Sunday, November 30, 2003
BBC Goes Into Tank For Saddam, Once Again
The gall of these guys. Wait till Andy gets hold of this one.
The BBC is reporting that one of Britain's most senior and distinguished judges -- oops, the BBC report only calls him "senior,' no discussion of "distinguished," but I'm sure that's only because they were so anxious to get this little poisen pen letter to the US up and out on the airwaves -- Lord Steyn (probably no relation to the genuinely distinguished Mark Styen), has condemned the US for its treatment of prisoners at Guantanomo Bay.
No discussion of Saddam's way of dealing with prisoners - torture, summary execution, or of Iraq as a country pockmarked with mass graves. Of course.
And let's take a look at the shaky grounds upon which this so-called legal beagle takes it upon himself to make a comment about American jurisprudence.
So it's President Bush who's the monster now. Not Saddam. Not Osama. Notice the Lordly Steyn says he was brought up to admire American democracy and justice, not that he admires it, or indeed, that he ever actually admired it. Some attitudes are beyond parody.
Nor will you learn from the BBC just how rare it is for a British judge to take a position on a contentious legal issue, neither will you hear about just how unheard of it is for a British judge to attack a foreign country. The report contents itself with a mere mention that the first is rare, the second, unheard of, obviously included to preclude criticism. Let's not forget what's genuinely rare and unheard of - the BBC bringing its massive influence to bear on the massive threat Saddam, Osama, and terrorism itself poses to civilization itself.
Okay, so the BBC doesn't get the post 9/11 ethos, doesn't get that Americans haven't become unconcerned about their fundamental rights under the constitution, or that the Bush administration is waging a war on terror precisely to protect that constitution from meeting the same fate as those majestic twin towers that are no more, from the horror that denuded lower Manhattan of its best and brightest claim to majesty. But aren't they supposed to be a news agency? Weren't we all brought up to admire the BBC as a puprveyer of the news, without bias, without deceit?
With that in mind, ask yourself just how newsworthy is it, really, that one Lordly clueless Brit decides to go off on President Bush, if a news organization isn't going to make the connection for its readers and watchers between this kind of Bush-hatred with the Bush-hatred of Saddam and Osama?
The BBC is reporting that one of Britain's most senior and distinguished judges -- oops, the BBC report only calls him "senior,' no discussion of "distinguished," but I'm sure that's only because they were so anxious to get this little poisen pen letter to the US up and out on the airwaves -- Lord Steyn (probably no relation to the genuinely distinguished Mark Styen), has condemned the US for its treatment of prisoners at Guantanomo Bay.
Lord Steyn said conditions at Camp Delta were of "utter lawlessness", in a speech seen by Channel 4 News.
The Law Lord said the US was guilty of a "monstrous failure of justice" and challenged UK ministers to condemn the decision to hold any prisoners there.
He said detainees were "beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts and at the mercy of victors".
No discussion of Saddam's way of dealing with prisoners - torture, summary execution, or of Iraq as a country pockmarked with mass graves. Of course.
And let's take a look at the shaky grounds upon which this so-called legal beagle takes it upon himself to make a comment about American jurisprudence.
Lord Steyn said the nine British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay had been failed by the UK Government - even though a guarantee sparing them the death penalty had been reached.
He is reported to have said ministers must condemn the holding of all 660 prisoners at the base, not just those from the UK.
"The procedural rules do not prohibit the use of force to coerce the prisoners to confess," he said.
Lord Steyn quoted officials as saying: "It's not quite torture but at close as you can get."
He said the quality of justice did not comply with international standards for fair trials.
"It may be appropriate to pose a question - ought our government to make plain publicly and unambiguously our condemnation of the utter lawlessness at Guantanamo Bay?"
Lord Steyn said that the blanket order issued by President Bush had deprived the detainees of "any rights whatsoever".
"As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice I would have to say that I regard this as a monstrous failure of justice."
So it's President Bush who's the monster now. Not Saddam. Not Osama. Notice the Lordly Steyn says he was brought up to admire American democracy and justice, not that he admires it, or indeed, that he ever actually admired it. Some attitudes are beyond parody.
Nor will you learn from the BBC just how rare it is for a British judge to take a position on a contentious legal issue, neither will you hear about just how unheard of it is for a British judge to attack a foreign country. The report contents itself with a mere mention that the first is rare, the second, unheard of, obviously included to preclude criticism. Let's not forget what's genuinely rare and unheard of - the BBC bringing its massive influence to bear on the massive threat Saddam, Osama, and terrorism itself poses to civilization itself.
Okay, so the BBC doesn't get the post 9/11 ethos, doesn't get that Americans haven't become unconcerned about their fundamental rights under the constitution, or that the Bush administration is waging a war on terror precisely to protect that constitution from meeting the same fate as those majestic twin towers that are no more, from the horror that denuded lower Manhattan of its best and brightest claim to majesty. But aren't they supposed to be a news agency? Weren't we all brought up to admire the BBC as a puprveyer of the news, without bias, without deceit?
With that in mind, ask yourself just how newsworthy is it, really, that one Lordly clueless Brit decides to go off on President Bush, if a news organization isn't going to make the connection for its readers and watchers between this kind of Bush-hatred with the Bush-hatred of Saddam and Osama?
