006 and three quarters. Licensed NOT to kill… or torture

  • Original Home Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • All Links to ‘The Trial of Tony Blair’ posts
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here “He’s not a war criminal. He’s not evil. He didn’t lie. He didn’t sell out Britain or commit treason. He wasn’t Bush’s poodle. He hasn’t got blood on his hands. The anti-war nutters must not be allowed to damage Blair’s reputation further. He was a great PM, a great statesman and a great leader.” See this recent signature comment
  • Comment at end

    Ban Blair-Baiting


    15th February, 2010

    I don’t agree with Richard Littlejohn or his paper the Daily Mail on much. But Littlejohn and I have ONE thing in common: our thoughts on the Binyam Mohamed nonsense.

    I repeat – I don’t CARE about Mr Mohamed. He is NOT a British citizen. He abuses our liberal instincts and laws. He goes off to learn how to practise jihad upon us. He is allowed back into this country, presumably still living off the British state, and under OUR protection. He then goes about disparaging our security services, encouraged by the mad meeja.

    Neither do I care, when and if it comes to the bottom line, about every single ‘human’ who thinks it’s OK, in fact directed by a Supreme Being, to want to kill the infidel, Muslim or non-Muslim.

    Odd, aren’t I?

    Our security services do NOT have a licence to kill, or even to torture. Our spies are not quite the 007s of the Ian Fleming books or the James Bond films that many think. (Ref: “A total pillock – Pierce Brosnan”)


    We managed without the Human Rights Act for centuries. Why do we suddenly need it today when man shows such widespread inhumanity to man, and all under the guise of the will of a deity? We will never persuade those guided by their God that we are NOT the ones to blame for their almost daily carnage. And what is worse, we will never persuade the enemy within. The enemy, in our liberal democracy that agrees with them, and usually for their own political reasons rather than for any real concern about the people they purportedly understand.

    But I DO care about  our security services. As does MI5 director general Jonathan Evans.

    MI5 director general Jonathan Evans denied his staff had withheld documents relating to former Guantánamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed. Photograph: PA

    MI5 chief denies cover-up claims over detainees

    Jonathan Evans argues that our enemies will use this propaganda against us. Well, of course, Mr Evans. That’s the point of this propaganda.  It’s called liberal democracy and it shares the same instincts as its recent offsprings The Freedom of Information Act and The Human Rights Act.


    Our spooks put their own lives on the line to protect us and our democracy. Many of them deal daily with trained killers from foreign states and non-state bodies. Our secret services realise they must co-operate with our allies in their search for evidence, even if at times our allies’ rules do not comply word-for-word with ours. They do NOT, repeat NOT have a licence to kill, or indeed torture.

    There is ONE REAL enemy within right now. The libertarian,  gullible, unbalanced who think that Human Rights should be applied to all, no matter how inhuman their behaviour.Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

    At one time I would have subscribed fully to the Human Rights Act.  I do NOT do so now. In the hands of religious fundamentalists, and courts which are the laughing stock of much of the world,  IT IS A LICENCE TO KILL.

    See here for updating (present total – 14833) deadly terror attacks since 9/11. By whom?

    MI6 boss admits difference in values with US over torture

    Sir John Scarlett was previously head of the Joint Intelligence Committee that advised the government on the intelligence case for the war in Iraq in 2003. Photo: REUTERS

    Sir John Scarlett, the head of MI6, has admitted to a difference in values with America in the fight against terrorism and their use of controversial interrogation techniques such as waterboarding.

    Sir John said the US, which has a close intelligence relationship with the UK, was aware that Britain did not share America’s values in this area, and stressed MI6’s commitment to human rights.

    Asked if he agreed that some of the things the Americans had done were “unacceptable”, he told the BBC: “Our American allies know that we are our own service, that we are here to work for the British interests and the United Kingdom.

    “We’re an independent service working to our own laws – nobody else’s – and to our own values.”

    Asked if that precluded torture, he added: “No torture and there is no complicity with torture.”

    But Sir John did add: “This, the ‘license to kill’ issue. No, we do not. We do not have license to kill.

    “Obviously a new recruit is always going to ask the question ‘Do we blackmail people, do we seek to compromise them, do we seek to put pressure on them?’

    “No is the answer.”

    More on MI5 and on MI6


    We are very concerned that coverage of the Binyam Mohamed case will leave a false impression about the work and ethics, not to mention the accountability, of our security and intelligence agencies (Devious, dishonest and complicit in torture – top judge on MI5, 11 February). This is not just unfair on the staff concerned, but dangerous for the country.

