On the button again Craig.

The really depressing thing is the apparent total lack of public concern about it too. Particularly jailing a man for simply passing an official document to the MP he was working for.

Presumably the only way that the Al-Jazeera bombing in Qatar could have worked is if the US made it look like a terrorist action and then blamed it on someone else. How else could they keep their large air base in Qatar?

I haven't seen this angle explored in the papers as yet but I can't see how any other scenarios make any sense. I can't imagine that even the US would contemplate openly bombing their host country (without that government's approval). Even the most compliant regimes would protest - most probably by evicting the U.S air base.

Jailing these whistle-blowers is a disgrace, and it is equally disgraceful that there has been no outcry about this in the national press. The press is becoming increasingly pro-establishment.

Well said Craig. Mr Justice Aikens is indeed a complete wanker, and the trial he presided over was a sham.

2 points..

1. If the MP had been a Privy Councillor, would it have been an offence under OSA ?

2. It may be offensive to call Judge Aikens ("Dicky" Aikens as he was known at school) a wanker (even if true)but surely it is not illegal ... however if you had said you doubted he had the mental capacity to combine the physical strength and co-ordinationequired with the required imagination ... you might have been questioning his competence, in which case you would probably be breakfasting on porridge in the White Tower by now.

None of this account seems unfamiliar in essence. The specific facts belong to this case alone, but the stance, actions taken, and results can be demonstrated for many other judicial and administrative disciplinary actions over previous decades. What is shocking is that this government adminstration is wholly denying what it is, an authoritarian regime whose punitive and exemplary response is all of a piece with earlier executive regimes.

I'd love to see Mr Justice Aikens sueing for libel because he'd been called a wanker. Several defences seem possible. Vulgar abuse, for instance, is a defence, though not commonly used. So is truth: "Mr Justice Aikens, are you now, or have you ever been, in any sense of the word, a wanker? ... and you are asking the jury to believe ...."

Alas, they wouldn't use libel but contempt of court - as I understand it (and I'm not a lawyer) far less opportunity for debate in open court.

On the related topic of events kept out of the public eye, what's going on with this U.S./EU trade treaty - blogged about at http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/kathleenzbell "End of a holiday", including links to a couple of websites. I lack the expertise to analyse it fully but it seems dodgy to me in th light of the Canadian experience.

1. Is it also a coincidence that this was buried under the Blair resignation?

2. As this is already all over the press in the rest of the world (including USA), the only embarrassment being caused is to the UK. By Wanker Aikens.

I find it amusing that these sort of gagging orders and DA Notices (formerly D-Notices) are now so totally ineffective due to the internet. These things can only work when there are a few channels of information that can be controlled.

I particularly enjoyed the split second when reading this where I thought that "The judge, Mr Justice Aikens, is clearly a complete wanker" was a direct quote from the Norton-Taylor Guardian article.... bless you for your gloriously incorrect blogging style, Craig!!

Four quickies: (1) I'm not clear about what precisely is in non-British newspapers/sites that we can't get in our papers here. Is the memo and the content of what was said in the closed court sessions available anywhere - if so, can we have a link?

(2) I am trying to get hold of the name of the jail where Leo O'Connor and David Keogh are so we can publicise this across the net and get them some good old snail mail letters of support. Any info out there?

(3) I would also like to totally endorse your "what a terrible shame that the would-be leakers decided to try to use the newspapers rather than the Net", comment Craig. It's a bloody disaster that these guys are in jail and we still don't have the memo here in UK - I mean, letter of support, but guys, you bloody idiots!!

(4) Interesting point mentioned on another site was that blowing up Al Jazeera in Qatar is a totally different kettle of fish to blowing them up in Baghdad - US couldn't blame a missile for someone else that went astray. Hence what Bush had in mind must have been a faked terrorist attack "black op"?

I didn't hear the civil servant complaining when he was picking up his wages for all those years.

It may be a popular dig, but it doesn't make a rational charge Pundit. David Keogh has sacrificed his job , significant reputation and freedom to reveal a suspected war criminals illegal intentions. What the guy could be heard to complain about while he was still on the payroll would be a red herring and wild goose chase in one. He is off the payroll and jailed for taking the ethical course.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: