BBC One’s news broadcasts on Monday (1pm, 6pm and 10pm, 04OCT04) featured reports from Margaret Gilmour, their Home Affairs Correspondent, on the detention without trial in the UK of foreign terrorist suspects who cannot be deported for legal reasons. The report on the 10 O’Clock news ran for a lengthy ~2m 43s, opened by Huw Edwards with:
The highly controversial powers to detain foreign terrorist suspects without charge
or trial have been challenged in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. The case focuses on nine men who have been held for up to three years. Lawyers for the men say the powers are fundamentally inconsistent with core values of liberty and equality.
Gilmour commences her piece with:
This is the dilemma for the law lords: Does the post September 11th terror threat justify declaring a public emergency in the UK, because that’s what the government has done in order to suspend certain human rights laws so they can hold foreign terror suspects without trial. Are they legally allowed to do this? Well that’s what this case is all about.
We then run through a bit about the hearing room, a painting in the room (Moses and the ten commandments), the nine law lords judging this case, the opt-out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, “11 foreign terror suspects are being held without trial under the act”, David Cairns MP (Lab) – supporting the Home Secretary, most held in the high security Belmarsh Prison in east London, a former prisoner who “met them in jail” (he isn’t identified and his reason for being in jail isn’t mentioned) who claims the detainees have “lost all hope in the British legal system”, then a clip of Conor Gearty of the Centre for Human Rights Law at the LSE (to the effect that ‘the case is about trade-offs between liberty and security’, oh really?), and then back to Gilmour, who sums up with:
This is about the balance between the war on terror and human rights. Whatever the law lords decide will set a new benchmark establishing how far civil rights issues in future should be taken into account by government and the courts.
All the while with both Edwards and Gilmour omitting the crucial seven words that hit upon the essential truth of the story – specifically that the case is about foreign nationals, terror suspects, ‘who cannot be deported for legal reasons’ – for that is the nub of the story – foreign nationals whose behaviour has made them unwelcome here (which we, as a nation, are perfectly entitled to determine), but who cannot be deported (under our law, mind, in case their home countries abuse them) and who won’t leave of their own accord.
In other words, they are locked up and looked after at our expense to protect us from them and them from their own governments, until circumstances change or they go home or find somewhere else willing to take them – which, to me, whilst far from ideal, seems the best compromise under all the circumstances.
But without those seven words (at the very least), which take all of three seconds to say (not much to squeeze into a 163 second segment!), Gilmour’s reports are quite misleading, particularly as we had various repeated reports over the weekend of a small protest outside Belmarsh (all the usual suspects, SWP, Respect, Liberty, Loopy Lawyers 4 Freeing Terrorists etc.) promulgating the usual leftie lies that Belmarsh is Britain’s Guantanamo Bay and so on, when it patently isn’t – these foreign nationals are free to leave at any time, so long as they’re leaving Britain.
Furthermore, Gilmour (and some other reports) also omit the significant details that there were originally seventeen people detained under this legislation (bottom of report) – two of whom have left the UK voluntarily, one who has been released under ‘house arrest’, one now detained under other legislation and one who has been released following the consideration of new evidence.
Given the complexity and the emotiveness of this issue, why didn’t Edwards or Gilmour manage to spend three seconds addressing such a crucial point about exactly why these people are being held in the way that they are?
If you have the time and the bandwidth you can, for now at least, see the report for yourself here (224Kbps, Windows Media format) – it starts about 8m 53s into the programme and ends around 11m 36s.
Quite right. It’s also odd to describe the legislation as ‘highly controversial’. No it isn’t. The system was introduced and has been operating with barely a whimper from politicians, the media, the public or anyone else. Only Liberty and pressure groups of that ilk have complained about it, but that’s hardly surprising and just because Liberty doesn’t like something doesn’t mean that it’s ‘highly controversial’.
(The report also draw attention to the fact that there were nine law lords adjudicating and that usually there are ‘far less’ – a typical lazy error.)
The lying, for that’s what it is, is very effective. I was speaking to a colleague at work on this subject who is generally well informed; and she was completely unaware of the most pertinent facts of the issue. She had swallowed the “held without charge or trial” lie totally.
.
You argue that we, as a nation, are perfectly justified in deciding who to hold in detention. True. And we exercise that power in the course of our criminal law, with safeguards set up to ensure that the power to do this isn’t abused. Whatever you think of the state of British criminal law, that fact that these men have not been afforded these safeguards is a failing of our systems of fairness and justice.
Bartlett’s Bizarre Bazaar [http://bartlettsbizarrebazaar.blogspot.com]
Does the Government has a right to knowingly allow people that may harm us into the UK?
