This bothered me greatly earlier today. It concerns the whinging of a bunch of lefties who the BBC alleges have dealt the a blow to the government’s inquiry into allegations that British security services were complicit in torture and rendition. In the first instance I am enraged that the BBC goes with the meme that our security forces are supportive of torture but also listen to the contrasting treatment afforded Clare Algar of Lefties for Jihad (or something like that) and Sir Malcolm Rifkind. The bias is visceral.
AND ANOTHER THING….
Bookmark the permalink.
Do you mean Malcolm’he speaks only for himself’ Rifkind?
I dont ever remember Prescott or Campbell or any other ex libore stooge ever being introduced with that little smear.
The BBC are scum.
The part that infuriates me is when they refer to “British residents”. These are people who we couldn’t remove by conventional means thanks to scum like Mrs Bliar and her bed wetting fellow travellers. They were given stateless “refugee docs” or indefinite leave to remain and then chose to leave the UK. So in what possible way are they “British residents?” They should be deported back to the country they were caught in presumably Pakistan and that is the end of the matter.
Algar 4.5 minutes, Rifkind 1.5 minutes and interrupted…and he still came across better!
No, Sir Malcolm had just under 2 and a half minutes.
INBBC’s Mr Amroliwala presented the same sort of political bias when interviewing Sir Malcolm Rifkind on this same subject at lunchtime on BBC TV News channel.
No, I made it 95 seconds when taking into account the constant interruptions.
I didn’t hear constant interruptions. A tad more questioning of his viewpoint, but that’s all. Of course, whether its 2 and a half mins or a min and a half, at the very least M/s Algar’eda got twice as long as Sir Malcolm.
Interested in views on the N Campbell interview of them together?
i just hope that our armed forces have been instructed not to take any prisoners when confronted with muslims. That way, we won’t have to watch as our enemies are released and rewarded by the corrupted legal system that supports muslim terrorists and penalises those who are employed to defend our country and protect our freedoms. It there was any justice, there are people in the bbc and the labour party who should be prosecuted for treason.
Yes and double yes. One thing we urgently need is a public inquiry examining the relationship between Amnesty and the jihad propaganda group Caged Prisoners and sundry related matters such as how we have completely lost our marbles in lobbying on behalf of patent Al Qa’eda terrorists like Mo Beg and Binyam to be freed from Guantanamo and put up here to continue fighting for the jihad as propagandists.
No, we dont need a public inquiry over this last bit, we need a psychiatrist.
You can add Clive Stafford-Smith and his “Reprieve” group on BBC speed dial (though he was strangely silent when they recently executed a American who went on a Muslim-killing spree after 9/11)
The heart of the problem is the Home Office, which apparently has unlimited bags of money for lawyers – M’learned friends, form an orderly queue please – and no money for catching and putting away criminals.
I saw a brief newspaper story yesterday suggesting that the security services had paid some £12 million to Guantanamo inmates “from Britain”. One big gravy train for leftie lawyers.
That’s money we should have been spending on tracking Islamic terrorism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8680598/MI5-and-MI6-pay-out-12m-to-Britons-held-in-Guantanamo.html
Yes but it’s never about the money its the principal !
Rolf pmsl !! god I almost believed it me self then!
For INBBC:
Some prisoners asked to stay in Gitmo — got special fruits and nuts for Ramadan, Harry Potter books in Arabic, computer lab
DV, I’m not at all with you on this. Both parties got a fair crack of the whip (albeit with underlying left-liberal assumptions in the line of questioning, implicitly shared by Sir Malcolm as well, judging by his comments). Nicky Campbell conducted an interview with both at the same time and if anything I would submit one can detect a bias on his part against the tripe Clare Algar’eda was talking (2:05:45):-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012wgp3/5_live_Breakfast_04_08_2011/
For INBBC:Al Qaeda fighter’s detention upheld by DC Circuit Court
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/#ixzz1U6O63vQH
It’s the NGOs and INBBC for Binyam Mohamed, publicly subsidised campaigners, who oppose the rights of Dutch MP Geert Wilders but who support Mohamed:
“Binyam Mohamed: The false martyr”
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/binyam_mohamed_the_f.php
“Call off this inquiry”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8681976/Call-off-this-inquiry.html
You have to cry with shame and rage to witness just how our nation has been perverted by the human rights charade. Everyone apart from the real victims gets these rights. The victims are now ignored andhe criminals get to take on the rights denied to their victims. The world turned upside down.
