»   This is the nearest Iain Dale will come to admitting Nadine Dorries has been making up stuff throughout abortion debate http://t.co/DFKzDvw 7 hrs ago

»   If Tories like @IainDale want an end to name-calling (I think 'mad Nad' is wrong) then also condemn @TimMontgomerie & Dorries for 'Dr Death' 7 hrs ago

»   'We are seeing a massive shift in the age of apprenticeships,' says David Willets. Wants to focus on skilling older people for mobility. 11 hrs ago

»   At a ResolutionFoundation think-tank report / discussion on social mobility and wage stagnation of Lower Income ppl. Party life, I lead. 11 hrs ago

»   Are Tories and Libdems fighting over green energy? Not exactly says @GaryDunion http://t.co/vdXXHH0 13 hrs ago

» More updates...


  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Speaking at Guantanamo Bay rally this Saturday


    by Sunny
    1st October, 2009 at 9:34 pm    

    I’ll be speaking very briefly at this rally about Guanatanamo Bay this Saturday. They have a big line-up.
    Louise Christian from Christian Khan Solicitors
    Imran Khan from Imran Khan Solicitors
    Kevin Laue from Redress
    Amnesty Representative
    Sunny Hundal from Pickled Politics
    Representative from Reprieve
    Helen Bamber from Helen Bamber Foundation
    Andy Worthington journalist and author of ‘The Guantanamo Files’

    Organisations in support include;
    Redress ; London Guantanamo Campaign ; Cage prisoners; Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

    To celebrate the new legal year we are holding a demonstration on behalf of the 223 Guantanamo detainees to show that much still needs to be done to free them from illegal detention.

    Please join us and hold one of the 223 placards to show your solidarity for the detainees. There will also be speechs by lawyers and human rights campaigners on Guantanamo Bay and also the far-reaching influence that Guantanamo has had on international law. So let’s try and stop the spread of Guantanamitis on 3rd October.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Events






    122 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. pickles

      New blog post: Speaking at Guantanamo Bay rally this Saturday http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6068




    1. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 1st October, 2009 at 10:12 pm  

      Sunny, I fully appreciate the good intentions here but why are you taking part in an event supporting Cage Prisoners, an organisation which promotes Anwar al-Awlaki? Listen to the recording on Cage Prisoners’ website, in particular part two where (at 1’40) Awlaki calls al-Maqdisi (“the key contemporary ideologue in the Jihadi intellectual universe” according to USMA) “one of the great scholars of our time”.

    2. Denim Justice — on 1st October, 2009 at 10:24 pm  

      Yossarian, try again.

      You are attacking Sunny for promoting his own views on a panel that supports an organisation that features a speaker who praises another speaker? That’s at least four degrees of separation.

      This game of “Sunny/the liberal-left” shouldn’t appear on this panel because x is on it, is piss poor “reasoning” in any case - and this is particularly lame. Or are you making a joke at your own expense?

    3. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 1st October, 2009 at 10:51 pm  

      Denim Justice, my preferred option is not that Sunny should withdraw from this event but that he should insist on Cage Prisoners being thrown out. He would not (I trust) appear at an event alongside an organisation which promotes racism, he should not appear alongside an organisation which promotes Awlaki.

    4. Kismet Hardy — on 1st October, 2009 at 10:55 pm  

      I think we need to hear the voice of the most important person in Britain today on this matter. Katie Price goes out with a Cage Prisoner and I think she’s more worthy of a platform than this Sunny character because

      a) She has an audience of millions
      b) Sunny isn’t having sex with a Cage Prisoner

      So I say he should step off, however similar his orange Buddhist robes may be, because Katie rules Britannia

    5. douglas clark — on 1st October, 2009 at 11:18 pm  

      Yossarian,

      (You really live up to your hero, dontcha?)

      It is a genuine Catch 22 if the only people that think Gitmo and rendition are wrong also have views that I dislike. I have had some dealings, some time ago with Caged Prisoners, and they treated me with a reasonable level of respect. If they are racist, they certainly disguised it a tad better than a certain legal representative of the BNP. Perhaps they are what you say they are, I have no way of knowing.

      But it is to the point, is it not, that the barbarity that is being addressed is now excused in the Western World?

      And should not be?

      We already have apologists for torture and rendition. That is sufficient of an issue to suggest that the widest possible opposition to it should be encouraged.

      Which is the greater wrong? Sharing a platform or shovelling the dirt under the carpet.

      I’d quite like it if you could find common ground with me.

    6. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 2nd October, 2009 at 12:31 am  

      Douglas Clark, I think it’s quite possible to oppose the human rights abuses in Guantanamo without allying with an organisation that promotes Awlaki. The work of Amnesty and other human rights organisations and campaigners in this area is something I gladly and fully support so I imagine that you and I share a lot of common ground in our opposition to American policy on Guantanomo and admiration for Sunny for becoming involved in this important campaign.

      But I really am not exaggerating the unpleasantness of Awlaki, he is a big fan of the Shabab in Somalia (who stone women to death and recently pledged fealty to Osama bin Laden). No organisation which promotes this man should be touched with a barge pole, certainly not by human rights campaigners.

    7. thor — on 2nd October, 2009 at 2:20 am  

      yossarian ironic you promote a neo con racist website like “spittoon” and you want us to point finger at islamic activists you don’t particularly like.

    8. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2009 at 2:48 am  

      Oh dear. I love these people and their fifteen degrees of separation and how anyone they don’t like should be thrown out.

      Tell you what ‘yossarian’ - write to them.

    9. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 7:32 am  

      Yossarian,

      Amnesty International is also on that platform. I have been a member of Amnesty International for longer than you can shake a stick at. If you do have an issue with Caged Prisoners, and if what you say at 6 is correct, then perhaps addressing them about their intellectual failures would be to the point. As it stands right now, you would appear to be asking Sunny, and by extension Amnesty, to not speak against this decline into the Dark Ages. If you want Caged Prisoners to clean up their act, then ask them to stand down. If you can prove your case then I’d agree with you. For there ain’t much to choose between rendition and stoning folk to death.

    10. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 7:56 am  

      Hmm…

      Dunno. That post @ 9 kind of petered out.

      In other words don’t attack the good - the platform. Attack, if you must, those you think shouldn’t be on it. Not those that should.

      Address them and tell them to stand down until they are less likely to damage a just cause.

      Otherwise you just look like a wrecking crew. Which is probably not how you want to come across.

      I am fairly confident that we both agree that rendition and stoning are equally unacceptable.

    11. Wendy — on 2nd October, 2009 at 8:25 am  

      I’ve got it! TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE!

      Send all the

      GUANTANAMO 223

      to Somalia as a UN peacekeeping force!

    12. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 2nd October, 2009 at 8:49 am  

      Douglas Clark, I have been pretty clear all along that I support this campaign and that I have a problem specifically with Cage Prisoners. I have no desire to attack Sunny but I do not think that he should, as he clearly intends to, share a platform with Cage Prisoners.

      Sunny, rather than making snide comments, do you have anything to say about the organisation you appear happy to share a platform with?

    13. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 9:20 am  

      Yossarian @ 12,

      Obviously you agree with the campaign. I accept that.

      But this ‘sharing a platform’ stuff?

      I don’t see the point in attacking folk that are against rendition, which I think you and I see as a public good, on the basis that some other folk may have otherwise - oh! - fucked up ideas on stoning.

      It degrades them, not Sunny.

      Let them walk off the platform. For they have to share it with folk like Sunny or Amnesty International who think that sort of stuff is utterly barbaric.

      It is just entryism, if you are right.

    14. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 9:23 am  

      Correction:

      If it just entryism, you are right.

    15. qidniz — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:01 am  

      But this ’sharing a platform’ stuff?

      Yes, this “sharing a platform” stuff. I sense a double standard in the making.

      Either that, or you lot undertake never to criticize X (someone you would dearly like to sledge or “expose”) for “sharing a platform” with Y (someone you loathe, e.g. the BNP.)

      The basic idea is the smear, of course.

      What was that, it depends on the platform, you say? Smears only work one way, the way you want?

      I rest my case.

    16. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:15 am  

      qidnitz,

      I recognise that you rest your case. My difficulty is understanding whether you agree with me or with someone else.

      Yes, this “sharing a platform” stuff. I sense a double standard in the making.

      What double standard would that be, exactly?

      Perhaps you could clarify?