Kick them out or make it a crime to not leave of their own accord when asked and convict them of this. The law is not wrong it is just being stupid. APU.
No Andrew – I argue that we as a nation are entitled to decide who to deport, not who to detain (indefinitely or otherwise).
To detain a foreigner in the UK without trial would be wrong.
But, to detain a foreigner who we would be happy to see leave (but who we cannot or will not deport to protect them from their home regimes), and who refuses to go of his own accord, is entirely different – they are free to leave the UK any time they wish.
Do you see the difference?
We don’t lock people up without trial. We do lock people up whose behaviour is unwelcome but whom we are hidebound not to deport against their will. It is their choice – they are free to choose between staying in Belmarsh or going anywhere else in the world.
Additionally, they are able to appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Committee – as some of these ‘detainees’ have already done successfully.
the cost to the british taxpayer of these bleeding heart/human rights lawyer gravytrain proceedings isn’t reported by the BBC either. Some newpapers reckoned around £200000.
What a grotesque waste of money.
BBC vindicated by WMD report!
Or so it would seem from the BBC news. I listened to The World Tonight last night on Radi 4, and the WMD report was given top billing. Balanced commentary was then provided by Malcolm Rifkind (antiwar) and Scott Ritter (mad and antwar). Very balanced indeed.
Interesting to see how the BBC handles other news at the same time.
A bomb goes off in Pakistan and 38 are killed. So is Pakistan in chaos and spiralling out of control? Not according to the BBC, who provide no further comment, probably because there is no antiwar angle to it.
Then on Radio 5 live yesterday in response to the Submarine fire, we had a lighthearted piece about buying submarines on e-bay. What a laugh! In the meantime one of the Canadian crew members died and others are seriously injured. As I said, what a laugh!
Scott Ritter has a lot more direct experience than you on which to base his pro/anti war position, wouldn’t you think?
Anonymous
“Scott Ritter has a lot more direct experience than you on which to base his pro/anti war position, wouldn’t you think?”
Yes, of course. I was just noting that the BBC didn’t try to interview anyone with a contrary view; after all they always make sure that pro-war views are solidly countered by a Robin Cook or Ming Campbell interview.
This morning on the Today programme, they did have a former inspector (if I caught the intro correctly) who pointed out that the ISG report did say that if sanctions were to have been lifted, Saddam Hussein would have been able, and most definitely would have embarked on a WMD programme. They then had Robin Cook on and gave him a bit of a grilling, surprisingly, as he is/was anti-war. I was expecting the other person to get the grilling.
I think they even made Cookie look like a bit of a twit, as they implicitly linked the same people who had an antiwar stance with the same people who would have lifted sanctions.
Someone tell me if I interpreted it wrong.
“WMD report Key Points”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722016.stm
“Saddam Hussein’s goal was evading and ultimately ending UN sanctions that severely restricted what he could import into Iraq. The UN oil-for-food programme gave the Iraqi economy a much-needed boost, but not enough to let him re-start a weapons of mass destruction programme.”
No mention of corruption relating to the O-f-F programme resulting in opposition to sanctions by France, Russia & China.
James Gradisher “I think they even made Cookie look like a bit of a twit…Someone tell me if I interpreted it wrong.”
I don’t agree. Cook was allowed to rely on the certain continuation of sanctions.
Cook also scoffed at Saddam’s O-f-F scam – claiming that we always knew about it (a common response from anti-war folk). Humphrys did not follow up on this comment.
That’s a shameful attitude, it seems Cook et al were quite happy that Saddam continue to steal money intended for food & medical care for his people.
Cook “Today” interview here at 0734
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/
Cheers for that Rob, I was busy feeding the daughter, too, so I had been admittedly dipping in and out of it. So the impression I came away with was that he was a bit harder on Cook than the other one.
Anyway, your quote from the web site says it all about the Beeb’s editorial policy on this issue, at least for their online presence, as I came away with a completely different interpretation of the ISG report: i.e. if they had ended sanctions as many people wanted (and I have to count myself in on that, at the time), then there would have been certain danger of Saddam building and using WMD.
Regards,
James
OT: The BBC reports that “Christian-Muslim” conflicts in Nigeria has taken 50,000 lives:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3724218.stm
Notice how the BBC makes it sound like the violence was started by the Christians, and carefully doesn’t mention the fact that it all started because the Muslims implemented Islamic law (in contravention of Nigeria’s secular constitution) in several states.
O/T
BBC to review coverage of religious affairs, coverage of the EU and current affairs. Unlike past reviews,this is to comprise external analysis.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1322696,00.html
Richard:
Too little, way too late, like putting lipstick on a pig.
Prediction for today: The BBC won’t go near Paul Bremer’sangry renunciation of the recent headlines about what he allegedly-but-didn’t-say about Iraq.
