We at the Spittoon are opposed to detention without due process and we firmly believe that the need to put an end to it is non-negotiable and opposition to it is imperative within any free society. It makes no difference whether the extra-judicial detainment happens to take place in Sudan, Iran, Pakistan or Guantanamo.
So we support, in principle, initiatives like the Guantanamo Bay Rally held yesterday, organised by Amnesty UK. It boasted quite a high-profile line up of speakers and backing organisations.
Speakers;
Louise Christian from Christian Khan Solicitors
Imran Khan from Imran Khan Solicitors
Kevin Laue from Redress
Amnesty Representative
Sunny Hundal from Pickled Politics
Representative from Reprieve
Helen Bamber from Helen Bamber Foundation
Andy Worthington journalist and author of ‘The Guantanamo Files’Organisations in support include;
Redress
London Guantanamo Campaign
Cage prisoners
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers
Political activists who stand against the use of extra-judicial detainment and illegal imprisonment should be keenly sensitive to the complexities of the Guantanamo issue, particularly when it comes to whom they share a platform with. Which is why Amnesty UK should be prepared to answer some very pointed questions as to why they have chosen Cage Prisoners as one of their backing organisations.
Back in August, Cage Prisoners organised a Ramadan Dinner event at Kensington Town Hall at which Anwar al-Awlaki, a leading Jihadist preacher, was planned to address the audience via video-link from Yemen. The event was ultimately prevented from going ahead, thanks to alarms raised by alert writers from Harry’s Place and the Spittoon. The attempts by CSC and other counter-extremist groups to highlight the nature of al-Awlaki’s views led to the government’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU) issuing a statement that al-Awlaki had been banned from the event.
It is important to get our heads around who Anwar al-Awlaki is, what he represents and why he is now the foremost English-language scholar of choice for promoters of the doctrine of global jihad.
This is the same al-Awlaki who considers the Somali extremist insurgent militia group,the al-Shabaab, to be the pinnacle of jihadi warriors. Awlaki admits to his heart filling with “immense joy” when he considers the obscurantist achievements of al-Shabaab in spite of, or more likely because of, it becoming a Somali replica of the early Taliban, including their practice of stoning women to death. This is the same al-Awlaki who justifies the killing of Jewish women and children.
Unsurprisinigly, al-Shabaab have shown their gratitude to al-Awlaki by reciprocating salutations to him in kind. Very recently the grandees of al-Shabaab issued a video through which they sent an explicit message of loyalty and servitude to Osama bin-Laden.
Nearly halfway into this cleverly edited jihadist recruitment video [at 4:40], you will be able to hear the voice of Sheikh Abu Zubeir the “Amir-Harakat” of al-Shabab addressing Osama bin Laden:
And Allah willing, Islam will not be let down from our side for we have learned that the path to restore the glory to this Nation and the establishment of Allah’s Shara can only be through Jihad for the sake of Allah and confronting the enemies of Allah. So receive glad tidings and rejoice, and we are awaiting your guidance in this advanced stage in the life of Jihad, in which the challenges of fighting the occupiers have overlapped with the requirements of establishing the Islamic State. And may Allah reward you from us and on behalf of the Muslims, and may Allah bless you Jihad and your actions.
The ideological differences between Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Qaeda, Osama bin-Laden, al-Shabaab and their offshoots are almost indiscernible.
The time has come for Amnesty UK to get acquainted with those pointed questions.
What if Cage Prisoners had organised their Iftar Dinner at Kensington Town Hall and, as a treat for their guests, video-linked David Irving all the way from the comfort of his Berkshire country house, to make a glowing speech on how Hitler had filled his heart with immense joy? What if they had allowed David Duke the opportunity to regail their dinner guests with a religious sermon which doubled as an advocacy session for the KKK?
Would Amnesty UK have included Cage Prisoners as one of their backers to a Guantanamo rally in either of those hypothetical situations? I think we all know the answer to that one. So what makes Anwar al-Awlaki acceptable to them?