    17. bananabrain — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:20 am  

      personally, i would not appear on a platform with richard dawkins for the purpose of criticising the excesses of religion, but i would appear on a platform with him for the purpose of supporting, say, the teaching of science in schools. i would not appear on a platform with azzam “kaboom” tamimi for the purpose of peace in the middle east, but i would appear on a platform with him for the purpose of, say, exhorting people to fight an invasion from outer space. if you take ken livingstone, for example, i can see where i’d stand with him on one platform but not on another. i think it works like this - people and organisations have comfort zones and they are different for each. personally, i would find awlaki’s lot well outside my comfort zone for most things, but obviously sunny wouldn’t. i also think there’s a difference between respectful disagreement and outright, fundamental disgust. clearly, sunny’s sense of outright, fundamental disgust has not activated in this particular case. personally, i think he’s wrong, but you have also to consider his motivation. the question therefore would be, if the bnp came out in support of the principles behind this rally, would he then accept their presence and support? i think there’s a calculus here between support for one thing and its adjacency to revulsion for another thing. perhaps a more clear thinker than myself as far as logic is concerned would make a better case for how and where the line should be drawn?

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    18. qidniz — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:35 am  

      Perhaps you could clarify?

      Let Y be someone loathsome. Now consider the event of X “sharing a platform” with Y.

      Clearly, under the ordinary rules of smearing, X can be “tainted” by this association with Y.

      The double standard consists of this: If X is someone you don’t like, then you will affirm the “taint” (i.e. be all for the smear.) But if X is someone you like, then you will deny the “taint” (and reach for all sorts of excuses, such as the platform, or relative odiousness, or whatever else serves to obfuscate.)

    19. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:36 am  

      Bananabrain,

      No.

      It is entirely clear that something can be wrong, no matter who supports or rejects it.

      There is no adjecency arguement worth the spiel.

      Either you are against Gitmo and rendition, or you aren’t. It is that fucking simple bananabrain.

      Which are you?

    20. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:51 am  

      Qidniz,

      ‘Taint’ is your word. On an opposite perspective, perhaps ‘Caged Prisoners’ are being ‘tainted’ too? Perhaps they will move more to a centralist position, given that they aren’t there already?

      Perhaps sharing a platform with the likes of Sunny Hundal and Amnesty International will make them think twice?

      I repeat, my dealing with them didn’t suggest a closed community. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps they are exactly who you say they are. But they seemed straightforward folk to me…

    21. cjcjc — on 2nd October, 2009 at 10:54 am  

      Leaving aside the ethical objection, isn’t it less likely that this rally will be taken seriously if objectionable people take part, no matter how laudable the objective?

    22. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 11:04 am  

      cjcjc,

      Point.

      But, you’d have to agree, wouldn’t you, that cheapskates can play a game of dissembly? Isn’t that what Yossarian is attempting to do? It is all very well to argue against people you don’t like, it is not very well to argue against people you claim to care about.

    23. bananabrain — on 2nd October, 2009 at 12:20 pm  

      douglas - i’m talking about the issue of who ought to share a platform with whom and when and on which issue and why. i wasn’t speaking in terms of this particular issue, because i don’t actually entirely know where i stand on it, if i am against gitmo and rendition, either because it may be a place i am not comfortable with ethically or morally or because it has been ineffective or even counterproductive. would i be in favour of it if it worked and could be done in a less morally dubious manner, i really don’t know. i simply don’t know enough to judge on this particular issue. however, i am pretty familiar with many of the agendas of many of the sort of people that are lining up to get involved with the issue and this does not fill me with a great deal of encouragement that the issue will be discussed in a balanced manner any more than religion would be discussed in a balanced manner by a bunch of fundamentalists and richard dawkins.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    24. thabet — on 2nd October, 2009 at 12:31 pm  

      Has anyone ever contacted Cage Prisoners about Al-Awlaki?

    25. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 3:18 pm  

      bananabrain,

      You don’t know where you stand on the issue of Gitmo or rendition?

      Bloody hell.

      bananabrain, you should be against both of them on every ground you listed. It is not as if this is the first outing for the subject, where it is difficult to understand the issues. There is a line in the sand, and this is it. It is wrong, it is immoral and it is inexcusable. There is nothing to discuss.

    26. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2009 at 3:33 pm  

      Yossarian and bananabrain - instead of trying to smear people over the internet, have you written to them and asked them to explain their actions.

      By the way - both of you write for a website (the Spittoon) that also has contributors from the Centre for Social Cohesion, run by Douglas Murray. Yossarian - do you work for CSC out of interest?

      Should I highlight some of the comments made by Douglas Murray? About his support for Geert Wilders? His dinners with Robert Spencer? Funny, your sense of outrage doesn’t come out clearly enough then bananabrain.

    27. bananabrain — on 2nd October, 2009 at 3:45 pm  

      sunny,

      i don’t spend all my time on the internet being outraged at people. that’s not what i’m about. i’m not trying to smear anyone - i’ve pointed out that it’s a complicated issue who shares what platform with who about what and that’s all. i haven’t even tried to express an opinion on gitmo and rendition, despite the fact that douglas evidently thinks should it should be so simple and compelling in the case of this . i haven’t expressed support for the CSC, or douglas murray, or geert wilders, or robert spencer. and you ought to know me well enough to know what i think of the likes of geert wilders. i’m not involved enough in the politicking of journalists, thinktanks and research institutes, i’m sorry, i’m just not. and if you read the spittoon you’ll see, i believe, that yossarian and i do disagree about a number of things. we haven’t all signed up to some great manifesto, you know. i remember this issue of the dinner and it being a big deal, but i think i was quite busy that week and there were plenty of other people dealing with it as i recall. why don’t you ask people who are more clearly aligned with particular organisations? you know i occupy a particularly odd spot in the jewish community as it is.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    28. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 3:48 pm  

      bananabrain,

      yes, I do think it is that simple.

    29. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 3:55 pm  

      Some moral dillemmas aren’t moral dillemmas at all. They are somewhat more easy to resolve than this sort of intellectual posturing. You have to be kidding me that you don’t know that it is wrong or even pretend that it has a benefit. What mind game are you playing with yourself?

    30. bananabrain — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

      well, frankly, douglas, it may be easy for you, but then again you’re not as directly in the firing line as i am. i know the benefits of intelligence. look at this iranian secret dr-evil-style nuclear bunker, what do you know about the methods by which the intelligence for that was got? personally, i think many moral dilemmas which appear “simple” to those who found it simple to take sides on them are often far less simple to others and i think it is ridiculous for you to assert that your perspective is the only valid one here.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    31. dave bones — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:13 pm  

      I want to share a platform for invasion from out of space against Richard Dawkins. If X is less than Y with X being how much I drink tonight and Z being whether my alarm clock works- I’ll see you in parliament square tommorow.

    32. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

      Kismet Hardy first,

      ’cause you are genuinely funny, and you know it.

      http://tinyurl.com/ydfj8og

      It is just fantasy.

    33. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:36 pm  

      Oh for goodness sake bananabrain.

      well, frankly, douglas, it may be easy for you, but then again you’re not as directly in the firing line as i am. i know the benefits of intelligence. look at this iranian secret dr-evil-style nuclear bunker, what do you know about the methods by which the intelligence for that was got? personally, i think many moral dilemmas which appear “simple” to those who found it simple to take sides on them are often far less simple to others and i think it is ridiculous for you to assert that your perspective is the only valid one here.

      Y’what? You live in England last time we talked. And you get angry with me if I suggest you support Israel or some such. You are less at risk from this than I am. In fact I have the entire UK nuclear defence force parked in the Firth of Clyde. Which is quite close my friend. We used to have Polaris too, just outside Dunoon but the Yanks withdrew that when they updated their nuclear deterrent. I’d suggest that I am more at risk than you are. For we are, currently, Israels other nuclear option. Not bloody London, certainly not Tel Aviv, the Firth of Clyde would be it.

      On the question of moral dillemmas you are just wrong. There is nothing to discuss.

    34. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:44 pm  

      i don’t spend all my time on the internet being outraged at people. that’s not what i’m about. i’m not trying to smear anyone – i’ve pointed out that it’s a complicated issue who shares what platform with who about what and that’s all.

      Good to hear you’ve all not signed a manifesto, so let me remind you that I’ve not signed any manifesto with Cage Prisoners either. And unless you show me something anti-semitic or racist in their manifesto I can’t just along with your degrees-of-separation thinking to refuse to start sharing a platform who are vaguely linked to someone else. As I said - you are too.

    35. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:46 pm  

      Assertion.

      My perspective on torture and rendition is the only valid one.

      Discuss.

    36. Katy Newton — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:47 pm  

      Can we all be a bit nicer to each other maybe? Anyone can disagree with anyone else’s decision to do anything, but I’m pretty sure we can all disagree less aggressively if we try.

    37. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 4:53 pm  

      Katy,

      Sure.

      But I’d expect you to stand up for what you think.

      You always have in the past.

      I know we have never seen eye to eye, but I see Gitmo and rendition as evil. What say you? Is that not a reasonable thing to debate?

      I think bananabrain is utterly wrong, and I am willing to try to defend that point of view. I think he is talking in bad faith, so there you go.

