Central Asia !

    Mr Judo is a specimen of a brand of imperialism that may be new to this blogsite but not outside it …

    The brand of imperialism that uses the very ISSUE of human rights to justify the ACTUAL VIOLATION & TRAMPLING of those same rights through the waging of Permanent War.

  12. In his Nov 13 mail Mr Judo speaks of thousands of civilians killed by Obama’s drone strikes in Afghanistan as an “OFF TOPIC” issue…. “OFF TOPIC” for him, but the CRUCIAL TOPIC for human rights activists.

    Mr Judo then equates Obama’s drone attacks to Bush’s waterboarding, leading Mr Parker to believe Mr Judo is uncompromisingly & consistently focusing on human rights here.

    BUT THEN, the very next day, Nov 14, Mr Judo uses his equating of Obama with Bush to make the VERY DIFFERENT point, but indeed the point he has been intending to reach all along ……… that BOTH Obama & Bush are ACTUALLY DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA and THEIR human rights THROUGH THEIR VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN / IRAQ ….. INCLUDING ( by implication ) the OFFTOPIC SLAUGHTER of rthousands of civilians !!

    This also implies that, while unfortunate, the killing of Afghan civilians is A JUSTIFIABLE PART & PARCEL OF ANY WAR “IN DEFENSE OF” THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!

  13. Governments have an obligation to protect their citizens from acts of terrorism but promoting national security and human rights are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

    The attack on the Serb Radio and TV station during the Kosovo is an interesting case. The Law of War does protect civil radio transmitters but recent jurisprudence suggests that this may not be an absolute protection. The ICTR prosecuted the former manager of the Mille Collines radio station in Rwanda for genocide suggesting that media outlets can play a major role in conflict and thus logically may become military objects.

  14. In his Nov 13 mail Mr Judo speaks of thousands of civilians killed by Obama’s drone strikes in Afghanistan as an “OFF TOPIC” issue…. “OFF TOPIC” for him, but THE CRUCIAL TOPIC for all human rights activists.

    Mr Judo then equates Obama’s drone attacks with Bush’s waterboarding, leading the unsuspecting Mr Tom Parker to believe Mr Judo is uncompromisingly & consistently focusing on human rights issues here.

    BUT THEN, the very NEXT day, Nov 14, Mr Judo uses his equating of Obama with Bush to make the VERY DIFFERENT point, the point he has been intending to get to all along ……… that BOTH Obama & Bush have been ACTUALLY DEFENDING THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA AND THEIR “human rights” THROUGH THEIR OWN PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN / IRAQ ….. INCLUDING ( by implication ) the “OFFTOPIC” SLAUGHTER of thousands of Afghan civilians !!

    Through this implication Mr. Judo suggests that, while unfortunate, the killing of Afghan or any other civilians by America is AN INEXTRICABLE PART & PARCEL OF ANY WAR “IN DEFENSE OF” THE “PEACEFUL” AMERICAN (& ISRAELI ? ) PEOPLE from the terrible “terrorists” !!!

    & finally, Mr Judo slyly brings in the issue of the war crimes of Clinton of Clinton & Bush 1 in Yugoslavia & Panama…… WHY ??

    To show his own consistent concern for human rights ?

    NO … it is to try to make any prosection or even critique of Bush look ridiculous, untenable … & impossible !!

    In conclusion, Mr Judo with apparent innocence asks, “Then why only prosecute Bush ?”

    This “innocence” of his is aimed at doing 2 things.

    1, it tries to blunt & bypass the American people’s JUST demand for Bush’s prosecution .

    2, it denies Bush’s pivotal & HISTORIC role in INVOLVING AMERICA in ENDLESS WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST & CENTRAL ASIA .

    For neither the Serbian war nor the invasion of Panama led to endless wars in their respective regions …..

    Whereas Bush’s invasions of Iraq & AfPak have inaugurated the state of PERMANENT & SPREADING WARS throughout West & Central Asia !