And then we all wonder just why that gunman in Norway decided it was payback time?
No, I dont wonder in the slightest. Someone who does what he does does so because they’re complete scum. In his case Nazi scum, usually Islamofascist scum. There’s no ifs and no buts when it comes to crimes against humanity.
There was an interesting article by Peter Oborne in the Telegraph this morning http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100099683/we-covered-up-our-involvement-in-torture-now-we-must-expose-it/ on this. The basis of the article is the contrast between Mrs T’s policy on state torture (completely unacceptable and, anyway, no evidence based on torture is or can be sound) and Blair’s (sort of unacceptable but as much info as we can get as long as someone else does the nasty bits). This redounds to Mrs T’s credit, not that the BBC will tell you much about that. Nor indeed will you hear much about the fact that acceptance of torture-extracted evidence was OK by the Labour administration (can you imagine the BBC deluge of “impartial” abuse had Mrs T adopted Blair’s policy?).
That said, I’m not convinced that torture – under any circumstances – is acceptable and I’m with Mrs T here (if Oborne is correct on her view) that info extracted by torture is at best not reliable and, at worst, useless. OTOH, the tenuous connection with Britain of most of the so-called “Britons” at Gitmo (or in our inner cities) makes the required public weeping by our intelligence services a complete waste of time.
I take Oborne’s point though – and that of the fake human rights charities – that choosing Gibson to chair this inquiry was as much a stitch-up as the choice of “impartial” chairmen for the Climategate etc inquiries. Mind you, I notice that lack of impartiality there was acceptable to the same “climate rights” lobby who comprise, to a great extent, the same people in the “human rights” gang. You see, the acceptability or otherwise of a committee of inquiry depends – to that crowd – on what species of “fake but true” evidence base-line the committee starts from and what evidence is allowed to be put before the committee.
Umbungo, I have read, in the Telegraph if memory serves me right, that we had a torture centre in WWII (stuff like holding a gun to a captured German officers’ head and “tell me what I want to know or I will blow your brains out” and less subtle stuff). When it was brought to Churchill’s attention he kept it open because the information it got was so excellent.
When faced with genocidal terrorists like Al Qa’eda torture is, in my view, a valid option.
I agree, as per Allen West, part of the reason he was ‘retired’ (shat on by his superiors) was because he decided his company of men were more valuable than one scumbag terrorist.
HP
There’s a spectrum of interrogation techniques and “robust” interrogation is not necessarily torture. Tearing out fingernails, connecting genitals up to the mains etc is definitely torture: holding a gun to somebody’s head and threatening to shoot might or might not be classed as torture: it was certainly against the Geneva Convention as applied in WW2. Nevertheless, interrogating POWs was one thing; interrogating possible German spies was another. I’d be interested in a reference for that report in the Telegraph that you quote.
Coming back to the “Britons” and their “human rights” terrorism enablers here, I still consider that info extracted by torture is unreliable but, in any event, even if it weren’t I’d still be against torture – even of these BBC poster boys. OTOH I’d have no problem with removing them back to their homelands (actual or spiritual) no matter what would happen to them there. As far as the BBC reportage is concerned, bigging up these (at best) apologists for terrorism is a blatant exercise in partiality. However, despite the BBC’s best efforts to skew the truth, being tortured doesn’t make anti-British scum any less anti-British or any less scum.