    38. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 5:00 pm  

      Editors and the like.

      If I change a post, through editing, it doesn’t happen in the final version that appears here. What is going on? The original comment stands, in all it’s nakedness.

    39. Sunny — on 2nd October, 2009 at 6:24 pm  

      how do you mean douglas? what are you trying to change?

      Katy - I’m not the one going around making accusations. I’m just speaking at a rally by Amnesty on a good cause.

    40. MaidMarian — on 2nd October, 2009 at 7:36 pm  

      ‘the far-reaching influence that Guantanamo has had on international law.

      What does that mean?

      If this is a rally about miscarriages of justice then I put my shoulder to the wheel. But that sentence makes me suspicious that this is willy-waving at ‘The West’ or ‘The US’ or ‘The UK’ wrapped up in human rights rhetoric.

      Sunny, there have been human rights abuses and illegal detentions in ALL parts of the world for many years before and since Guantanamo. Indeed, had the US authorities not tried to get clever and claim the nonsense that is ‘the moral high ground’ few people would have batted an eye lid about Guantanamo.

      Indeed, these lawyers could take a look at the rest of Cuba and Uncle Fidel’s record.

      Guantanamo and the US may have a higher profile, but I can remember protests about detentions and the like in my university days in the early/mid-1990s.

      The only difference between the protest you write about and the mid-1990s vintage is that nowadays the target is the US and the intention is transparently to appeal to the internet frothers.

      Or am I just being too cynical?

    41. Edward Token-Darky — on 2nd October, 2009 at 7:42 pm  

      Wendy at #11 is wrong and wicked!

      Somalia is nasty and dangerous and full of Somalis.

      Send them all to South Georgia and have them counting elephant seals and albatrosses for the rest of their lives.

    42. MaidMarian — on 2nd October, 2009 at 7:49 pm  

      Edward Token-Darky (love that name, so 1971! I think it is ‘Darkie’ though.)

      Or South Georgia where Mother Russia, President Medvedev and his boss have been running roughshod over international law with apparent talkboard impunity.

    43. douglas clark — on 2nd October, 2009 at 8:48 pm  

      Sunny,

      I mean like see below. And when I add something, or take something away, after posting, and the Edit function doesn’t work.

    44. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 3rd October, 2009 at 12:22 am  

      Thabet,

      Has anyone ever contacted Cage Prisoners about Al-Awlaki?

      Yes, this is how they responded:

      CP cannot comment on any other statements attributed to Imam al-Awlaki or other guests as we are unaware of their accuracy and furthermore, they are of limited importance to the remit of CP which is to focus on civil liberties and human rights

      .

      This is pure obfuscation. There can be little doubt about Awlaki’s statements - they’re right there on his website under the picture of a jihadist with an AK47. It’s hardly rocket science.

      Katy, I entirely agree. I am not trying to smear anybody nor am I trying to attack Sunny - all I am trying to say is that Cage Prisoners’ continued promotion of Awlaki in my opinion makes them an entirely inappropriate partner for an important human rights campaign. Habeas corpus is one of the most fundamental of rights and detention without trial must end.

      Sunny, put it this way. If Cage Prisoners promoted David Irving, Nick Griffin, David Duke, Geert Wilders or Fred Phelps as great luminaries and tried to video link any one of them into a Cage Prisoners annual Iftar dinner then would you not be troubled to share a platform with them? Why is it OK for them to promote the leading English-language jihadist preacher? This is not a personal attack on you, it is a request that you use your personal influence and connections with this event to try and stop Cage Prisoners from leeching off the good name of the other participants in what is otherwise a noble event.

      By the way – both of you write for a website (the Spittoon) that also has contributors from the Centre for Social Cohesion, run by Douglas Murray. Yossarian – do you work for CSC out of interest?

      Should I highlight some of the comments made by Douglas Murray? About his support for Geert Wilders? His dinners with Robert Spencer? Funny, your sense of outrage doesn’t come out clearly enough then bananabrain.

      Douglas Murray’s disgraceful comments about Muslim immigration to Europe (which he should retract) are entirely irrelevant to this discussion, as is his support for Geert Wilders and dinners with Robert Spencer - unless you’re saying that you would happily share a platform with Douglas Murray?

      If you would like further reassurance about my identity then feel free to contact me on yossarian [at] spittoon [dot] org.

    45. halima — on 3rd October, 2009 at 6:25 am  

      Sunny

      Great that you are speaking at this event, standing up for the rights of people who are imprisoned and caged is something we should all be doing - fighting for the principle itself, rather than trying to smear the campaign itself because of it’s association with X and Y. If we’re interesting in taking out certain elements of what this campaign represents we should just write to them directly expressing our concerns.

      Instead we’re devoting time and energy on this post/space which is about giving a voice to 223 individuals who lack voice and have been detained for so many years.

      There’s a time and a place for intellectual posturing - and this isn’t it.

      Hope the event goes well.

    46. persephone — on 3rd October, 2009 at 7:33 pm  

      intellectual posturing…. more like what you see in the playground: I won’t play with you if you play with that other group at playtime, and anyway our group is better than yours

    47. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 4:09 am  

      Maid Marian,

      Or am I just being too cynical?

      Yes, you are.

      There appears to me to be an international consensus that rendition is legal and worthwhile, when it is clearly neither. There seems to me to be a case to be made that Guantanamo is revenge, and certainly not justice in any meaningful sense.

      Arguing that others do it does not excuse it. This is the USA playing bully boy with the rest of the planet.

      It is completely unacceptable and wrong to torture people.

      That is just barbarism, short and simple.

    48. damon — on 4th October, 2009 at 9:34 am  

      I went along to this. No one from Caged Prisoners spoke at it. Not many people were there. About 50.
      I couldn’t really see the point of it myself, but it’s the principle of it I suppose.
      I agreed with someone on the platform who said they should be released or charged, even though I’m sure some of them are dangerous terrorists, but proving it was difficult.
      Killing them on the battlefield in Afghanistan would have been better I suppose, (for people who support the NATO mission).

      I see that the Republic of Ireland is accepting a couple of Uzbek Guantanamo prisoners.
      A nobel gesture by a government. I wonder if they were involved in terrorism or not.
      They’ll probably be regular attendees at one of the two main Dublin mosques.
      Does being a foreign Taliban make you a terrorist or an idealist. We highly regard the International Brigades who went to Spain. Maybe non-Afghan Taliban should be viewd the same way.

    49. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 10:27 am  

      damon,

      What did Sunny have to say? You were there after all.

    50. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 11:49 am  

      My comment on this here:

      Of those 229 detainees of Gitmo is the Saudi terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (left). This man has admitted to being responsible “from A to Z” for the September 11 attacks and has claimed to have personally slaughtered and decapitated the kidnapped US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, in addition to being the “kingpin” of some 30 al-Qaeda plots.

      Amnesty UK is correct to say that all 229 Guantanamo detainees should be freed from “illegal detention” but does that mean Amnesty UK wants al-Qaeda terrorists amongst the 229, such as Khaled Shaikh Mohammed himself and also Mohammed al-Qahtani, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ammar al-Baluchi and Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, to be shown our our doubt-free solidarity?

      Evidently so.

      Amnesty UK makes no mention on its brochure on initiatives for the provision for due process it has undertaken, if any. They make no mention on why they have chosen to partner with Cage Prisoners, a group which promotes Anwar al-Awlaki and masquerades as a human rights organisation. And it has managed to dumb-down the complex ramifications of the central issues by exhorting members of the public to offer their unqualified “solidarity” for the “freedom” of al-Qaeda detainees.

      Amnesty UK’s Guantanamo Rally yesterday sided with those whose intention it is to close down Guantanamo and provide known terrorists with access to legal rights, for which it must be supported and congratulated, but makes no disapproving noises of terrorism in general nor the actions of the al-Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo in particular. By doing so, it has ended up exposing its own blind-spot when it comes to political and jihadi Islamist extremism.

    51. MixTogether — on 4th October, 2009 at 12:07 pm  

      Faisal, while it is right to attack Amnesty on principle here, i wouldn’t worry too much.

      I went past it on the bus yesterday and it was the lamest demo i’ve ever seen!

    52. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 12:20 pm  

      That’s good to know.

    53. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 12:54 pm  

      Faisal,

      What are you attempting to say? You are normally a lot better than this.

      Lets analyse:

      Amnesty UK’s Guantanamo Rally yesterday sided with those whose intention it is to close down Guantanamo and provide known terrorists with access to legal rights, for which it must be supported and congratulated, but makes no disapproving noises of terrorism in general nor the actions of the al-Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo in particular. By doing so, it has ended up exposing its own blind-spot when it comes to political and jihadi Islamist extremism.

      Y’what?