    Mr Judo is a specimen of a brand of imperialism that may be new to this blogsite but not outside it …

    The brand of imperialism that uses the very ISSUE of human rights to justify the ACTUAL VIOLATION & TRAMPLING of those same rights through the waging of Permanent War.

  15. From The Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 23 August 2010.
    http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/49

    "Extrajudicial executions and robotic technologies:
    "The rapid growth of these
    technologies, especially those with lethal capacities and those with decreased levels of human control, raise serious concerns that have been almost entirely unexamined by human rights or humanitarian actors"

    Amnesty, this quote above certainly sounds like you are being criticized by none other than the UN Human Rights Council for ignoring the ethical, legal and human rights issues involved in the ongoing drone robot assassination war.

    Instead what you are doing is obsessing on and on and on endlessly about this decade old story of Bush water boarding pitiful poor psychopathic serial killer Mr. KSM. I'm really sure everyone in the world has heard this about a hundred times already and this topic is getting a bit stale to be perfectly honest.

    Please get with the times already. When the UN HRC itself suggests you to start properly examining the IHL implications of the robot drone executions that are occurring daily, right now, today, not ten years ago, you should really pay attention. So hop to it.

  16. From The Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 23 August 2010.
    http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/49

    "Extrajudicial executions and robotic technologies:
    "The rapid growth of these
    technologies, especially those with lethal capacities and those with decreased levels of human control, raise serious concerns that have been almost entirely unexamined by human rights or humanitarian actors"

    Amnesty, this quote above certainly sounds like you are being criticized by none other than the UN Human Rights Council for ignoring the ethical, legal and human rights issues involved in the ongoing drone robot assassination war.

    Instead what you are doing is obsessing on and on and on endlessly about this decade old story of Bush water boarding pitiful poor psychopathic serial killer Mr. KSM. I'm really sure everyone in the world has heard this about a hundred times already and this topic is getting a bit stale to be perfectly honest.

    Please get with the times already. When the UN HRC itself suggests you to start properly examining the IHL implications of the robot drone executions that are occurring daily, right now, today, not ten years ago, you should really pay attention. So hop to it.

  17. From The Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 23 August 2010.
    http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/49

    "Extrajudicial executions and robotic technologies:
    "The rapid growth of these
    technologies, especially those with lethal capacities and those with decreased levels of human control, raise serious concerns that have been almost entirely unexamined by human rights or humanitarian actors"

    Amnesty, this quote above certainly sounds like you are being criticized by none other than the UN Human Rights Council for ignoring the ethical, legal and human rights issues involved in the ongoing drone robot assassination war.

    Instead what you are doing is obsessing on and on and on endlessly about this decade old story of Bush water boarding pitiful poor psychopathic serial killer Mr. KSM. I'm really sure everyone in the world has heard this about a hundred times already and this topic is getting a bit stale to be perfectly honest.

    Please get with the times already. When the UN HRC itself suggests you to start properly examining the IHL implications of the robot drone executions that are occurring daily, right now, today, not ten years ago, you should really pay attention. So hop to it.

  18. From The Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, 23 August 2010.

    http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N10/492/39/PDF/N1049239.pdf

    “Extrajudicial executions and robotic technologies:
    “The rapid growth of these
    technologies, especially those with lethal capacities and those with decreased levels of human control, raise serious concerns that have been almost entirely unexamined by human rights or humanitarian actors”

    Amnesty, this quote above certainly sounds like you are being criticized by none other than the UN Human Rights Council for ignoring the ethical, legal and human rights issues involved in the ongoing drone robot assassination war.

    Instead what you are doing is obsessing on and on and on endlessly about this decade old story of Bush water boarding pitiful poor psychopathic serial killer Mr. KSM. I’m really sure everyone in the world has heard this about a hundred times already and this topic is getting a bit stale to be perfectly honest.

    Please get with the times already. When the UN HRC itself suggests you to start properly examining the IHL implications of the robot drone executions that are occurring daily, right now, today, not ten years ago, you should really pay attention. So hop to it.

