Saddam’s Trial – Iraq and post-war reconstruction
Of course, Saddam should be tried, but it makes no sense to do it against a background of a civil war in which he is, alas, still a figurehead
Saddam is being tried when the war to remove him is increasingly recognised as a disaster
Saddam’s trial wouldn’t pass for justice in a dictatorship
There is one last excuse for those of us who were so trusting as to support the war in Iraq — and that excuse is disintegrating before our eyes.
We were soon proved wrong in our assumption that the Pentagon had serious plans for post-war reconstruction: the Americans hadn’t a clue. We were hopelessly wrong in imagining that the Iraqis would somehow work together to build a brighter tomorrow: they are engaged in a civil war of ever mounting savagery.
But we optimists clutched at one final consolation, one solid benefit that we had conferred on the Iraqi people. We may have triggered a war that has so far claimed the lives of 58,000 people, most of them innocent civilians; and yet, amid all the carnage and the suicides and the beheadings, we persuaded ourselves that we had installed one shining Western institution to be an example to the benighted Middle East. At least, we preened ourselves, we have put that monster Saddam Hussein on trial, hmmm? At least we have shown Johnny Arab what we mean by due process, hey what?
How pathetic and how hollow that boast seems now. The Saddam trial is a disgrace to justice that ought to be prorogued or transferred to another country. The latest judge has just suspended the session because he was unable to control the increasingly self-confident ravings of the bearded and staring-eyed ex-tyrant, and, when proceedings resume on October 9, they will still be a mixture of farce and tragedy.
We like to claim that this is an “open court”, but the deliberations are often so embarrassing that the microphones are turned off. When the Iraqis are allowed to watch the actual session, they see a hideous hybrid of Western due process and the traditional Iraqi kangaroo court, taking place against a background of murder and mayhem.
The result is legal chaos. The first judge was called Barawiz Mahomed Mahmoud al-Merani, and he got the hearing off to a flying start by being assassinated in March 2005. The next trembling jurist to be handed the gavel was called Rizgar Armin, but under him the court soon resembled a class of nightmare 16-year-olds in the charge of a seriously rattled supply teacher. He gave up in January, claiming ill-health.
The Iraqi court officials then announced that his number two would be taking over, a distinguished and learned geezer called Sayeed al-Hammashi. Everybody agreed that he would be a fabulous choice, until it was pointed out to the Americans that he was a former member of Saddam’s ruling Ba’ath party, and, ahem, his nomination was withdrawn.
They then found a Kurdish judge, one Abdel Rahman, and he seemed ideal. Surely, everyone said, we can rely on a Kurd to come down hard on Saddam for his crimes at Halabjah. But Abdel Rahman resigned shortly afterwards, claiming that he had come under unbearable political pressure.
The fifth judge to officiate was the splendid Abdullah al-Amiri, who lasted right up until this month, mainly by seeming to go rather easy on Saddam. On September 19, however, he blew it by intervening in an extraordinary exchange between Saddam and a gnarled old Kurdish witness.
The witness was relating how he had been to see Saddam to plead for the lives of his family, and Saddam was saying, well, it was hardly the act of a dictator to have audiences with humble Kurdish peasants. At which point the judge intervened, and said — in what will go down as the single most off-message remark of the whole Iraq conflict: “You are not a dictator. You were never a dictator. The people around a person make him a dictator. Not just you. This happens everywhere.”
At which a visibly moved Saddam bowed his head and thanked his lordship for his support. You can imagine the American monitors watching this in numb disbelief; you can imagine the chewing of the Downing Street curtains.
Under Iraq’s bizarre constitution the judge was sacked by the politicians, and judge number six is currently trying and failing to keep order in class. Seven people connected with the trial have so far been killed, including three of Saddam’s lawyers. His chief defence lawyer, Khami al-Obaidi, was abducted, tortured and murdered by men claiming to be from the interior ministry.