      I’d have thought access to legal rights was fundamental, like even mad and insane people were entitled to that? Yet you have the truck to say ‘known terrorists’ when we know no such thing. It is an assumption, and it does not excuse them from having legal rights.

      Sid, seek treatment.

    54. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 12:57 pm  

      And it certainly doesn’t justify detention without trial. Get a fucking grip.

    55. Denim Justice — on 4th October, 2009 at 12:58 pm  

      Faisal, these people are suspects - not “known terrorists”. If it was known that they were terrorists we would have some evidence of their terrorist activity, and then we could put them in court, and put them in prison.

      The whole reason they are in Gitmo is because the US doesn’t want to try them in court - that’s why hundreds of Gitmo inhabitants have been released since 2002.

      Since when did you start hating human rights so much? When human rights meant you could no longer perpetrate your campaign against anyone who doesn’t buy into your neocon analysis of Middle East/Islamist politics?

    56. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 1:03 pm  

      Faisal,

      Yes, why exactly? You didn’t used to have to answer questions like this:

      Since when did you start hating human rights so much? When human rights meant you could no longer perpetrate your campaign against anyone who doesn’t buy into your neocon analysis of Middle East/Islamist politics?

      You have completely lost the plot my friend.

    57. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 1:11 pm  

      What are you attempting to say? You are normally a lot better than this.

      Why don’t you go Spittoon and read the whole piece if you want a clearer grasp of what I’m getting at. I probably excerpted badly.

      ince when did you start hating human rights so much? When human rights meant you could no longer perpetrate your campaign against anyone who doesn’t buy into your neocon analysis of Middle East/Islamist politics?

      I already know about Denim Justice’s loyalties, but when did it become acceptable to table a human rights cause with a group who promote a man who champions the stoning of women or the bombing of innocent civilians, or shear religious and racist supremacy?

      For shame Douglas, I knew you were part of the Pickled Politics descent into madness, but this is quite seriously disgusting.

    58. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 1:40 pm  

      Faisal,

      I shall do as you suggest, because I consider you a friend.

      For shame Douglas, I knew you were part of the Pickled Politics descent into madness, but this is quite seriously disgusting.

      Err? What my friend? I am unaware of descending into madness. Perhaps you could point me to that? It would be an act of generosity to do so.

      And how is my descent into madness, apart from thinking that the Spittoon is somewhat wrong, disgusting? You never respond to my comments about Labours PPC for Glasgow Central, do you? No you don’t. You have become a bit of a Labour Party shill.

      So, you’d have to explain that to me.

    59. damon — on 4th October, 2009 at 1:43 pm  

      I too thought it was a lame event, even if I could just about see the reasoning behind it.

      Sunny’s point’s were good ones, but I really couldn’t get up much enthusiasm for the event.
      I said to him afterwards that it would be hard for much of the public to really get what the reason for this protest was. (btw, what a nice chap he is).
      If I tell people at work tomorow that I went to this, I don’t think anyone will say that it was a good thing to do. (They’d probably look at me blankly and think ”what an idiot”)

      But human rights lawyer Louise Christian was probably right to point out the pitfalls of allowing increasingly draconian practices to be used when it comes to terrorism suspects.
      The slippery slope idea.

      But I really don’t care about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s human rights. He can be banged up without trial in my opinion.
      Holding up the names of prisoners (on cards) was something I didn’t want to do. (Who were these individuals?)

      The best bit for me though was seeing Sarah Gillespie there singing her song ”How the mighty fall”.
      http://www.myspace.com/sarahjeangillespie
      She’s very good.

    60. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

      You never respond to my comments about Labours PPC for Glasgow Central, do you? No you don’t. You have become a bit of a Labour Party shill.

      I didn’t write that article on Labour’s PPC for Glasgow Central and really know very little about it. As for becoming a bit of a Labour Party shill, perhaps you should be addressing Sunny. :D

    61. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

      Faisal,

      I have went to the Spittoon and I have come back with these words:

      « Fox Presenter Rants/Bear is Catholic in WoodsA year in jail and 100 lashes – for being raped »
      Amnesty UK’s Blind Spot
      By Faisal | Published: October 4, 2009
      We at the Spittoon are opposed to detention without due process and we firmly believe that the need to put an end to it is non-negotiable and opposition to it is imperative within any free society. It makes no difference whether the extra-judicial detainment happens to take place in Sudan, Iran, Pakistan or Guantanamo.

      So we support, in principle, initiatives like the Guantanamo Bay Rally held yesterday, organised by Amnesty UK. It boasted quite a high-profile line up of speakers and backing organisations.

      Speakers;
      Louise Christian from Christian Khan Solicitors
      Imran Khan from Imran Khan Solicitors
      Kevin Laue from Redress
      Amnesty Representative
      Sunny Hundal from Pickled Politics
      Representative from Reprieve
      Helen Bamber from Helen Bamber Foundation
      Andy Worthington journalist and author of ‘The Guantanamo Files’

      Organisations in support include;
      Redress
      London Guantanamo Campaign
      Cage prisoners
      Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers

      Political activists who stand against the use of extra-judicial detainment and illegal imprisonment should be keenly sensitive to the complexities of the Guantanamo issue, particularly when it comes to whom they share a platform with. Which is why Amnesty UK should be prepared to answer some very pointed questions as to why they have chosen Cage Prisoners as one of their backing organisations.

      Can I tell you what I think? I think neither Amnesty nor Sunny has anything to answer to.

      I think there is nothing whatsoever complicated or justifying this piece of shit:

      should be keenly sensitive to the complexities of the Guantanamo issue

      There is nothing complicated about it for fucks sake! Either the folk are guilty and should be charged in a reasonable jurisdiction, and be found guilty. That would be a fair conclusion, if it was based on any evidence whatsoever. The fact that there is not a prospect of doing this, because reasonable evidence is completely lacking, suggests that you are smoking up the chimney. Which is where you and bananabrain appear to have gone.

    62. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 2:49 pm  

      Faisal,

      I am sorry, because I used to love you both. But you can’t turn to shit and expect to remain respected. Give this nonsense up, please? Or else I will indeed make a fool of you. For that is what you are turning into. You’ll be telling sensible folk to sign the Euston Manifesto next!

      Sid in favour of torture?

      What next? Rumbold in favour of FGM? Sunny in favour of the Conservative Party.

      Sid, you really have lost the plot sunbeam….

    63. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 3:16 pm  

      Sorry @ 61,

      The lack of any reply whatsoever, said it all. You were given at least two opportunities to reply and you didn’t. Check it out. You either don’t read or don’t care what goes on in your comments. Your fellow Spittooner, the author of this piece of pish, didn’t care to reply either.

    64. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

      I think there are two issues here that Amnesty need to address:

      1) Why does Amnesty UK think it is acceptable to form a partnership with Cage Prisoners who are promoters of Anwar al-Awlaki?

      2) Guantanamo prisoners should either be freed or made to face a proper court of, or in other words, due process. But where is there any mention of due process in the Amnesty brochure? All I see is exhortations to show prisoners “solidarity”. But solidarity with whom? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? None of Amnesty’s placards had the slogan
      “Illegal Detainment and Extra-judicial imprisonment is Wrong. And so is Terrorism”

      It’s a complex issue. Amnesty have done a fine job to dumb it down and botch it up.

    65. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 4:19 pm  

      Faisal,

      I don’t think Amnesty has to reply to either of your questions. Amnesty International speaks for itself.

      It is not a complex issue. It is completely straightforward. Due process. It is that simple.

    66. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 4:24 pm  

      Faisal,

      Why are you tieing yourself in a knot over this? You know I am right, you know you are wrong. What gives? Is it just for the sake of arguement or summat?

    67. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 4:50 pm  

      Dunno,

      Perhaps a ‘no platform’ approach to life in general is more important than actually giving a fuck about living, breathing, folk. Enough, maybe, to say that you wouldn’t stand against their deaths, just because someone you disliked also thought that they ought to be alive rather than dead? I’d say that was pretty stupid, I’d also say that that is what a ‘no platform’ position actually entails. I’d go so far as to say it was stupid, negative and a waste of time.

      I’d say, generally speaking, it was a bad principle. Although it might have specific markers. Which Faisal is currently silent on, for fear of the Godwin test.

      Least, that’s what I think. The need for absolutes is an evil in itself, I have always thought.

    68. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

      douglas

      It must be nice living in a world where you can fend off encroaches into your values by closing your eyes, shutting your ears and shouting:

      “I’m not listening. I’m not listenin. lalalalalalalala!”

      But at some point you’re going have to come to terms with this factoid:

      The number was about the same as the year before. But deaths increased almost nine percent, to more than twenty-two thousand last year.

      The report said well over fifty percent of those killed or injured were Muslims, and most were victims of attacks in Iraq.