  19. You people need to get a life. We have less liberty and freedom in the United States than we have ever had in our history and your worried about other countries or waterboarding someone who has vowed to destroy America. Help get our house in order and then we can work on others. Then we will see if you really care about Amnesty USA.

  20. Judo, you may wish to read our December 4th post "Modern Warfare 2" about the use of drones.

    Many NGOs are concerned about the use of drones but they are currently a permitted weapon of warfare and, as such, are essentially just another weapons platform, like an Apache attack helicopter or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. There are issues about the identity of the controllers (are CIA contractors lawful combatants, for example), how force is applied (are sufficient steps taken to minimize civilian casualties) and where these weapons are being used (is it legal to carry out drone strikes in Yemen). I am sure you will be relieved to hear that Amnesty has worked on all of these issues but no doubt the UN Special Rapporteur is right to note that we can all do more.

    The prosecution of past crimes and the investigation of new ones are of course not mutually exclusive, the best way to prevent abuses in the future is to ensure that the perpetrators of the past are held to account for their crimes.

  21. You people need to get a life. We have less liberty and freedom in the United States than we have ever had in our history and your worried about other countries or waterboarding someone who has vowed to destroy America. Help get our house in order and then we can work on others. Then we will see if you really care about Amnesty USA.

  22. Judo, you may wish to read our December 4th post “Modern Warfare 2″ about the use of drones.

    Many NGOs are concerned about the use of drones but they are currently a permitted weapon of warfare and, as such, are essentially just another weapons platform, like an Apache attack helicopter or a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. There are issues about the identity of the controllers (are CIA contractors lawful combatants, for example), how force is applied (are sufficient steps taken to minimize civilian casualties) and where these weapons are being used (is it legal to carry out drone strikes in Yemen). I am sure you will be relieved to hear that Amnesty has worked on all of these issues but no doubt the UN Special Rapporteur is right to note that we can all do more.

    The prosecution of past crimes and the investigation of new ones are of course not mutually exclusive, the best way to prevent abuses in the future is to ensure that the perpetrators of the past are held to account for their crimes.

  23. It's incredible that Mr Judo asserts that the issue of drone strikes cancels out or renders obsolete the issue of waterboarding & torture !

    Both issues are part & parcel of the same war machine of imperial invasion.

    But i am much more astounded at hearing Mr Parker refer to drones as a "permitted" form of warfare & "just another" weapons platform like apache copters & bradley vehicles !!

    i thought Amnesty was not about what's "permitted" …….. but what should & shouldn't be !

    But, Mr Parker, you don't have to reply to this ….

    i don't want to digress from the issue at hand by raising another.

  24. It’s incredible that Mr Judo asserts that the issue of drone strikes cancels out or renders obsolete the issue of waterboarding & torture !

    Both issues are part & parcel of the same war machine of imperial invasion.

    But i am much more astounded at hearing Mr Parker refer to drones as a “permitted” form of warfare & “just another” weapons platform like apache copters & bradley vehicles !!

    i thought Amnesty was not about what’s “permitted” …….. but what should & shouldn’t be !

    But, Mr Parker, you don’t have to reply to this ….

    i don’t want to digress from the issue at hand by raising another.

  25. The United Kingdom Welcomes all Terrorists but don't mess with the French

    This is how the UK's dealt with their 'torture' cases – by paying them 'hush money' which will be far more than their own dead and injured soldiers from Afghanistan get as compensation. Nice work if you can get it.

    The UK's spineless and abject surrender to terror is now official. The Islamists are delighted by this victory, as I'm sure are most 'human rights' advocates. France (and even Slovakia) have no such problem and deport dodgy Algerians back to Algeria.

    "The United Nations Committee Against Torture has condemned France twice in the past three years for deporting individuals to countries where they faced a risk of torture. In both cases, France had ignored requests from the committee to stay the deportation until the committee had time to study the facts.

    Or as the French say, "Occupe-toi de tes oignons !"
    http://tinyurl.com/2vhg4pe

    Did someone say 'cheese eating surrender monkeys'? That should be changed to 'beer swilling, fish & chip eating surrender monkeys' of the UK.

