Journoblog

Please go to the fabulous new Journoblog.com to continue following this blog. Thanks for your continued support!

Best wishes,

Andrew Giddings

No one was really surprised to find out that MI5 was aware of the torture of Binyam Mohamed, but being unsurprised does not mean being unconcerned.

Governments, along with their security and intelligence agencies, have always kept secrets from the public. Usually with good reason, one would hope, but this issue is difficult to gauge. Most people are saddened by the news that MI5 knew about about it and did little, if anything, to discourage it. But are we better off for knowing about it?

Faith in MI5 has been shaken, and its chief, Jonathan Evans, notes that this embarrassment may well be used as propaganda by those who don't have the prosperity of Britain and the US in mind. Whether that is the fault of the court for making the information public, or of MI5 for their conduct in the first place, will always be open for debate.

Perhaps a more pressing question is whether or not the safety of the British public has been compromised. It has been hinted that the USA may think twice before sharing intelligence with Britain in future. Is it worth the trade off?

It is human nature for people to want to be aware of such things. No one likes the idea of hushed conversations behind closed doors, especially when their taxes are paying for the coffee. But while the public will generally be pleased with the judgement that this information be made available, the price of this information is a rattled confidence in the powers that control the country, and a potential decrease in intelligence, and therefore in national security.

Looked at in this way, many people would prefer to be kept in the dark about such matters if it means they're more likely to be able to ride a bus in relative safety. Secrecy is integral to security on this scale, and no one can judge whether we should have a lot of secrecy or just a little bit of secrecy.

Well, a judge can judge it. But does a person's position within the legal system mean their judgements are right and accurate? David Miliband says no. The CIA says no. What do you say?

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mimicked one of Sarah Palin's many embarrassing moments on Saturday: He wrote his notes on his hand for his daily White House briefing to journalists.

During a speech on Saturday, Sarah Palin showed her Tennessee audience (and the rest of the world) that she hasn't lost her touch when it comes to humiliating herself; a glimpse of her hand revealed that she had scrawled the reminders "energy", "tax", and of course "lift american spirits". Clearly, it was difficult for her to remember three points which have (probably) been included in every major US political speech in the last ten years, so Robert Gibbs decided to poke fun at her.

Delivering his brief, Gibbs allowed photographers to capture images of his palm, revealing his own list: "Milk, Eggs, Bread, Hope, Change"

This is a rather clever move. It takes a jab at the Republicans, who have been gaining ground on the Obama administration, adds some humour to a hard political time, and gathers a great deal of media attention (even that of this respected weblog). The Democrats will be attacked for this, but there's no denying that while ridicule may be childish, it has always been a very effective tactic to make a joke of the opposition- John Wilkes provides a shining example.

Thomson Reuters has reported the killing of 14 high school students by gunmen in Mexico on Sunday.

Reporter Julian Cardona described the scene at Ciudad Juarez as a massacre, saying: "Gunmen jumped out of sport utility vehicles and fired at the students... in a house in the city across the border from El Paso, Texas... Bodies lay on the street outside and pools of blood collected by nearby parked cars. Inside the house, the walls were stained with blood and marked with bullet holes"

Ciudad Juarez is one of the world's most dangerous cities. Attacks like this are not uncommon and often involve drug cartels.


Reports like this are shocking for everyone who reads them, but one has to wonder how different the resulting thoughts and feelings may be between people in Britain and those who live in Mexico or the US. 

Of course, the closer to the scene you reside, the more likely it is that you knew someone involved. Gun crime is more common on the American side of the Atlantic and the danger seems all the more real.

Thousands of miles of ocean must help the British people distance themselves from such events, the likes of which are virtually unheard of in the UK. But perhaps the otherworldliness of the situation makes it harder to comprehend and upsetting in a different way. 


But as illegal weapons and organised crime crop up more often in the British press, it begs the question: Are incidents like this as far away as we'd like to believe?

After 18 months of economic shrinkage, The Labour Party have finally been given a lifeline in time for the general election. But that lifeline may be rather slippery- the last nation in the European Union to escape recession has done so by just 0.1 percent.


This figure is significant as far as politics is concerned, but is unlikely to affect the lives of those struggling to find work or battling to keep businesses afloat.

Gordon Brown will, of course, be keen to tell the tale about the way he steered Britain through its darkest hour. He will also avoid discussing his role in turning out the lights in the first place. Similarly, Alistair Darling will claim a victory for his financial acumen, as he correctly predicted the quarter in which we would emerge from the recession that went on far too long.

But before anyone pulls the string on their party popper, it's important to remember that the British economy barely has its nostrils above the water; a small ripple will result in more coughing and spluttering. Sterling has dropped against the US dollar and the Euro, the housing market is still poor and unemployment is causing grief for as many families as ever.

Meanwhile, the opposite parties will be planning on inflating these issues until they burst. Come the election, the subject of the economy will be such a jumble of exaggeration and understatements in the House of Commons that the normal people trying to look after their families will struggle to keep track of what's really going on.

I hope the public manage to continue along the course of action that's always been the wisest- take the words of the politicians with a fistful of salt and think for themselves.

Barack Obama is struggling to keep his promise to close down Guantanamo Bay, and all because of 47 difficult prisoners. 

But these prisoners aren't difficult in the way that one might expect. The problem they're causing isn't due to attempted escapes or hunger strikes. What makes them difficult is this: Officials don't know what to do with them.

According to ABC News, "They are reportedly too dangerous to be released, but cannot be tried either because the evidence against them is too flimsy or was extracted by coercion." What this means for these prisoners is they will continue to be held without trial. And "coercion" can probably be read as "torture".

Terrorism is a serious crime. But regarding any other offence, in this end of the world, people have a right to a fair trial. Even if the police or government are certain that someone is guilty of something terrible, multiple rapes and murders for example, they are not charged until enough evidence is gathered for a conviction. If it can't be proven that this person is guilty, they remain free.

Apparently, suspecting that somebody might be considering performing an act of terrorist one day is enough to put them away for the rest of their lives without trial.

The point is this: Imagine indefinite imprisonment as being the result of any other suspicion. Suppose, perhaps, the police knocked your door down one morning and put you in the back of a van. Later, you're thrown in a cell and told you're there because you were suspected of planning to poison a local water supply. You're questioned, perhaps waterboarded now and then, but no charges are brought against you.

Eight years later, you're still in prison. You begin to hear rumours that the facility which has held you for so long may be about to close. The new boss of the country has promised that people will no longer be treated in the way that you have endured. One by one, inmates are released. Hope grows until the day you're called into an office. The conversation goes like this:

"We still think you were planning on poisoning a water supply."
"I wasn't, though."
"We don't believe you. But we don't have any evidence."
"So you're going to release me?"
"No."
"Then what's going to happen?"
"You're going to be here until we have enough evidence to keep you here for the rest of your life."
"What if you never find any evidence?"
"Then we're going to keep you here for the rest of your life."
"Oh."

This is worse than McCarthyism. This is a witch-hunt: If they don't drown, they're burned.