Comments on: Extraordinary Rendition

By: Chuck Unsworth

Chuck Unsworth — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:41:37 +0000

Jim,

Your points are well enough made and - let’s face - it history is littered with the wreckage of ‘good intentions’ and man’s greed.

However, not wishing to cause offence - and if it’s all the same to you, I’d prefer not to fuck you….

By: Big Jim

Big Jim — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:56:15 +0000

Moral outrage? Mmmmm, tricky one that, Pinter territory, best left to experts like Bob -the walking proclamation-Geldof. Sometimes, Chuck, I think these dirty rotters do all these things just to upset you. I mean, Gleneagles, right? Lady Sir Bob and Lady Sir Elton and Mr Bono and Mr Edge and Lady Sir Paul McCartney, they had it all sorted. Justa coupla days of their priceless time and Hey, food for all, free medicines, wind-up radios, the works and then , fuck me, look what happens; Mile High Torture Club, that’s what happens; and tens of thousands freezing their arses off in Pakistan earthquake, thousands awash under gunfire in the dirty waters of Lake Pontchartrain, skin and hair flying around Kensington and here we are now in a place where moral outrage is a busted flush, been a busted flush, in fact, since nobody put Harry Truman on trial after Hiroshima."Whassat goin’ on over there?" "its nothing, just Harold Pinter exercising his moral outrage" " For all the good that’ll do he may as well stick it uo his arse.".

To fight everybody is to fight nobody. Ho Chi Minh said that. Remember him? He was the one with the beard.

By: Mr Pooter

Mr Pooter — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:06:17 +0000

"…there was no evidence that we were aware…",
does not mean that we were not aware and given such tortuous phrasing one might well jump to the conclusion that we were aware but didn’t have a pen handy to take notes.

By: Chuck Unsworth

Chuck Unsworth — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:36:26 +0000

Well Condi has spoken and, entirely predictably, she did not deny that these utterly disgusting ‘renditions’ take place.

But it’s interesting that both the PMOS and Ms Rice have chosen to indicate that the actions are ‘legal’. However, do these ghastly apparatchiks not have any sense of moral outrage?

Others, of rather stronger moral fibre and sheer common sense, have seen this evasion for what it is, condemned it outright and offered evidence. There’s none so visually impaired as those who deliberately turn away from the obvious.

Do we really want to base our actions and our human rights on a system of justice on what is merely ‘legal’, or are we better than that? Some of us clearly are not.

By: Roger Huffadine

Roger Huffadine — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:48:33 +0000

umm… the PMOS means there is not yet anything in the public domain that would result in the CPS taking action against any individual.

Once that information enters the public domain the PMOS will say "well fancy that -I never knew"