      In Iraq, the number of attacks fell but the number of people killed, injured or kidnapped increased. In Afghanistan, both numbers were higher.

      A wounded man is helped after a suicide bombing last year in Mingora, in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province. Police said 19 people were killed.
      A wounded man is helped after a suicide bombing last year in Mingora, in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province. Police said 19 people were killed.
      The report says attacks in Pakistan more than doubled last year as militancy and extremism spread. More than one thousand three hundred people were killed — an increase of almost three hundred percent.

      Perhaps one Amensty UK will see fit to have a Terrorism Victims Rally in Trafalgar Square to protect the rights of the thousands of Pakistani women and children who have died needlessly because of the actions of people detained in Guanatanamo.

      But not until people like you come to terms with the fact that the victims of terrorism are the poorest, most disenfracnhised people in the world.

    69. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 6:25 pm  

      douglas clark.
      It really is very simple, but not quite as simple as you try to make out. America is wrong not to try the suspects in Guantanamo Bay. Likewise Amnesty is wrong for teaming up with Cage Prisoners and it is wrong, as Faisal points out, to call for solidarity for people who there is good reason to believe are terrorists. They should, as they do in all other campaigns, call for due process (charged with a recognisable offence or released) - yet they do not in this case.

      I have been involved in Amnesty campaigns in the past, this one with its failure to emphasise due process is different. Why?

      If Combat 18 members were being held without trial then Amnesty would call for them to be charged with a recognisable offence or released. They certainly would not call for solidarity with them at an event organised with a group that praises and promotes Harold Covington.

    70. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 6:29 pm  

      Faisal,

      Do you really think I do that?

      I may have said, correct me if I am wrong, that I thought the US/UK were incorrect to invade Iraq? I seem to remember arguing that quite forcibly here.

      I have shouted out here about the horrific death toll in Iraq. I have said it was a Western atrocity, leading perhaps to a Muslim one. I have already come to terms with the fact that the victims of terrorism are, as you say, the poorest, most disenfracnhised people in the world. That doesn’t make it forgiveable, it just makes it incomprehensible, or something.

      Faisal, what the fuck?

      Stop trying to categorise me. I know which side I am on, and frankly, I thought you were on the same side. But posting pro torture, pro Gitmo makes me queasy. You are coming across as my best chum that suddenly emmigrated to the Dark Side, and I hadn’t noticed. It is genuinely loopy stuff for someone like you to be saying.

      I know you feel strongly about the idea of ‘no platform’ but it isn’t the end of the world if I disagree with you.

      Get a grip.

    71. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

      Oh! Now we have Yossarian to deal with too.

      Yossarian,

      Unless you try someone for a crime, there is no reason to assume that they have committed a crime, is there?

      Most Gitmo inmates have been held without trial for years and years. Would you accept that?

      Do you think that is reasonable? For I most certainly don’t. I think it is a crime against humanity. I’d have thought that in any reasonable jurisdiction, say mainland America, that habeas corpus might have applied. What do you think? Y’know, freedom or liberty on the basis of no case?

      At what point do you think it reasonable for Amnesty International to get angry with the USA? A hundred years? A thousand years? Never?

    72. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 6:53 pm  

      And Amnesty has always named the names of those denied liberty. So let’s not go there, eh! It is a campaigning organisation and that is it’s strength. Just because you and your chum think it has a friend in ‘Caged Prisoners’ doesn’t justify one word either of you have said.

    73. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:09 pm  

      douglas clark. Scroll up and see who the first person to mention habeas corpus in this thread was. Now desist with your terribly dull demands that I condemn Guantanamo - I have, repeatedly - and answer this question:

      If Combat 18 members were held without trial would you find it acceptable that Amnesty organised an event with a group that promotes Harold Covington and, rather than saying “try these people or release them”, called for “solidarity with them”?

    74. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:21 pm  

      But posting pro torture, pro Gitmo makes me queasy.

      But you see, no one on Spittoon is pro Gitmo or pro torture. But when you’ve simplified this complex issue to a simple binary in the way that you have, then you’ve got no choice but to project and fabricate my counter arguments for your benefit, such as you’re doing now - by saying I am posting pro Gitmo and pro torture. It’s also rather pathetic.

      Amnesty have failed the real victims here; the victims of terrorism. And they are willingly empowering the terrorists by partnering with groups who promote al-Qaeda ideologues.

      22,000 deaths due to terrorism in Pakistan in 2006 alone, most Muslims, most perpetrated by Islamists drunk on al-Qaeda ideology, as promoted by Cage Prisoners, for fuck’s sake.

      Amnesty have failed to call for due process and fair trials for the detaines, and have reduced the non-compliance of the habeus corpus issue to one of unqualified “solidarity” with all 229 detainees of Guantanamo whilst failing to register that some are real terrorists with real victims.

      The question for you is - why are you defending Amnesty for this insidious breakdown of their own charter?

    75. Ravi Naik — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:40 pm  

      with all 229 detainees of Guantanamo whilst failing to register that some are real terrorists with real victims.

      It is not up to Amnesty or yourself to decide who is a terrorist and who is not, and it would be totally inappropriate for Amnesty to comment on that. They are innocent until proven guilty. If those 229 detainees are proven guilty of terrorism, then they should be punished heavily.

    76. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:46 pm  

      Ravi,

      That was a lot more succinct than what I was trying to post. I agree 100%.

    77. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:48 pm  

      Yes, they deserve habeus corpus, without question and that’s non-negotiable. But do you think they are all innocent enough to show your solidarity with them, as Amnesty would like you to do?

      If you are willing to hold a placard and stand “in solidarity” with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed then I will believe you really mean what you say. But not until then.

    78. Ravi Naik — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:50 pm  

      And in any case, you would have to be an idiot not to know that these people are in Guantanamo because they are accused of terrorism, and that some of them *may* well be terrorists.

      The real issue is the way we treat them. What they might have done is an issue that should be dealt with in the Court of Law, and not by Amnesty or anyone else.

    79. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:53 pm  

      Faisal,

      I have, honestly, no idea who Khalid Sheik Mohammed is. All I think, assuming he is imprisoned at Gitmo, is that he is entitled to a fair trial. Is that so hard for you to understand?

      Lets find out what the charges against him are and how they stack up in a courtroom. All you have heard so far, is conjecture and probably prejudicial to a fair trial.

    80. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 7:57 pm  

      douglas, my issues are with Amnesty, not you. And in that regard, my post at #66 are my main gripes.

    81. Ravi Naik — on 4th October, 2009 at 8:06 pm  

      But do you think they are all innocent enough to show your solidarity with them, as Amnesty would like you to do? If you are willing to hold a placard and stand “in solidarity” with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed then I will believe you really mean what you say. But not until then.

      You are being petty, Fasial.

      Being against torturing prisoners and for habeus corpus, yes I would show my solidarity and hold any placard, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I want him punished heavily if he is found guilty of his crimes. I do not want him punished before the trial, as he has been.

      Quite frankly, I do not understand you at all. You seem to be saying that because they are accused of terrorism, then we should not show any solidarity on the issue of habeas corpus…

    82. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 4th October, 2009 at 8:12 pm  

      But there is no mention on the Amnesty Brochure of habeus corpus or due process or even a disclaimer about the fact that some of the 229 are real terrorists Ravi, hence my question.

      If you were to hold a placard at the rally, it would simply be as a “show of solidarity” for the 229 detainees. I presume you are OK with that.

    83. douglas clark — on 4th October, 2009 at 8:16 pm  

      Faisal @ 81,

      Yes, I know that. My issue with you is that you are misunderstanding what Amnesty International is all about. It is a point of principle for them, (and me ’cause they get my money every month), to publicise injustice.

      That is what they do.

      And Gitmo and rendition are clearly examples of injustice. It is Yossarian and your good self that appear to fail to see that. Which is why I have come over so heavy. There are wrongs in this world that need righting, and when your own ally is doing them, sometimes with your help, you have to stand up and be counted.

      Sometimes a body like Amnesty International stands for better standards than the USA or the UK. At least, I think so.

      I am not under any misapprehension that everyone in Gitmo is a saint. I’d just like to see the wheat seperated from the chaff, judicially speaking.

      The failure to do that in a properly constituted court of law is a disgrace, IMHO. We managed it at Nurenberg if memory serves, when we were dealing with the aftermath of a far greater threat.

    84. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 12:38 am  

      Funny stance that Faisal, given you told me there were plenty of things you could agree with over Robert Spencer…

      Anyway - it was good to meet you too damon. Sorry I had to rush off. It wasn’t a big demo, but it’s the principle that matters.

    85. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:17 am  

      I thank you for trying your best to misrepresent me here Sunny. But what I said was Spencer had made some views known on Islamism which were perfectly acceptable. In fact, in your, now long-gone, anti-Islamism days, you might even have shared them.