How on earth can the Iraqis have faith in the impartiality of these proceedings, when witnesses, lawyers and judges are being indiscriminately threatened, tortured, killed and sacked? It is amazing to think Britain spent £2 million, and the Americans £73 million, training Iraqi lawyers and judges for this charade.
Have you heard our Foreign Secretary protesting about what is going on? Who is our Foreign Secretary, by the way? The British position is to wait and hope that the Iraqis will hurry up and top him; itself a rather creepy approach, since we are meant to have a principled opposition to the death penalty.
Of course, Saddam should be tried, but it makes no sense to do it against a background of a civil war in which he is, alas, still a figurehead. Nuremburg may have been victor’s justice, as Sadakat Kadri observes in his magisterial history, The Trial. But those hearings at least took place when the war was conclusively won and was overwhelmingly believed to have been worth fighting.
Saddam is being tried when the war to remove him is increasingly recognised as a disaster, not least by the American intelligence services. He is being tried when men loyal to him are still fighting and killing. He is being tried by judges who are either in awe of him or who tell him softly that he was “not a dictator”. In the words of Cicero, laws are silent when swords are unsheathed.
The coalition should stop the pretence that the Iraqis can do this themselves. Saddam should be removed from Baghdad, where his presence is just aggravating the conflict, and be tried for his manifold barbarity in the Hague.
Of course, it means riding roughshod over the Iraqis, but then there is nothing new in that. All they can see on their screens at the moment is a variant of the show-trials they remember from the Ba’athist era, except that the judges keep getting whacked. As someone once said, if this is justice, then I am a banana.
166 Comments
`Discuss the following: How does it feel to be a member of an opposition party indistinguishable from the government`
1 well I don’t think any credibility is required to criticise this particular due process, even if this , (South African / anti Semite ?) seriously means any of this . I cannot help but notice that across the media there has bee a vast amount more criticism pf Israel than the Arabs in Sudan as they rape and butcher there way though Lebanon’s worth every two weeks so perhaps some balance is needed .
On the more certain ground of being part of an opposition indistinguishable from the government that is patently nonsense . There are numerous detectable differences from the government . Finding differences to the Liberal Party is trickier but do-able .
.The promise to extend right to buy though a rent to Mortgage scheme .
The undertaking not to increase tax ( a vast difference)
The undertaking (and developing policy coming out ) to simplify tax …how important is that
On Europe , not all I would want but quite obviously a very different position from the Labour party
This are the large policy areas reaching solidity
Developing themes
A distancing from US Foreign Policy ,( which I don`t like)
BUT an undertaking to properly equip and support our forces in Afghanistan (which I do like)
An undertaking to rethink the unreasonable Scottish dispensation
An undertaking to redress the damage and disrespect with which the Constitution has been treated
An undertaking to devolve power back to local Councils and scrap the disastrous Regional Frauds
A new approach to the NHS of devolving power back to the situation and away from Whitehall
Also a lot of old nonsense about the environment so far I have only noticed good intentions
But good intentions are a start and there is along way to go
Clear pro women policy in MP selection far beyond the Labour party
An undertaking to reform the Police ,about time
And so on as will no doubt continue to be fleshed out.
“With extra points for” …goodnessthat takes me back .I think that might be the sort of sustained parody I would have enjoyed as a student which ,unless I `m much mistaken ,is what Tim is.Good luck with your exams Irish Tim whoever you are .
Please come back and gabble like a child whenever you feel like it .
Rate This:
0 
0
Nice one newmania – unfortunately I won’t vote for any party that isn’t stridently against the current and upcoming anti-terrorism laws. While Cameron has spoken out against some of them, he did say that he would like the Human Rights Act re-written or scrapped. Consequently I won’t vote conservative in the next election, unless that changes (even though I’m a member of the party!) Nothing more important in my mind, although equipping our army better is definitely high up there too, as is getting as far as possible from the US foreign policy timebomb.
Rate This:
0 
0
Who’s for a written constitution? Not me.