    So the best country to forment terror and not be deported is the UK.

    @ a. savage: 'permitted' is defined in any dictionary as consent. e.g to give permission; "The US & UK permitted Al-Quaeda suspects to be tortured". The drones are just another weapon; its how they're used that matters.

  26. The United Kingdom Welcomes all Terrorists but don't mess with the French

    This is how the UK's dealt with their 'torture' cases – by paying them 'hush money' which will be far more than their own dead and injured soldiers from Afghanistan get as compensation. Nice work if you can get it.

    The UK's spineless and abject surrender to terror is now official. The Islamists are delighted by this victory, as I'm sure are most 'human rights' advocates. France (and even Slovakia) have no such problem and deport dodgy Algerians back to Algeria.

    "The United Nations Committee Against Torture has condemned France twice in the past three years for deporting individuals to countries where they faced a risk of torture. In both cases, France had ignored requests from the committee to stay the deportation until the committee had time to study the facts.

    Or as the French say, "Occupe-toi de tes oignons !"
    http://tinyurl.com/2vhg4pe

    Did someone say 'cheese eating surrender monkeys'? That should be changed to 'beer swilling, fish & chip eating surrender monkeys' of the UK.

    So the best country to forment terror and not be deported is the UK.

    @ a. savage: 'permitted' is defined in any dictionary as consent. e.g to give permission; "The US & UK permitted Al-Quaeda suspects to be tortured". The drones are just another weapon; its how they're used that matters.

  27. The United Kingdom Welcomes all Terrorists but don't mess with the French

    This is how the UK's dealt with their 'torture' cases – by paying them 'hush money' which will be far more than their own dead and injured soldiers from Afghanistan get as compensation. Nice work if you can get it.

    The UK's spineless and abject surrender to terror is now official. The Islamists are delighted by this victory, as I'm sure are most 'human rights' advocates. France (and even Slovakia) have no such problem and deport dodgy Algerians back to Algeria.

    "The United Nations Committee Against Torture has condemned France twice in the past three years for deporting individuals to countries where they faced a risk of torture. In both cases, France had ignored requests from the committee to stay the deportation until the committee had time to study the facts.

    Or as the French say, "Occupe-toi de tes oignons !"
    http://tinyurl.com/2vhg4pe

    Did someone say 'cheese eating surrender monkeys'? That should be changed to 'beer swilling, fish & chip eating surrender monkeys' of the UK.

    So the best country to forment terror and not be deported is the UK.

    @ a. savage: 'permitted' is defined in any dictionary as consent. e.g to give permission; "The US & UK permitted Al-Quaeda suspects to be tortured". The drones are just another weapon; its how they're used that matters.

  28. The United Kingdom Welcomes all Terrorists but don’t mess with the French

    This is how the UK’s dealt with their ‘torture’ cases – by paying them ‘hush money’ which will be far more than their own dead and injured soldiers from Afghanistan get as compensation. Nice work if you can get it.

    The UK’s spineless and abject surrender to terror is now official. The Islamists are delighted by this victory, as I’m sure are most ‘human rights’ advocates. France (and even Slovakia) have no such problem and deport dodgy Algerians back to Algeria.

    “The United Nations Committee Against Torture has condemned France twice in the past three years for deporting individuals to countries where they faced a risk of torture. In both cases, France had ignored requests from the committee to stay the deportation until the committee had time to study the facts.

    Or as the French say, “Occupe-toi de tes oignons !”

    http://tinyurl.com/2vhg4pe

    Did someone say ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’? That should be changed to ‘beer swilling, fish & chip eating surrender monkeys’ of the UK.

    So the best country to forment terror and not be deported is the UK.

    @ a. savage: ‘permitted’ is defined in any dictionary as consent. e.g to give permission; “The US & UK permitted Al-Quaeda suspects to be tortured”. The drones are just another weapon; its how they’re used that matters.