You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the company
of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
|
|
item0021E 518, 519 518 11 November 2002 Death by Drone The assassination in Yemen, by US remote-control airborne robot, of one Abu Ali, reported to be a "leading associate" of Osama bin Laden (together with five unnamed car-passengers) was an outrage. If it accorded with the Forces' "Terms of Engagement", then either Bush or the Military High Command should be indicted. Yet public reaction has been slow. I suspect that the report came as such a profound shock that it has been difficult to appreciate its sheer enormity and gross criminality - it certainly did not sink in, with me, for a couple of days. On last Thursday's TV Question Time (7 November) Mo Mowlam's outrage was evident, while the hapless David "Two Brains" Willetts actually defended the action, as entirely consistent with international law. But the attack was a grievous wrong. Yemen is a country at peace. The US forces were acting without express Yemeni approval, indeed the drone may not even have been launched from Yemeni territory - it may itself have been an invading aircraft. The so-called "war on terrorism" cannot possibly be used to justify maverick cowboy killings of this kind, even in states where law enforcement is adjudged by the USA to be weak, or the State itself adjudged to have "failed". The dead men were not posing any perceptible threat to the USA, driving along in the Yemeni desert. They were not being chased "in hot pursuit", having been caught red-handed in any wrongdoing. Indeed, even if Abu Ali was himself travelling in the car, there is no information at all about the identities of his five fellow-passengers. They are not even accused of any wrongdoing. And what was the evidence against Abu Ali, anyway? Britain must stand out against the abuse of State power, precisely of this kind. This week in another case, the Lords Justice of the Court of Appeal, while rejecting an appeal by a UK prisoner held by America at Guantanamo Bay, trenchantly condemned the US action in holding prisoners of war in the reported conditions - without lawyers, without charge, without trial. These grievous wrongs, said their Lordships, were for politicians to resolve, not English judges. But they were in no doubt about the wrongfulness of US actions. Nor should we shrink from condemning the USA for the Yemeni murders. Blair must find the opportunity, and the strength of mind, to make a public condemnation of both these actions. Whispering in George Dubya's ear will not be enough. The subservient courtier must learn to become the contesting champion.
What do you think? Drop me a line
519 11 November 2002
Asylum LAW in This week's end-of-Term fracas over the Asylum Bill was a grave embarrassment to everybody. The Government is stumbling from one crisis to another, with David Blunkett persistently trying to "get tough with foreigners" in order to head off right-wingers at the electoral pass - he clearly wants to win the racist vote, next time. In my view, that strategy is misconceived, as well as being morally repugnant: racists are not going to vote Labour merely because the Government has given way to the Right on migration control.Instead, Labour should signal its intention to work for major systemic change, by way of negotiated international settlement. The underlying problem is that there has never been any comprehensive statutory foundation for migration management in English law. Before the 1850s, there were no constraints on immigration and there was no concept of UK nationality. During the 1850s, as the British Empire continued to flourish, the Government introduced passports, which were simply identity-cards useful to intrepid (and usually wealthy) British travellers as they wandered abroad.Later in the century, Britain became a popular liberal haven for European political refugees, particularly when hounded out of their home countries for their political radicalism. And it was out of that tradition that the asylum legislation emerged. Later, during WW1 the concept of "alien" developed, as it became a crime to trade with Germans, designated the alien enemy. Finally, as concepts of "national citizenship" strengthened throughout the world, the British Empire became an evermore tangled legal thicket, the complexities of which are only now being finally unwound. Opportunist legislation has been layered, one Act upon another, without generating any new coherent framework. And the underlying legal principle of this system (albeit never so baldly stated) is that all migration is illegal - that is, the very presence upon the territory of State A of any person other than one of its own citizens is illegal, unless valid permission has been granted (visa, permit, licence, or Treaty commitment as with the European Union). It is this proposition which generates all the most critical problems of migration control. The only answer is to design an international management system which gives migrants far greater and more satisfactory legal options to move, albeit suitably regulated and controlled.
And remember to let me know what you think - drop me a line
|
|
|
|
Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT NOTICE
|
New