Amendment II: … the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Made perfect sense at the time (1789). Look where it’s got them.
Rate This:
0 
0
PaulD, I think you’ll find that the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to bear arms as part of a militia against the British. If the practice were restricted to those willing to do so, you might find a substantial shift in some of the rhetoric.
Rate This:
0 
0
JACK TARGET- I find it hard to sympathise with abstaining but it is consistent with “type” of your other remarks (about torture)
PAUL D- I am against a written constitution on the basis that I am free to do whatever I like provided it isn’t illegal. To me this has a symbolic Libertarian value . I do not need the Government to tell me what I am free to do. Is this your view?
STEVEN L – I am most impressed by what you say . I am weaker I `m afraid on “abroad , even weaker you might say. What sources does this analysis come from. Aside , obviously , from your mighty brain ?
I wish you were around to help me attack all the pious anti Israel nonsense our Councillors churn out .
RAIN COASTER- Does the right to bear arms not come from the history of the US guaranteeing that the government was not the only armed force. It is an opposition to Kings and their armies , or so I had thought? I gather there is somewhat more complexity to the law than I had imagined but I would suggest that this Libertarian ideal is the reason the symbol has remained .
FLO – Am I in trouble ? I would love to know what your view of us all is if it neither romantic or classical. I think it would be hard to evade any element of either . In other words I think you are bluffing. Bluffer!
Rate This:
0 
0
JAQ-`please someone say thankyou?`
THANKS JAQ
Rate This:
0 
0
newmania said:
FLO – Am I in trouble ? I would love to know what your view of us all is if it neither romantic or classical. I think it would be hard to evade any element of either . In other words I think you are bluffing.
Bluffer!
No, you’re the bluffer, newmania
Rate This:
0 
0
Has anyone seen the newspaper article today – Mail? Indie? Telegraph? I forget which, Mail I think – which depicts Cameron as Arthur and his shadow cabinet as Camelot? Seems I’m not the only one who thought that – or who doesn’t see Cameron and Blair as in any sense alike.
Rate This:
0 
0
Aw, shucks, I appreciate it newmania
Rate This:
0 
0
I beg your pardon, just found the article, in the Mail, it compares Cameron and the shadow cabinet with JFK and his government, collectively known as Camelot.
Rate This:
0 
0
Newmania-It is the government who decides what is legal and what is not so they are telling you what you are free to do at the end of the day.
I agree with the notion of a written constitution, in theory at least. There are rights which need to be protected, such as the right to a trial by jury, but which labour are slowly eroding. Many of these rights have been around for centuries, yet are being destroyed in just a few short years. A written constitution would give Britain some protection from this.
Jack Target-As for the rewriting of the human rights act, I agree with Cameron and this is one policy which holds particular appeal for me. It was a brave idea to put forward and I think Cameron deserves respect for that. The current human rights act only honours those rights in the breach so it is nearly impossible for them to be used to protect innocent people. Perhaps we need to focus on human responsibilities a bit more. Remember a scrapping of the human rights act is not a scrapping of human rights.
Newmania/Raincoaster-I do not think that the second ammendment was really aimed at the British since at the time I think there were a lot of problems between individual states all of which had their own militia which they all wanted to protect. However, the wording of the second ammendment is now of little real importance since gun ownership in America is so out of control that banning legal ownership of guns will do little to solve the problem.
Rate This:
0 
0
The Second Amendment was aimed, it is true, not only at the British but also at the Spanish and the Native Americans, although not so much at individual American states. It was more that the federal government didn’t have a huge, standing army and relied on the states to provide self-protection. In essence, it was military feudalism.
It’s instructive to look at the letter of the law, because from it come our legal precedents. We have an obligation to remain familiar with the documents of the founding of our countries, lest we stray too far from what they were intended in the first place. The Second Amendment is a seminal document in American political culture, and thus international political culture of the 20th Century. It’s not “outdated,” it’s only forgotten.
Like the Magna Carta.
