Two torture Stories

Another week, another torture story. In fact this week two torture stories.
Binyam Mohammed came back from Guantanamo with a dignified statement but a terrible tale of genital torture in Morocco courtesy of the US. And defence minister John Hutton has announced today that very sorry but yes Britain was involved in extraordinary rendition of two prisoners to the US who have now ended up in prison back in Afghanistan.

If you're one of the few still wondering whether you can believe a
word this government says, Jack Straw has just made your life easier
- by banning publication of the Cabinet minutes of its meetings in the
run up to the Iraq war.

You wonder what conflict of interests lies behind this _ after all J
Straw Justice Minister was J Straw Foreign Secretary back in those
dark days of 2003. What does he have to hide? What does Peter (now
Lord) Goldsmith, who mysteriously seemed to change his mind on the
legality of the war in the course of two weeks in March 2003, have to
hide? Or Tony Blair, rewarded for his role in supporting George Bush
in the war by becoming the 'quartet's' envoy for peace in the Middle
East?

Even if there is nothing to hide, and that's certainly possible given
the supine and gullible nature of the average Cabinet minister, what
an insult that Straw is hiding behind the 30 year rule on the
disclosure of minutes. He claims disclosure would damage the ability
of ministers to have serious discussions on such topics. More likely
it would highlight the lack of discussion -let alone debate -in
Cabinet.

The problem for Straw and his colleagues is that 2 million people who
marched in 2003 rejected the arguments for war, so did the vast
majority of people in Britain, yet the politicians (with some
honourable exceptions) forced us to go to war. We are all still living
with the consequences: the rendition and torture, the devastation of
Iraq, Israel's aggression, and the attacks on civil liberties here at
home.

Latest of these was the leaked document saying that the new definition
for an extremist would be someone who supported resistance abroad.
That's a hell of a lot of people. Others might say that the definition
of extremsist are those dogmatic enough to keep spending money on
weapons of mass destruction when the world is in its worst economic
crisis for 70 years; who recklessly allow the torture of young men;
and consistently support a government bent on attacking thode they
drove of their land in the first place.

Oh, that would be the British government then. Which is where we
began.

Obama will be making his first visit to Britain on April 1/2 as
part of the summit of G20 leaders.

Is the gilt coming off the gingerbread with Obama? There is some
evidence that on questions of war and imperialism it is. First it was
Gaza, an operation green lighted in the last dark days of the Bush
presidency in order at least partly to tie Obama's hands. It seemed to
succeed, with Obama's inauguration speech failing to include the words
'Israel' or 'Gaza'. The rightward shift illustrated with the Israeli
elections should in theory lead to conflict with the US, but both the
nature of Obama's advisers, including of course his secretary of
state, Hillary Clinton, who is pro Israel and anti Iran, make that
less likely.

Then there is Afghanistan. Rising death toll (up by 40 percent among
Afghans in the last year), growing discontent among Afghans, a
collapsing and corrupt government. Obama's solution is 17,000 extra US
troops and the increased bombing of Pakistan by drones.

There is, it is true, some excitement about possible diplomatic
engagement in Syria or Iran. But the closure of Guantanamo is being
compensated for by expanding the Baghram base in Afghanistan. All good
reasons to demonstrate on 1 and 2 April. At least it'll give them
something to talk about in Cabinet.