      Nowadays, or at least the last time I with spoke you, you expressed your grim reluctance to give the BNP any airtime on the BBC. In other words, you wanted to censor them. Is that still the case, or have you changed your mind “on principle” again? I wonder why you didn’t express that very same opinion on this thread on the same subject on your blog?

      Funny how you want to ban the BNP from the BBC now but are perfectly cool with sharing a platform with Caged Prisoners, a group who promotes a prominent al-Qaeda ideologue.

      It’s not exactly consistent, is it Sunny? Or perhaps you think it is. Who can tell with you anymore?

    86. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 3:59 am  

      You can’t accuse me of mis-representing you while doing exactly the same. You said there were plenty of things you agree with that came from Robert Spencer. Right? I said that above, andin fact you repeated it while accusing me of misrepresenting. That’s a pretty hilarious reading comprehension fail.

      You also say: In fact, in your, now long-gone, anti-Islamism days
      Are you now claiming that I’m pro-Islamism?

      you expressed your grim reluctance to give the BNP any airtime on the BBC. In other words, you wanted to censor them
      Again, reading comprehension fail. No Platform is not the same as active censorship.

      The sole purpose of Caged Prisoners is to fight for human rights for people in Gitmo. Maybe you’d rather let them rot in hell, but someone has to fight for the principle of human rights even if it involves some nasty ideologues. That isn’t the same as promoting them.

    87. bobsy — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:09 am  

      There are some nice tropical islands where the Camp-X-Ray veterans could while away the rest of their lives.

      The Indonesian island of Buru springs to mind.

    88. bobsy — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:12 am  

      # 74

      So Islamists have - in 2006 alone - diminished the population of Pakistan by 22,000.

      Does the BNP know this? Does the National Front?

    89. damon — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:42 am  

      It was good to meet you too Sunny.

      Douglas Clark @ 79. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a very dangerous man, trial or no trial. He killed Daniel Pearl.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

      I don’t know how far I can go along with this habeas corpus argument for the remaining Guantanamo prisoners. If some of them are foreign Taliban and see themselves as mujahideen and Al Qaeda, but it is not possible to charge them with any specific offence (as it’s impossible to prove that they weren’t in Afghanistan as charity workers as they claim), then I don’t think holding them indefinitely is such a bad thing. You wouldn’t want to see them getting off on a technicality or living next door to you.

      This protest was about Guantanamo now. About the remaining 229. I presume that they are not being regularly tortured any more. Most of them are terrorists or would-be terrorists. If there are innocent people amongst them that is a great pity and I would hope they are released soon. But I think I’d rather be in Guantanamo Bay than in prison anywhere in South America, the United States, Africa or Asia.

      To have that opinion doesn’t mean that I support what happened with extraordinary rendition and people being sent to third countries for torture, but it’s only a couple of hundred people we’re talking about.
      Has anyone seen these ‘world’s toughest prisons’ programmes? Dreadful places.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgxes5cXv-M

      Binyam Mohamed has been released, but that doesn’t mean that he actually didn’t train at an Al Qaeda camp as was claimed. Many of the Guantanamo prisoners did, but proving who did so (and when) is not so easy.

    90. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 9:51 am  

      “Again, reading comprehension fail. No Platform is not the same as active censorship.”

      Nice bit of sloganeering - now tell us what it means in practice. Tell us how you have come to the inconsistent conclusion whereby the BNP should be actively censored from the BBC whereas organisations who promote jihadi Islamists should be granted platform. And btw, “Reading comprehension”? You told me this face to face Sunny. No reading was involved.

      So, given your tension between No Platform and Active Censorship, how would you answer Yossarian’s question:

      “If Combat 18 members were held without trial would you find it acceptable that Amnesty organised an event with a group that promotes Harold Covington and, rather than saying “try these people or release them”, called for “solidarity with them”?”

      “The sole purpose of Caged Prisoners is to fight for human rights for people in Gitmo. Maybe you’d rather let them rot in hell, but someone has to fight for the principle of human rights even if it involves some nasty ideologues. That isn’t the same as promoting them.”

      I’ll answer your last point first: CP promote Anwar al-Awlaki. You’ve shared a platform with CP. Make of that what you will.

      Secondly, there is no mention of habeus corpus and due process in the AmnestyUK brochure.

      Do you really think Gitmo detainees can only be granted habeus corpus and due process by partnering with organisations who promote Anwar al-Awlaki and masquerade as human rights organisations, and by showing solidarity with Mr Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? As Amnesty have done.

      As for your facade of being interested in universal human rights, what of the 45,000+ deaths caused by al-Qaeda -inspired terrorism in Pakistan in 2007 and 2008? Do you or AmnestyUK have a thought to spare for them and their dependents?

      Are you now claiming that I’m pro-Islamism?

      I’m saying you’ve changed your tune so many times it’s difficult to know what you are nowadays. But one thing I do see is you’ve finally given up the pretence of resisting that slippery slope.

    91. bananabrain — on 5th October, 2009 at 11:14 am  

      douglas:

      Y’what? You live in England last time we talked. And you get angry with me if I suggest you support Israel or some such. You are less at risk from this than I am.

      oh, really? your children’s school needs CCTV and full-time security guards, does it? have the police told you they haven’t got the resources to protect your community? are there people’s bags being searched before they are allowed into churches (or whatever community facilities you use)? are people driving past your religious institutions filming them? that’s what *i* mean by the front line. look, i get your point about living close to the polaris fleet, but frankly if we’re talking nuclear then i live sufficiently close to RAF northwood to be just as worried. i’m not actually nearly as worried about nuclear weapons as i am about firebombs, nailbombs, kidnap, knives and guns.

      I think bananabrain is utterly wrong, and I am willing to try to defend that point of view. I think he is talking in bad faith, so there you go.

      are you accusing me of lying about something here?

      There appears to me to be an international consensus that rendition is legal and worthwhile, when it is clearly neither.

      that to me would indicate that perhaps this issue is less clear-cut than you suggest.

      if it makes you happy, i’d go so far as to say that the prisoners should be released and charged, as long as we have a legal framework which ensures that the likes of khalid sheikh muhammad stay safely locked up so he can’t cut off anyone else’s head, hence your comment here:

      There is nothing complicated about it for fucks sake! Either the folk are guilty and should be charged in a reasonable jurisdiction, and be found guilty. That would be a fair conclusion, if it was based on any evidence whatsoever. The fact that there is not a prospect of doing this, because reasonable evidence is completely lacking, suggests that you are smoking up the chimney. Which is where you and bananabrain appear to have gone.

      ok, where’s this “reasonable jurisdiction”? show me. without one, these people should not be released. i am starting to think that we need a new geneva convention for this sort of thing, because the ones we’ve got obviously aren’t cutting it. “due process”, fine - let’s see where it can be obtained. i bet the nuremberg trials would be condemned as a kangaroo court without due process today, too.

      The lack of any reply whatsoever, said it all. You were given at least two opportunities to reply and you didn’t. Check it out. You either don’t read or don’t care what goes on in your comments. Your fellow Spittooner, the author of this piece of pish, didn’t care to reply either.

      i know this isn’t addressed to me, but i’m not on the web at the weekend.

      sunny:

      Good to hear you’ve all not signed a manifesto, so let me remind you that I’ve not signed any manifesto with Cage Prisoners either. And unless you show me something anti-semitic or racist in their manifesto I can’t just along with your degrees-of-separation thinking to refuse to start sharing a platform who are vaguely linked to someone else. As I said – you are too.

      i’m not a manifesto-signer and i really wasn’t arguing with that. i know perfectly well how many degrees of separation there are between me and unpleasant people who i strongly, strongly disapprove of. i was just speculating about how one might manage to take a principled stand on these issues without falling foul of comfort zones and degrees of separation and, so far, i haven’t quite worked it out.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    92. Ravi Naik — on 5th October, 2009 at 12:56 pm  

      I don’t know how far I can go along with this habeas corpus argument for the remaining Guantanamo prisoners. If some of them are foreign Taliban and see themselves as mujahideen and Al Qaeda, but it is not possible to charge them with any specific offence (as it’s impossible to prove that they weren’t in Afghanistan as charity workers as they claim)

      Damon, do I understand you correctly? Do you wish to apply that standard in Britain? Shall we detain people indefinitely who we think might commit crimes or might have commited crimes, but which we can’t prove in a court of law?

      Terrorists are criminals, not super-villains.

    93. Ravi Naik — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:17 pm  

      Secondly, there is no mention of habeus corpus and due process in the AmnestyUK brochure.

      The brochure says that they want to “free them from illegal detention”, which means that something needs to be done to resolve their illegal detention status.