Rate This:
0 
0
newmania said:
`Discuss the following: How does it feel to be a member of an opposition party indistinguishable from the government`…that is patently nonsense . There are numerous detectable differences from the government . Finding differences to the Liberal Party is trickier but do-able.
It’s not surprising that Cameron is being painted as Blair Mk 2. Every half decent poliitician – or thinker, come to that – who follows on from an impressive predecessor is forced to absorb the moment of truth in the predecessor in order to transcend it and them.
Thatcher was an exception, but then look at what preceded her, she was free to innovate as much as she wanted to. Blair wasn’t, he was heavily circumscribed by Thatcher’s vision and was forced to absorb it into his own before he could transcend it. Cameron too can only move beyond Blair by absorbing his vision and radically transforming it.
This sort of dialectical or critical interpenetration (no wise cracks, newmania) is the only way to move forward.
As for the Liberals, they’ve nothing to offer Cameron, my worry is what they’ll offer Brown.
Rate This:
0 
0
PaulD said: To which threat do you refer, Flo? WW3 (Flo’)
And there was I, absolutely convinced that you were going to say: “Global Warming”…
Rate This:
0 
0
K- Yes good points , but it still seems a bit foreign to me (Constitution)…………….. I `m doing rigorous analysis this morning as you see
RAIN COASTER- I`m not sure that the UK would see itself as defined by a document to anything like the same extent as the US. In practice that is certainly true . The UK self vision is much more incremental and a pride is taken in the slow evolution of the dispensation as opposed to Europe and especially France, events like 1688 are highlights . For this reason a written constitution might be seen as a contradiction in terms . Magana Carta is a small part of this process I suppose but has none of the type of resonance here the US Constitution has. So what you say is literally true but as a prescription for this country is alien to what has gone before
I have rather got my points mixed up here as I `m not sure RAINCOASTER was saying we should have a Constitution but there seemed to be a connection . Actually RAINCOASTER aren`t you Canadian . Or have I got that wrong ?
Rate This:
0 
0
About the constitution, I too find the thought of a codified constitution very unpleasant, for many of the reasons stated above (particularly newmania’s libertarian one, also the slow organic growth).
However, unfortunately Blair has succeeded in shredding a large number of things which would be enshrined in any constitution I had a hand in writing, and in a short period of time. I’m now wondering whether it is worth sacrificing the protection that a codified constitution offers for the essentially aesthetic things that an uncodified one symbolises.
Rate This:
0 
0
Well, that’s a lie !
Rate This:
0 
0
‘I wish you were around to help me attack all the pious anti Israel nonsense our Councillors churn out’ (Newmania)
They discuss foreign policy in Islington council? What’s foreign policy got to do with Islington council then?
Rate This:
0 
0
I think the 5th judge’s inanity compares favourably with the remark of Britain’s judge in the Milosevic murder who, with a straight face, informed him that “Islanic fundamentalism is not a security threat”. This even though it was proven that our then ally bin Laden was a welcome guest in the Bosnian Moslem Presidential office.
Perhaps the worst thing about that “trial” apart from the judges apparent support of his poisoning, was the wholly obscene way our media ceased reporting on what they originaly & correctly called the “trial of the century”.
For example can it seriously be suggested that the testimony, undeer oath, of Lord Owen, a former UK Foreign Secretary, that Milosvic was a “man to whom any form of racism is anathema” & the “only leader who consistently sincerely sought peace” was to ordinary to be worth reporting?
Rate This:
0 
0
‘This even though it was proven that our then ally bin Laden was a welcome guest in the Bosnian Moslem Presidential office’ (Neil Craig)
Are these the same Bosnian Muslims that were recruited by Arab Nationalist and anti-semite extrordinaire Mohammad Amin al-Husayni into the Waffen SS?
Rate This:
0 
0
Raincoster,
a a person of some evident taste and good sense do you perhaps find ‘newmania’ smarmily didactic?
Rate This:
0 
0
‘Didactic’, not a word that features in my feeble Northern vocabulary. So I looked it up.