Now consider the language of the Amnesty brochure:
“To celebrate the new legal year we are holding a demonstration on behalf of the 229 Guantanamo detainees to show that much still needs to be done to free them from illegal detention. Please join us and hold one of the 229 placards to show your solidarity for the detainees.”
Al-Qaeda terror chief Khaled Shaikh Mohammed is one of the 229 detainees at Guantanamo
Of those 229 detainees of Gitmo is the Saudi terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (left). This man has admitted to being responsible “from A to Z” for the September 11 attacks and has claimed to have personally slaughtered and decapitated the kidnapped US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, in addition to being the “kingpin” of some 30 al-Qaeda plots.
Amnesty UK is correct to say that all 229 Guantanamo detainees should be freed from “illegal detention” but does that mean Amnesty UK wants al-Qaeda terrorists amongst the 229, such as Khaled Shaikh Mohammed himself and also Mohammed al-Qahtani, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ammar al-Baluchi and Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, to be shown our our doubt-free solidarity?
Evidently so.
Amnesty UK makes no mention on its brochure on initiatives for the provision for due process it has undertaken, if any. They make no mention on why they have chosen to partner with Cage Prisoners, a group which promotes Anwar al-Awlaki and masquerades as a human rights organisation. And it has managed to dumb-down the complex ramifications of the central issues by exhorting members of the public to offer their unqualified “solidarity” for the “freedom” of al-Qaeda detainees.
Amnesty UK’s Guantanamo Rally yesterday sided with those whose intention it is to close down Guantanamo and provide known terrorists with access to legal rights, for which it must be supported and congratulated, but makes no disapproving noises of terrorism in general nor the actions of the al-Qaeda terrorists in Guantanamo in particular. By doing so, it has ended up exposing its own blind-spot when it comes to political and jihadi Islamist extremism.
22 Comments
Faisal,
I have been a member of AI for about 3 years now, and their work is, for the most part, excellent. That they choose to align themselves with Cage Prisoners (CP)seems to me to be a sensible and productive move. CP’s raison d’etre is to highlight the shambolic treatment afforded to terror suspects in the Muslim and Non-Muslim world – this is a noble aim and one that I am sure we can all agree with.
Your gripe with CP, it seems, is their invitation to Al-Awlaki to address a gathering last year. Although the speech never took place, I imagine the nature of the talk would have been solely focused on his own treatment at the hands of the Yemini authorities, not as a platform to voice his support for Jihadi groups.
Additionally, AI’s stance that guantanamo detainees be freed from illegal detention does not necessarily mean that they are against the detention per se, but their ILLEGAL detention. AI’s solidarity with certain prisoners ends at the point that they are given a fair trial.
Hassan
Your gripe with CP, it seems, is their invitation to Al-Awlaki to address a gathering last year. Although the speech never took place, I imagine the nature of the talk would have been solely focused on his own treatment at the hands of the Yemini authorities, not as a platform to voice his support for Jihadi groups.
The al-Awlaki speech was to be this year. His speech never took place, not because CP suddenly had a late fit of remorse. It was because sane British citizens informed the local authority concerned.
And as for your need to imagine what the nature of the talk would be like – well that’s only going to be a worthwhile exercise if you can be fair enough to include the kind of polemical material that Awlaki normally expounds on on his website. Can you do that? If so, you’re going to have to include all the Jihadi stuff that make up 90% of his material.
Furthermore, do you think it would be acceptable for Nick Griffin to be given space in a speech by a group endorsed by AI, as long he banged on about the shoddy treatment he has received at the hands of British authorities?
So why is it acceptable for you in the case al-Awlaki?
Hassan, your assumptions are generous but, unfortunately, unfounded as Awlaki did record the talk and Cage Prisoners published it on their website here. In part two of the talk, Awlaki calls al-Maqdisi (”the key contemporary ideologue in the Jihadi intellectual universe” according to USMA) “one of the great scholars of our time”. Awlaki did not simply talk about his experiences at the hands of the Yemeni authorities, he praised one of the key ideologues of contemporary jihadist thinking. This is the kind of person that Cage Prisoners promotes. Do you think that is acceptable?