    The allegation that our security and intelligence agencies have licence to collude in torture is disgraceful, untrue and one that we vigorously deny. The government’s clear policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment for any purpose. If allegations of wrongdoing are made, they are always taken seriously, and referred, if necessary, to the appropriate authorities to consider whether there is a basis for inviting the police to investigate. When the ISC has completed its scrutiny of the guidance for agency officers, we will – for the first time ever – publish that guidance for the country to see.

    It appears that after 9/11 the US authorities changed the rules of engagement for their staff in the fight against inter­national terrorism. When this became clear to us, agency guidance to our own staff was changed to make clear their responsibilities not just to avoid any involvement or complicity in unacceptable practice, but also to report on them.

    To suggest that the government fought this case to avoid embarrassment or save face is just plain wrong. It was thanks to the British government’s efforts that Mr Mohamed’s legal counsel in the US were given all the documents in 2008 about his treatment, and that he was released from Guantánamo Bay. The appeal was about protecting our intelligence-sharing relationships, which depend on confidentiality. The court of appeal has upheld the principle that if a country shares its intelligence, they must agree before that intelligence is released. Nor did we influence the court improperly. To suggest that three of the most senior judges in the land were bamboozled or bullied is a slur not just on the government but also on them.

    Our security and intelligence agencies are world-class and are committed to keeping this country safe. They work within the law to protect us all.

    David Miliband MP Foreign secretary

    Alan Johnson MP Home secretary


    Previous posts on this issue:

    Excerpt from the above video: “The Brit papers are in raptures this morning over Blair’s speech to the annual Labour Party conference yesterday. It was his last as prime minister, which perhaps emboldened him to challenge certain liberal pieties. Not that he’s shied away from that before, but the beginning of this clip cuts to the heart of things in a way politicians, particularly on the left, seldom do. I’ll miss him.”

    Excerpt from Blair’s speech:

    “This terrorism isn’t our fault. We didn’t cause it. It’s not the consequence of foreign policy.

    It is an attack on our way of life. It is global. It has an ideology.

    We will not win until we shake ourselves free of the wretched capitulation to the propaganda of the enemy that somehow we are the ones responsible.

    It killed nearly 3,000 people including over 60 British on the streets of New York before war in Afghanistan or Iraq was even thought of.

    It has been decades growing.

    Its victims are in Egypt, Algeria, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Turkey.

    Over 30 nations in the world.

    It preys on every conflict.

    It exploits every grievance.

    And its victims are mainly Muslim.

    This is not our war against Islam.

    This is a war fought by extremists who pervert the true faith of Islam.

    And all of us, Western and Arab, Christian or Muslim, who put the value of tolerance, respect and peaceful co-existence above those of sectarian hatred, should join together to defeat them.

    It is not British soldiers who are sending car bombs into Baghdad or Kabul to slaughter the innocent.

    They are there along with troops of 30 other nations with, in each case, a full UN mandate at the specific request of the first ever democratically elected Governments of those countries in order to protect them against the very ideology also seeking the deaths of British people in planes across the Atlantic.

    If we retreat now, hand Iraq over to Al Qaeda and sectarian death squads and Afghanistan back to Al Qaeda and the Taleban, we won’t be safer; we will be committing a craven act of surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril.

    Of course it’s tough.

    Not a day goes by or an hour in the day when I don’t reflect on our troops with admiration and thanks – the finest, the best, the bravest, any nation could hope for.

    They are not fighting in vain.

    But for this nation’s future.

    But this is not a conventional war.

    It can’t be won by force alone.

    It’s not a clash of civilisations.

    It’s about civilisation, about the ideas that shape it.

    From 9/11 until now I have said again and again.

    If we want our values to be the ones that govern global change, we have to show that they are fair, just and delivered with an even hand.

    From now until I leave office I will dedicate myself, with the same commitment I have given to Northern Ireland , to advancing peace between Israel and Palestine.

    I may not succeed.

    But I will try because peace in the Middle East is a defeat for terrorism.”

    Full transcript of Tony Blair’s highly rated 2006 speech, his last as leader and PM

    Free Hit Counter


    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    2 Responses to “006 and three quarters. Licensed NOT to kill… or torture”

    1. Adam Lang IS Tony Blair. So, will Cherie sue Polanski & Harris? « Tony Blair Says:

      […] How could it not, indeed, Mr 006 and three-quarters? […]

    2. ‘Success in Iraq is No Accident’. Yes, SUCCESS! « Tony Blair Says:

      […] some of our filmmakers, book-writers, journalists, peacenik nutters, commenters and political analysts continue to hound Tony Blair (though not George W Bush to anything like the same extent) for his […]

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


    Connecting to %s