The BBC misrepresented him repeatedly in its lead stories earlier this week. But the dirt is spread, again. All you will hear today is silence.
The BBC is not a credible news source.
What rubbish you talk Wally. Just like Rumsfeld, Bremer opened his gob without engaging his ‘party line’ brain and has subsequently had to unconvincingly bullsh*t his way out. ‘Misrepresentation’ indeed.
OT Re ‘Have your 2 cents’
Nearly a full house of moonbats today on the ‘Apology for Iraq war’
Only Paul ruined the love fest.
(The last entry)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3725772.stm
The US did not send enough troops, that is most definitely the case.
However, many of the difficulties the US Army has had in Iraq are the result of Clinton’s idiotic army policies, which have undermined discipline.
Really, there should have been 200,000 troops, not 100,000. But alas political expediency rears it’s ugly head.
Political expediency which is also apparent in Cook’s stance; if he “knew” about the o-f-f scandal, why has he not complained or done anything about it?
THFC — Yes, dear.
Bremer’s actually a Democrat and, like evil Republican Rumsfeld, smart, experienced and fully capable of talking for himself. That’s what he did before the BBC’s hatchet job; he’s doing it again today.
You and your creepy kind just can’t handle this new world, can you?
Meanwhile, still waiting for Frei to go near this one.
We’re waiting…we’re waiting…we’re waiting….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And what is this ‘new world’ that the ‘creepy kind’ can’t handle?
The new world where the blogophere “fact checks your ass”, Andrew Bartlett. The media Marxocracy no longer rules absolute!
I do get so tired of those who pull out the “r” word whenever they can’t field a credible argument.
Sorry, wrong thread.
Fact checks my ass? The media Marxocracy?
You might disagree with the BBC. You might, somehow, think the mainstream American media is left-wing. But Marxist? That’s pure hyperbole.
Bias is always worth uncovering. Facts are always worth checking. And its always worth being reflexive as we do so, lest we fall into the bias and untruth traps we accuse our opponents of.
“You might, somehow, think the mainstream American media is left-wing. But Marxist? That’s pure hyperbole.”
The democratic-socialist model of the modern left wing is an offshoot of the Marxist movement, so Susans’ statement is accurate.
Andrew B: Cultural Marxism is different from economic Marxism. Economic Marxism is dead. Cultural Marxism is alive and well and living within the western media, academia, NGOs and other establishment institutions.
If you believe that a nation gets the media it deserves, then a semi-democracy like Britain fully merits the biased crap coming out of the BBC!
After all this is the land of unelected monarchy; a state-funded broadcaster; a state church; an upper house accountable to no one; official secrets; D Notices; no Freedom of Information; no “right to know” laws; no primary selection of candidates; (who care in the end nothing for their constituents); Wow! Need I continue? The list is inexaustible. Conclusion — you want better media, make the UK a real democracy!
BK
“Conclusion — you want better media, make the UK a real democracy!”
Most of the comments you make suggest you would like to Americanise the UK. The problem is, the US mainstream media is little better than the British equivalent, except they don’t have to pay the TV license. This would suggest that the fixes you propose have nothing to do with the problem.
Also the democratically elected house of commons has been more of a threat to freedom and prosperity in the UK since the beginning of the 20th century than the constitutionally restricted house of lords or monarcy.
“demoratically elected house of commons” — do me a favour! Who chooses the candidates? And what happens to them if they don’t toe the party line but instead actually listen to their constituents? I repeat. If you want more accountable media, make Britain a more open, free, and accountable society! That’s nothing to do with America or any other country, but with deficiencies right here!
BK
“The democratic-socialist model of the modern left wing is an offshoot of the Marxist movement, so Susans’ statement is accurate.”
So, all the left-wing is Marxist. Well, okay, say I accept this. If we are concerned with effective communication we muct choose our words carefully. And saying that the mainstream media is Marxist presents a wholly inaccurate picture of the situation. Left-wing yes, but Marxist, well, that presents a different picture.
But all the left-wing is not Marxist. To say that something is an offshoot of something makes is identical to that something is absolute nonsense. That would make a human being a fish, or a son would be his father. Indentity has to be established by more than common roots.
Furthermore, Susan’s comments demonstrate that he comments were pure hyperbole. Marxism is here stretched beyond its meaning as an economically-based interpretation of history to something with very little connection to the original. When Susan writes ‘Marxist’, she will not communicate the meaning ‘cultural Marxism’ to many people.
Marxism, here, was used as a term of abuse, not as a serious description. Hyperbole is a charitable label to apply to such writing.
Burt, your book looks hilarious but I don’t want to buy a copy. Please can you stick it online for a laugh.