Apparently it means:
‘Inclined to teach or moralize excessively; moralistic’
I choked on my Coca-cola when I read that. You’re asking raincoaster’s opinion on who is and isn’t ‘didactic’?
Why don’t you pop over to Ahmadinejad’s blog while you’re at it and ask him if I’m a theocratic bigot?
Rate This:
0 
0
let him eat cake
Rate This:
0 
0
Long live freedom of speech and freedom to eat whatever we want!
Well said, Boris.
(Melissa, hope you’re having a good conference and not being kept too busy by the presspack!)
Rate This:
0 
0
STEVEN`They discuss foreign policy in Islington council? What’s foreign policy got to do with Islington council then?`
No they just like to pretend it has in the press.Its a sort of insane ego trip . Good question . Ask Ken Livingstone while your at it.
WOEMANSTER
If I seem pompous its only because I`m struggling to get my thoughts in order and lack the brains to be nice about it at the same time . I do come over that way but I`m really not. Promise.
Smarmy ? Well if so it hasn`t worked.
Emough of that old nonsense but as far as Raincoaster is conncerned I read her contributions ( with great pleasure ) and try to repond.
Thats all.
Rate This:
0 
0
The Subject of this thread is Saddam Hussein’s Trial and Boris’s comments,particularly whether the trial should have been in the Hague rather than Iraq.
I think the USA (who wont sign -up to the ICC because it fears “politically motivated prosecutions” of its own troops) was never going to turn over Saddam to a ‘competent International tribunal’ like the world court or something. That would just set a precedent that could also apply to USAs own leaders/soldiers.
The USA,as i remember are the only state to have been found guilty at the World Court in the Hague of “unlawful use of force” (commonly known as TERRORISM)for its arming of the thuggish contras and its mining of Nicaraguan ports- circa 1984.
Rate This:
0 
0
Someone earlier raised the question of torture and of whether it can be justified. The now well-worn “nuclear timebomb on Manhattan Island-Would nt you torture the terrorist scenario?”is constantly trotted out. How often does any scenario even remotely like this occur in the real world compared to all the people wrongly tortured? The most likely way for discovering such a “ticking bomb” is of torturing one “terrorist” after another or everyone in the “terrorists” address book until eventually they yield that “information”.
‘If you tolerate this your children will be next’(as the song goes).
If torture can be justified purely by results, so can terrorism.
In an until now unexamined “internal war” therefore, the “terrorists” might be ‘goodies’ and the torturers the ‘baddies’- depending on the exact circumstances in that country!
Rate This:
0 
0
idlex said:
And there was I, absolutely convinced that you were going to say: “Global Warming”…
You’ve seen through me, idlex, of course climate change is in there, but as one of a comjplex of problems.
Rate This:
0 
0
Cherie said:
Well, that’s a lie !
Hush, or people may start looking into your murky ancestral past, Cherie, and find out that it was your ancestor who assassinated President Lincoln.
Rate This:
0 
0
Are we going to see a video blog here then Boris – don’t let DC take the lead – you’re the trail blazer with the blogging thing aren’t you?
Rate This:
0 
0
This Presidents thing is coming up .Any suggestions as to what to say . I was thinking of asking him to have a look in ? He probably won`t speak to me anyway but still
Rate This:
0 
0
So Flo’, I no longer believe the eco-fundies and their predictions of imminent planetary mega-doom. Their science is a new science, and they still can’t predict the weather beyond the next 3 days.
I don’t call that science. I call it religion.
And I thought Boris was looking a bit fat tonight, as TV cameras swarmed over him today, making a mountain out of a mole.
And in need of robust exercise. Perhaps Eliza can help out here…
Rate This:
0 
0
Foodie fascism, booster seats, sharia law in town halls… is Boris now the ONLY politician prepared to say what a great many people are thinking but are too frightened to utter?
Rate This:
0 
0
FLO going back to this Enviroment thing I had this to say . You seem to be the expert on when the world is going to end . Is this a fair point .
I doubt there are many people who deny that climate change is a real phenomenon although for funding and psychological reasons I suspect the apocalyptic end of it is a bit over cooked .
That is not the same thing as denying that David Cameron has any sincerity on the issue because as Bozzer said UK action is like farting in a hurricane and cannot be taken seriously
What are the real problems with climate change
1 Exponential Growth in developing and Asian countries. Do we pull up the ladder?
2 US political intransigence on Petrol prices
3 Politically un taxable air travel ( Do we say only the rich can travel again as it was until fairly recently )
4 Heavy Industry located in Asia and old Warsaw pact areas either locally owned or located there for cheap labour and to avoid environmental laws ( not to say employment laws)
Solving such problems needs global action which is itself a problem as there is no global government and god forbid there should be. It is intimately bound up with wealth creation in the developing world but also growth addiction everywhere. There is not easy answer and real sacrifices will be needed. The implication that by recycling a bit and insulating your loft you change a thing is harmless but partly misleading . We can`t have it all and this front must be opened up for debate. At the moment its all about feeling good about ourselves which won’t do although technology and practice obviously have a place that will develop eventually.
Would you admit that the real nature of the global problem is misrepresented by those with an interest in feel good waffle .? And don`t say stop being nasty to DC please Ilove the man I am allowed to question him .
Rate This:
0 
0
Can someone settle an argument: is this the same Boris Johnson who discussed beating up a journalist with a fellow public schoolboy a few years ago?
Rate This:
0 
0
Can someone settle an argument: is this the same Boris Johnson who discussed beating up a journalist with a fellow public schoolboy a few years ago?
Rate This:
0 
0
Can someone settle an argument: It geekpie the same twerp who pops up every few months asking the same pointless question?
Rate This:
0 
0
Boris Johnson is NOT fat.
If you insist upon it Boris – he may be a tad undertall.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘No they just like to pretend [foreign policy] has [something to do with Islington Council] in the press. Its a sort of insane ego trip . Good question . Ask Ken Livingstone while your at it’ (Newmania)
If I’m down the pub in London and some lefty starts boring me going on about ‘the poor Palestinian people’ and the ‘horrible Israelis’ or ‘collective punishment’ I always say the same thing to shut them up.
When they start going on about the Palestinians say ‘You mean the Palestinian Nationalists?’ When they look confused but in again and say ‘the Palestinian Nationalists, as in the ones that supported Hitler in the war?’
That usually shuts them up. If they keep boring you about it just tell them you believe God is punishing them or something. They’ll probably leave you alone after that.
Rate This:
0 
0
Insomniac
`If torture can be justified purely by results, so can terrorism`
Terrorism like the French resistance say . Both these things are true but in reality I agree that decisions are not in the rareified plane of the theoretical.
Just because I can invent a context in which torture might be moral ( and I can). That does not mean it should be legal and having listened to what everyone has said i am rather coming to the view it shoudlnot be after all .
Rate This:
0 
0
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson
The title was going to be "Boris Johnson – On how to be a politician", but once I discovered
Rate This:
0 
0
STEVEN L the ‘horrible Israelis’ or ‘collective punishment’
Very good . You would like the letter I have in at the moment (sent in from a black Christian Female member … oh yes we’re devious)
Contrasting the bleating on about a Lebanon ( 1800 dead) as compared to the utter lack of interest in the 400,000 ( as per NGOs) black Africans slaughtered raped and god knows what else in Darfur . That’s about a Lebanon every 10 days and no sign of the UN although it is formally agreed. Khartoum still has eyes on the South obviously which has only just escaped sharia law
This is not natural disaster it is the ethnic cleansing policy of the Islamic Arab Khartoum Government and just for once even a small voice might help the international pressure but not a bloody word form Emily Thornberry ( Lab MP) James Kempton ( Coucil Leader ) who had pages and pages of hand wringing about the nasty Jews.