Hassan
Precisely how stupid do you think we are?
Yossarian,
I stand corrected. I was unaware that the speech had been posted on CP.
Faisal,
Furthermore, do you think it would be acceptable for Nick Griffin to be given space in a speech by a group endorsed by AI, as long he banged on about the shoddy treatment he has received at the hands of British authorities?
This is an interesting point. Would you be equally outraged if AI decided to invite John McCain to speak about human rights abuse? Considering that he once had dealings with racist islamophobes? Tony Blair was responsible for an illegal war in Iraq, should he be black listed too?
Many groups/individuals are, directly or otherwise, associated with unsavoury characters. However, in order for progress to be made, it is sometimes worthwhile to engage with groups despite their shortcomings, in the hope that they will learn the error of their ways.
David T,
I actually think you’re all pretty smart.
Hassan.
Hassan
I understand the point you’re making but it’s irrelevant to this discussion, isn’t it. Neither McCain nor Blair are in the same category as Irving, Duke or al-Awlaki and as such, make for pretty poor counter-examples.
I think there are two issues here that Amnesty need to address:
1) Why does Amnesty UK think it is acceptable to form a partnership with Cage Prisoners who are promoters of Anwar al-Awlaki?
2) Guantanamo prisoners should either be freed or made to face a proper court of law, or in other words, due process. But there is no mention of due process in the Amnesty brochure. All I see is calls to show “solidarity” with Guantanamo detainees. But solidarity with whom? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
It’s a complex issue. Amnesty have done a fine job to dumb it down and botch it up.
Thank you. In that case, please stop running such poor arguments.
What the Islamist extreme Right craves more than anything else is the opportunity to be pictured, not alongside some sorry raggedy Trots, but with a somebody worthy and mainstream. There’s nothing new in this tactic. It is, after all, precisely what the neo Nazi far right and the revolutionary socialist far Left tries from time to time.
The problem with embracing sectarian politics of this sort – apart from its intrinsically vicious nature – is that it simply encourages general sectarianism, as all sides rush to the extremes, in order to get a better deal. The middle is wiped out.
Jack Straw is about to go up against Nick Griffin on Question Time. He is a sensible mainstream social democrat and should be able to wipe the floor with a dolt like Griffin. However, the cosseting of ‘moderate Islamists’ – whose politics are easily as extreme as Griffin’s if not more so – that Straw has practiced in his own constituency and to some extent in office gives scum like Griffin a free kick at goal. Straw will rightly call him an extremist: but Griffin’s constituency will think:
“Yes, but at least he’s OUR extremist”.
This is a hugely dangerous situation. It is ripping our nation apart.
What makes this more absurd is that the Islamist far right has no intention at all of being dragged into the centre. Why do they need to, when they’re getting dialogue, access, and prestige for nothing.
Moreover, it isn’t as if they have doubts about what they believe. These are guys who trade in what they believe are divinely mandated eternal values. The concession they make are strategic only.
You know all this, of course.
And what makes this worse is that we need a group like Amnesty, HRW, etc. These are the values which define our society.
Once you junk your reputation, who is there to speak up credibly against abuses where the subjects are unpopular, and the rights at stake poorly understood?
Faisal,
1) Why does Amnesty UK think it is acceptable to form a partnership with Cage Prisoners who are promoters of Anwar al-Awlaki?
I will reiterate what I said previously. CP have a primary purpose of highlighting human rights abuses. This dovetails rather nicely with AI’s own goals and objectives. The idea that AI should alienate a group that does a lot of good work, because said group have vague affiliations with a speaker who holds unsavoury views seems a tad OTT for my liking.
2) Guantanamo prisoners should either be freed or made to face a proper court of law, or in other words, due process. But there is no mention of due process in the Amnesty brochure. All I see is calls to show “solidarity” with Guantanamo detainees. But solidarity with whom? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
I think this is probably an oversight on AI’s part, but an easy mistake to make, dont you think? It might be worthwhile to contact AI to see why no mention of due-process was made? Perhaps it was tacitly implied? I haven’t read the brochure, so I cannot really comment.