      Here is what Amnesty International website says:

      “Amnesty is calling on President Obama to promptly charge Guantánamo detainees with recognisable criminal offences or release them immediately. And to ensure that those detainees who are to be charged receive fair trials in US federal courts.”

      But you already knew that… didn’t you? :)

    94. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

      “free them from illegal detention” does not exactly mean due process, does it?

      Have you got your “solidarity with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” placard and your “I heart Anwar al-Awlaki” badge on as well? You know you want to.

    95. Ravi Naik — on 5th October, 2009 at 2:11 pm  

      “free them from illegal detention” does not exactly mean due process, does it?

      It is implied. I am sure that they could have done a better job in giving more specifics to those that do not know their official position, or to prevent attacks from people who seem to be debating from a position of bad faith.

      Have you got your “solidarity with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” placard and your “I heart Anwar al-Awlaki” badge on as well? You know you want to.

      Solidarity against the illegal detention of any prisoner, yes. It is certainly not as sad as wearing “I heart Robert Spencer” badge, and losing the “I am a moderate” badge.

    96. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 2:27 pm  

      It is implied.

      Implied? I rest my case.

      Solidarity against the illegal detention of any prisoner, yes. It is certainly not as sad as wearing “I heart Robert Spencer” badge, and losing the “I am a moderate” badge.

      It’s quite shameful that you should admit to something like that.

      Robert Spencer has some pretty nasty views on Muslims (and I should know, I am one) but some of his stuff on the influence of Isamist entryism into Liberal thinking is pretty spot on.

      And AmnestyUK is a clearcut example of that entryism.

      Furthermore, it the ideology as expounded by Anwar al-Awlaki, not Robert Spencer’s silly little website, which has been used to justify the murder of thousands of people by al-Qaeda- inspired terrorism in Pakistan alone. And I’m not even going to start with his influence on the al-Shabaab in Somalia.

      But hey, why give a fuck about the real victims of terrorism when you can ponce around Trafalgar Square with left liberals who have bent their knees to the apologists of Anwar al-Awlaki.

    97. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:13 pm  

      Jumping all over the place Faisal - and you refused to answer my questions too

      If Combat 18 members were held without trial would you find it acceptable that Amnesty organised an event with a group that promotes Harold Covington and, rather than saying “try these people or release them”, called for “solidarity with them”?”

      This is just whataboutery - something you guys at Spittoon have become quite fond of. Yes of course I’d argue against Combat 18 and other (white) nasties being held without evidence or trial.

      The thing is - you know that’s my answer anyway. I’ve stated it lots of times. The only reason you ask that question repeatedly is to try and smear me in an underhanded sort of way.. as if I’ve not been consistent in my approach to free speech and legal process.

      The question should be made to you: do you believe in legal process and habeaus corpus or not? If you do, then you should be at the same march instead of sneering from various blogs.

      Tell us how you have come to the inconsistent conclusion whereby the BNP should be actively censored from the BBC

      Again - your memory fails you. The BNP have been on the BBC for years. I’ve never said anywhere they should be denied from coming on to the BBC. Infact you either turn up the evidence or you accept you’re mischaracterising me (again).

      I realise you’ve got your own blog to pimp, and we’re roughly got the same enemies - but there’s no need to actively smear and misalign me (oh yeah, like I’m really pro-Islamists now) to promote this view that you’re the only brown person out there taking a stand against these nasty Islamists. It really is becoming quite pathetic. I’ve been doing this for years. I don’t need you to dictate my editorial policy for me. You run your own blog how you want, and I’ll write about what I want on my blog. Is that ok with you?

    98. bananabrain — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:29 pm  

      guys,

      it’s starting to look like handbags at dawn now. do us all a favour and stop trying to catch each other out, you’re on the same side really. if harriet harman were here she’d be lecturing the two of you about how female bloggers don’t do this sort of thing. willies away please.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    99. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 5:46 pm  

      Again – your memory fails you. The BNP have been on the BBC for years. I’ve never said anywhere they should be denied from coming on to the BBC. Infact you either turn up the evidence or you accept you’re mischaracterising me (again).

      hmmmmm. I’m really, really quite appalled to see you lying barefaced here Sunny.

      And it’s pretty shoddy of you to be asking for evidence for a conversation that was held face to face. But guess what, there were at least 2 people who were listening to our conversation who heard you say you wanted the BNP banned from appearing on the BBC because that would influence the public (!).

      And both are willing to back me up on that. And if you want evidence mate, we can take it offline.

      And as for that last paragraph. The less said about that the better really, don’t you think? I don’t really want to cramp your “I’m the only brown blogger in the village” schtick.

      I also don’t give a flying fig who you consort or partner with. But I will let my opinion be known *on a public thread* about organisations such as Amnesty UK forming partnerships with Islamists, whether you are on their panel or not.

    100. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 6:52 pm  

      hmmmmm. I’m really, really quite appalled to see you lying barefaced here Sunny.

      The fact that your memory fails you completely is not my problem. Perhaps its a problem with your hearing. Like I said - find me the evidence I’ve said it anywhere. Accusing of a barefaced lie makes you look more like a twat then it affects me.

      I also don’t give a flying fig who you consort or partner with. But I will let my opinion be known *on a public thread* about organisations such as Amnesty UK forming partnerships with Islamists, whether you are on their panel or not.

      Oh dear - now you’re claiming Amnesty is forming alliances with Islamists. It’s quite difficult to debate with someone who has started frothing at the mouth so badly.

      As I said before - I write about what I want - you write about what you want. I won’t come to your blog constantly reminding you that you have people from the detestable Centre for Social Cohesion writing for your blog - because frankly I expect that from you now - and you don’t tell me what I should be writing about and whether I should obsess about anti-Islamism as much as you do. If you want to be obsessed by what Bob Pitt says day in day out that’s your problem not mind.

    101. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 7:13 pm  

      he fact that your memory fails you completely is not my problem. Perhaps its a problem with your hearing. Like I said – find me the evidence I’ve said it anywhere. Accusing of a barefaced lie makes you look more like a twat then it affects me.

      Mine and two others’ memories are failing in unison?
      Are you denying you said such a thing outright or are you denying some aspect of what you said?

      Perhaps you’d better straighten out your story in your own mind first before we drag the witnesses in, don’cha think?

      And as for Amnesty forming alliances with Islamists, yes they are if their rally was backed by CP. And CP promote al-Awlaki. What do you make of al-Awlaki? The modern-day equivalent of Thomas Paine?

      I’m not telling you write anything or partner with anyone. But, like I said, I will comment if public organisations are displaying signs of Islamist entryism. And that is irrespective of whether you’re involved as a talking head or not. Sorry to disappoint, but this isn’t about *you*, it’s about AmnestyUK.

    102. damon — on 5th October, 2009 at 7:39 pm  

      Ravi Naik. To your questions in post 92 I’d say yes and no. (Meaning that you probably understood me properly, but I would want to be very careful about what we did in Britain.)

      I have heard with my own ears some members of one of the small extremist groups, outside the Regent’s Park Mosque mosque on a friday after prayers, urging through a megaphone, for Muslims to go to Afghanistan and ”fight for your religion and your brothers”.

      This was a week after NATO started bombing Afghanistan after 9-11. There were police there filming this gathering. Most of the people who had being praying had a quick look at was going on and walked on by, back to work or whatever. But many stayed around to listen. It was a rally of sorts, but I understand that it was an emotional time and these Al-Mujaharoun type people knew how to press people’s buttons.

      Should those guys have been arrested and charged with something?
      Or could you argue that it was their right to free speech? I’m really not sure myself.

      What about the charges for having attended a terrorist training camp?
      Last week The Independent quoted MI5 as saying there were about a hundred Brits going to Somalia for ‘jihad training’ every year now.
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jihad-the-somalia-connection-1786608.html

      I wonder what would be seen a a proper sentence for someone who was proved to have gone to one of these?
      15 years maybe? Less? .. or more? Or could a defense be that a young (Somali) man had gone to Somalia on a family visit and had learned about guns and fighting because that was what his clanspeople did. And that all young men were expected to know how to strip down a kalashnikov as it was part of being a man.

      Then you’d have to get into discussion about whether that particular clan or grouping was considered terrorist or not.

      Unless NATO (or whoever) have satellites and listening devices filming and monitoring these camps then proving anything might be very difficult.
      And I’d imagine it’s not all clndestine camps way out in the desert like in some Steven Seagal movie. Training probably goes on in people’s back yards and kitchens too.

      Unless I’m wrong and I missed someone’s introduction, no one from Cageprisoners actually spoke there on saturday.

      From just looking up their name on google and youtube I came up with this Cageprisoners event.
      The speaker (in the first 60 seconds) speaks a load of rot I think.
      http://www.youtube.com/user/cageprisoners#play/all

    103. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 7:40 pm  

      Perhaps you’d better straighten out your story in your own mind first before we drag the witnesses in, don’cha think?