Israel withdrew the other day thank god but these fatuous poseurs will not care a jot they were advertising their political position and tender conscience. I do not claim to lose sleep worrying about Africa but if there was something one could realistically do to get the UN in there I would do it. Write to MP ( done) write to paper(done ) . what can you do ? It is heart breaking .
Rate This:
0 
0
Newmania,
I don’t understand for the life of me why our left wingers want to make allegience with Arab Nationalist movements such as the PLO and Hizbullah.
You would think that the ideology of Hezbollah, and the various Palestinian Nationaist groups (anti-semite, pro invasion and destruction of another soveriegn state etc.) sits on the opposite end of the political spectrum of our so-called socialists.
I also fail to see what interest British-Bangladeshi and British-Pakistani Muslims have in supporting Pan-Arab National-Socialism. You would think there are more important political, social and geographical problems in the Indian Subcontinent that they would care about, especially in Bangladesh.
Fools like George Galloway and Ken Livingston who prey on impressionable young Muslims for votes are making a very grave error if you ask me.
Most of these young Muslim kids are probably not old or wise enough to clearly understand the difference between the extremist Takfiri movement, Arab National Socialism, normal opposition within Britain to NATO foreign policy and trotskism.
Men like Galloway and Livingstone who seek to confuse these kids further in the aim of winning their votes and holding office are playing a dangerous game if you ask me, blurring the boundries between three different extremist movements and mainstream political objection.
Rate This:
0 
0
Styeven L- I couldn`t agree more but we are well into don`t get me started territory here and out of consideration for others I `ll leave it at that
Rate This:
0 
0
Consideration for others? I don’t think anyone here gives a monkey’s how much you slag off Ken Livingston.
Rate This:
0 
0
Check out Blogonymous
Rate This:
0 
0
BORIS , YOUR A RIGHT PILLOCK, MIND YOU,YOUR ARE A COMPLEATE COMEDIANE AND REMIND ME OF MAGIE THATCHER AND HER POLICYS. MAD!!!! I MEAN NO DISRESPECT, BUT REALLY, YOU ARE A PILLICK IN EVERY SORT OF WAY.NO ONE CAN BEAT YOU OTHER THEN A RIGHT ROYAL CLOWN, BUT KEEP ON MAGINGING THESE GAFS, WE NEED A GOOD LAUGH!!!IN THESE BORING TIMES. WELL DONE!!!
Rate This:
0 
0
K
Jack Target-As for the rewriting of the human rights act, I agree with Cameron and this is one policy which holds particular appeal for me.
Wasn`t this primarily to get us out of the EU human rights legislation like Germany who have one and are able to exempt themselves on this basis
Rate This:
0 
0
Boris Johnson is NOT fat. (Jaq)
Yes he is! I’ve just seen him say so himself in a clip shown on This Week. He also said he weighed 17 stones.
But perhaps this should be regarded as Boris’ own personal and highly principled counterthrust to the PC War on Obesity. He might even attain the epic heavyweight proportions of a Nigel Lawson, and become Chancellor of the Exchequer purely by virtue of his stupendous weight.
If so, I hope he doesn’t follow Lawson, and then write a book on slimming.
The really subversive, non-PC thing to do would be take up smoking.
Cigars of Churchillian dimensions.
In public.
Rate This:
0 
0
“Just because I can invent a context in which torture might be moral ( and I can). That does not mean it should be legal and having listened to what everyone has said i am rather coming to the view it should not be after all.”
Yeah, I agree. Any debate should be about what constitutes torture and not whether or not torture should be legal. In some hysterical quarters not having a sufficiently soft prison matress might be described as torture.
At the other extreme, some commentators do not regard “waterboarding” as torture though it surely is.
Steven L- “Pan-Arab-National- Socialism” seems a bit old hat.Maybe you mean the PSS/ SSNP?
The Palestinian Nationalists did nt all support Hitler. The Communists amongst them at the time supported the partition, I believe.
Rate This:
0 
0