–
What are your general views on AI?
Hassan
1. Your opinions are based on your own comfort zones. Some people will find David Duke’s politics falls in their comfort zone but are outraged by al-Awlaki. Others, such as yourself obviously find al-Awlaki’s politics within your comfort zone but I’m guessing you wouldn’t find David Duke’s values particularly acceptable.
But a prominent top-tier human rights organisation such as Amnesty UK cannot be biased. By partnering with CP, it has trashed it’s ethical objectivity and its position, as David T says, to speak “credibly against abuses where the subjects are unpopular, and the rights at stake poorly understood”. Having done so, it sends out a this signal: “Amnesty does not regard Islamist terrorism a human rights violation”.
2) If it was a mistake, it was a very big one. Too big to be regarded as merely an oversight. It is more likely a tactical decision which amounts to nothing less than insidious “fuck you” to the 22,000+ victims of terrorism in Pakistan every year. Most of the victims are Muslim and the atrocities are almost always perpetrated by Islamists drunk on al-Qaeda ideology. The same kind of ideology promoted directly by Cage Prisoners. Most of those victims of terrorism whom Amnesty neatly avoids giving any due consideration, happen to be the poorest, most disenfranchised people in the world.
“What are your general views on AI?”
I’m glad that I now know where their loyalties lie.
The blind spot is again with the hypocrites of Spitoons and Harrys Place
They rant about Awlaki but ignore a supporter of bombing British troops coming to the UK
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece
Rest assured if this guy was Muslim not Jewish theyd be all over him
“It was because sane British citizens informed the local authority concerned.”
You mean of course “zionist extremists”
If rejecting Caged Prisoners is valid because of their links to Awlaki rejeting the extremists at Spittoon is even more so given their links to loony extremists like Baet Yor, Douglas Murray, Robert Spencer and Serje Trifokovic and promotion of their workd
David T
And, with much more success, the Zionist extreme right of which you are allied to
Ali = Muslim = Munir = blah = deranged paranoid troll
Effendi
From people who consider Douglas Murray, Baet Yor, Robert Spencer and Harrys Place normal this is surely the highest compliment!
I should also mention “anti-Muslim bigot” given your hatred of the very poorest of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims, who you think are expendable as long as some Saudi-bankrolled terrorist can get to an arms depot.
Effendi
Faisal why do you lie so shamelessly and put words into people’s mouths they never said ?
Give you support the Pakistani armies slaughter of civilians under the guise of the “war on terror” its a bit rich for you to talk about others considering their lives expendable. And the racism that pervades this blog against Arab Muslims (even under the guise of supporting Asian Muslims) is despicable and discredits you further.
“Faisal why do you lie so shamelessly and put words into people’s mouths they never said ?”
You’ve said it many times under many false names. You support al-Qaeda terrorism and you fully back their ideologues like al-Awlaki.
Your words your mouth.
A complete lie. Utterly false. I oppose ALL terrorism be it Al Qaida or far greater State terrorism by the US/Israel etc . I dont agree with Awlaki or his ideas either particularly his support for Al Shabab. Doesnt mean Im going to subscribe to your Muslim/Islam hating agenda and join as you have with people who hate Muslims and Islam.
Think youll find the vast majority of Muslims would agree with me rather than you.
Think youll find the vast majority of Muslims would agree with me rather than you.
I think you’ll find the vast majority of al-Qaeda-inspired fanatics and Jamaati cadres agree with you.
Are you seriously suggesting that the vast majority of Muslims , while condemning and opposing what Al qaeda do, dont also oppose US and Israeli terror and slaughtering of Muslims? That might be what you tell your zionist mates/sponsors but everyone else knows its bull.
No I’m saying that you’ll find your opinions are concomitant with the vast majority of al-Qaeda-inspired fanatics and Jamaati cadres, for whom you are also an apologist.