      You can read what I’ve said above. Will those mates also ‘testify’ to your comments praising Robert Spencer for ‘getting a lot of things right’ and you first saying you didn’t have any problem with him and later backtracking and saying he had ‘fascist tendencies’?

      I’m not telling you write anything or partner with anyone.

      Oh really? But then you could have ranted and raved about Amnesty on your blog? Why are you telling me what event I should be going to or not?

    104. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 7:48 pm  

      Will those mates also ‘testify’ to your comments praising Robert Spencer for ‘getting a lot of things right’ and you first saying you didn’t have any problem with him and later backtracking and saying he had ‘fascist tendencies’?

      Yes, most definitely. He’s a fascist who gets quite a lot right about his Islamist equivalents. I hold to my opinions, unlike you evidently.

      “Oh really? But then you could have ranted and raved about Amnesty on your blog? Why are you telling me what event I should be going to or not?”

      On my blog? Well there was this rant.

      Where on this thread have I told you what event you should be going to or not? Show me it.

      You’re the one who introduced my opinions on Robert Spencer into this discussion (#84). What was the relevance of that? So I obliged, by bringing back your opinions about censoring the BNP - which you’ve tried, in a very ugly manner, to deny outright. Though the witnesses can help you out with refreshing your spotless mind.

    105. Ravi Naik — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:06 pm  

      Yes, most definitely. He’s a fascist who gets quite a lot right about his Islamist equivalents. I hold to my opinions, unlike you evidently.

      It takes guts to say that someone who demonises Muslims and their religion for a living (Robert Spencer) gets quite a lot right about anything related to Islam.

      All the people that participated in this rally should been given a lot of credit for showing up their faces and demanding that International Law be applied even to people that may have commited the most horrendous of crimes. It sickens me that people like yourself are using the ‘terrorism card’ to undermine this effort, as if it had any importance whatsoever.

    106. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:16 pm  

      It takes guts to say that someone who demonises Muslims and their religion for a living (Robert Spencer) gets quite a lot right about anything related to Islam.

      No I said he gets a lot right about Islamists. His fascist equivalents.

      Perhaps your fundamental problem is that you don’t know the difference between Islam and Islamists and as a result conflate the two.

      It sickens me that people like yourself are using the ‘terrorism card’ to undermine this effort, as if it had any importance whatsoever.

      It sickens me when pompous, credulous buffoons like yourself diminish the suffering of the victims of terrorism just to win a cheap feelgood point about your own inconsistencies.

    107. Ravi Naik — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:23 pm  

      No I said he gets a lot right about Islamists. His fascist equivalents. Perhaps your fundamental problem is that you don’t know the difference between Islam and Islamists and as a result conflate the two.

      No, that’s exactly what Robert Spencer does everyday. And to you he is an expert on Islamists. Go figure.

      It sickens me when pompous, credulous buffoons like yourself diminish the suffering of the victims of terrorism just to win a cheap feelgood point about your own inconsistencies.

      Oh I see, fighting against illegal detention is diminishing the suffering of victims of terrorism? You really need to explain to me the LINK between one and the other.

    108. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:26 pm  

      And to you he is an expert on Islamists. Go figure.

      No I said he gets some things right. Try again sunshine.

      You really need to explain to me the LINK between one and the other. It is completely unrelated.

      Credulous. Scroll up and read what I’ve said on this thread and on my blog about how Amnesty have diminished their own rally by paying no credence to the victims of terrorism. I’m going hoarse here.

    109. Rumbold — on 5th October, 2009 at 8:32 pm  

      I think we can all agree on two points.

      1. That detaining people for a long time without trial is wrong.

      2. That not all organisations which oppose such detention are respectable bedfellows.

    110. Ravi Naik — on 5th October, 2009 at 9:08 pm  

      #106

      No I said he gets a lot right about Islamists.

      #108

      No I said he gets some things right. Try again sunshine.

      10 min apart. So much for consistency.

    111. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 9:15 pm  

      Oh yes, Ravi you’ve got me on my useage of “lots” and “some”. How big you must now feel. You even went to trouble of blockquoting. Clown.

    112. Sunny — on 5th October, 2009 at 9:25 pm  

      It sickens me when pompous, credulous buffoons like yourself diminish the suffering of the victims of terrorism just to win a cheap feelgood point about your own inconsistencies.

      I’d stop frothing at the mouth now if I was you Faisal. This is looking increasingly embarrassing for you.

    113. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 9:30 pm  

      I’m sure that’s how you would like it to be, Sunny. But the burden of proof is on you.

    114. douglas clark — on 5th October, 2009 at 10:27 pm  

      bananabrain @ 91,

      are you accusing me of lying about something here?

      No, I don’t think you are a liar, of course I don’t.

      Could we have a difference of opinion, even one this wide, without descending into that sort of gutter?

      What I do think is that you bring is a great deal of passion to this debate, and that you get more than a little upset when other people, (oh, OK, me then) doesn’t see it in quite the same way.

      ————————————————-

      Dunno how to summarise this, I think it is completely wrong for you to suggest that something which is done under government black ops, rendition, Gitmo, etc is in any way acceptable to anyone that thinks whatsoever.

      Someone else said that we could hold people as long as we liked whilst there was a war on. I could almost subscribe to that if Gitmo didn’t look so much like a fucking concentration camp and not a prisoner of war camp. Where do you stand on, at the very least, applying Geneva Convention rules to these prisoners? Don’t seem too obvious that any government cares too much about that. It is this sort of cunning subvention of reasonable conduct that makes your side of the arguement look ridiculous from a humanitarian point of view. Yes, I know the arguements about uniforms and stuff. You do not treat people like that, and you do not use it as prime time entertainment, which is what G W Bush did. Talk about pandering to the crowd. Shower of fucking bastards, from medieval land.

      ———————————————-

      My comment has been up on your site for a fortnight. Not a word. It is all very well to slander one politician, it is not reasonable to stay schtum on another who is fighting exactly the same seat and also has, argueably far larger, skeletons in his cupboard.

      You may appreciate that I find that unacceptable, biased and wrong. You gave a post to some sort of wannabe Labour Party supporter who ran away when challenged. It is utterly pathetic.

    115. douglas clark — on 5th October, 2009 at 10:33 pm  

      Bananabrain,

      Perhaps I am wrong about that.

      Perhaps he actually ran away before he was challenged. Hit and run would seem to be the modus operandi of the Labour Party’s dirty squad.

    116. douglas clark — on 5th October, 2009 at 10:52 pm  

      damon @ 89,

      Douglas Clark @ 79. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a very dangerous man, trial or no trial. He killed Daniel Pearl.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

      Assuming he is still at large, catch him, try him and punish him.

      What the heck is complicated about this? Normal criminals are dealt with in this way.

    117. Yossarian (The Spittoon) — on 5th October, 2009 at 11:05 pm  

      Rumbold @ 109, entirely agreed. Now, if it’s going to be impossible to have a rational discussion of whether or not Cage Prisoners are suitable bedfellows for a human rights campaign then can I respectfully suggest that somebody close this car crash of a thread? People are taking this far too personally and that is not the kind of debate I’m interested in - and certainly not what I hoped to achieve by asking my original question.

    118. douglas clark — on 5th October, 2009 at 11:32 pm  

      Could we all take a time out?

      ———————————-

      It is pretty obvious that no-one that is posting here, and has been for a while, is in favour of Islamists. Y’know the sons and daughters of racially and religiously dominant Islam. And I’d have thought that that was a minority opinion within Islam itself. But there you go, argue about the marginalised psychopaths that dominate every religious extremism you care to mention.

      Would that be right or would that be wrong?

      ———————————————-

      But the ways in which that should be tackled seem as beyond reasoned judgement, and seem also to alienate the likes of Sunny and Faisal in ways that I do not really understand.

      You make an enemy of someone who was once a close friend because you see a detail between your approaches as more important than tackling that issue, and staying united.

      I think this is how the left dies, so I do. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

    119. douglas clark — on 5th October, 2009 at 11:40 pm  

      Yossarian,

      As it is you that has made this into a car crash of a thread, with your unhumanitarian, stupid comments, perhaps it would be best if you were the one to close it down with some sort of apology for your idiocy?

      As any one can see by reading your amazinlg erudite, and divisive, contribution @ 69.

    120. Refresh — on 6th October, 2009 at 1:23 am  

      A far bigger concern would be if there is a coordinated effort to Amnesty International.

      ‘Entryism’ appears to be the opening gambit.

    121. Refresh — on 6th October, 2009 at 1:25 am  

      A far bigger concern would be if there is a coordinated effort to smear Amnesty International.

      ‘Entryism’ appears to be the opening gambit.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.