There's a lot of press coverage at the moment of the alleged massacre at
Haditha. If substantiated it is, of course, an appalling war crime of the worst sort.

I don't want to discuss Haditha directly but rather the wider issue. Why are we so
surprised that atrocities happen in war? Or, more precisely, why are we so surprised that "our" troops commit them?

War is about killing. It's legalised murder. We take young men and women and train them to be killers. Sure, we also try to teach them rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention - the "laws and customs" of war. But they're just weak leashes on the taunted Rottweiler. When the leash slips, the killer we've created is let loose.

Yes, there are a few soldiers who enjoy violence and are filled with hate. But most of them are good kids, often extremely brave, sent to a foreign country to kill or be killed.

How do you get good kids to kill people? By dehumanising the enemy. That's the first step in waging any war. Stop the soldiers from thinking of the enemy as people, think of them instead as a faceless evil. Call them names and avoid seeing the body count as individuals. Rusky, Jerry, Yankee, infidel - not people with families and lives.

Of course this is only meant to apply to enemy soldiers. But it's not that simple. Once you start dehumanising a whole group, country or race then the poison is bound to spread.

So from time to time atrocities will happen as pumped up, scared and angry young soldiers take out their emotions on those they have been conditioned to consider as less than human. If the enemy soldiers are subhuman and the enemy civilians support the enemy soldiers, what signal does that send about the civilians?

Am I saying that soldiers shouldn't be punished for their part in atrocities? Of course not. They are responsible for their actions. There may be explanations but no excuse.

What I'm saying is that responsibility for any atrocity goes right up the chain of command, even if there is no direct involvement.

The moral responsibility for each and every atrocity is shared by the people who initiated, supported and planned the war. I'm sure they're genuinely horrified by reports such as those out of Haditha. However they have to face the fact that by starting the war they set in motion a chain of events that would inevitably lead to the deaths of civilians and, occasionally, major atrocities.

There is no such thing as a noble war.

Which is one reason why I support the Peace Pledge:

"I renounce war and will never support or sanction another"


Tags: haditha peace war

The Observer last weekend had this wonderful piece from Henry Porter attacking the government's plans for a vast, intrusive National Identity Register.

I especially liked Porter's description of Katherine Courtney, previously the government's ID Cards Program Director. According to Porter, Katherine Courtney:

"...is to British freedom and privacy what Cruella DeVil was to Dalmatian puppies"

Nice.

George Galloway is a strange guy. He says an awful lot with which I agree. When he concentrates he is a superb politician and debater - last year he performed magnificently in front of the Senate Committee in Washington (watch it here).

Yet he also manages to say things in a way that winds me up as much as anyone else. Very often it's simply because he fails to make himself clear even when he has the opportunity to do so.

The latest example (reported on the BBC) comes from an interview with GQ magazine. Galloway was asked:

"Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber, if there were no other casualties, be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?"

and replied:

"Yes it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it, but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7"

I spluttered over that one - to me, murder is never morally justifiable..

But that's not what Galloway meant. He later clarified:

"From the point of view of someone who has seen their country invaded and their family blown apart it's possible, of course, for them to construct a moral justification."

A subtle distinction but a vital one.

Galloway was saying that people would justify an attack on Blair, not that he would agree with that justification.

Not only do I agree with Galloway but I think he was making a vital point. The invasion of Iraq has made it easier for terrorists to recruit. They use arguments and "justifications" with which I disagree, but it has made it easier for them to recruit.

The invasion of Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one.

Following Amnesty International's human rights report I've been thinking about how the UK and the US have reacted post-911. Both have been racing towards an authoritarian state, however the approaches have been very different. Whereas Bush has charged forward like a frenzied hare, Blair has managed to convince many people that he's a harmless tortoise.

Bush has been running fast towards a police state, for example with the Patriot Act. Blair has proceeded more cautiously, doing things piecemeal.

So Bush has Guantanamo Bay. Blair would never do anything like that, of course not. But there are accusations that the government has turned a blind eye to US "rendition" flights. Oh, and don't forget control orders which allow the Home Secretary to place anyone under house arrest without the inconvenience of a trial. Plus the recent extension of the period terror suspects can be detained without charge from 14 to 28 days (Blair wanted 90 - he still does). Remember, innocent people like you and I can be suspects.

In the US there was recently a fuss over Bush's alleged harelike rush into data retention. Here things were done slowly and "by the book". So we had the 2002 RIPA Extension followed by further invasions of privacy.

The US government still at least pays lip service to the constitutional right to free speech. Here in the UK we have no written constitution, so Blair was able to force through his dangerous glorification offence.

There's more, for example the introduction by stealth of a national DNA database plus, of course, the proposed ID Cards and the huge, intrusive National Identity Register.

In the race to a police state, Blair may be a tortoise but he's a determined one.

We all know how the fable ends: the tortoise wins. And the people of Britain lose.

When an unimportant dissident like me attacks Tony Blair over his record on civil liberties and human rights then no-one really cares. When the condemnation comes from a respected organisation such as Amnesty International then people should pay attention.

Amnesty has just released its 2005 report. Here's how the section on the UK begins:

"The government continued to erode fundamental human rights, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, including by persisting with attempts to undermine the ban on torture at home and abroad, and by enacting and seeking to enact legislation inconsistent with domestic and international human rights law. Nonetheless, it lost its legal battle to reverse the ban on the admissibility in judicial proceedings of information obtained through torture as evidence. In July, 52 people were killed and hundreds wounded as a result of bomb attacks on the London transport system. Measures purporting to counter terrorism led to serious human rights violations, and concern was widespread about the impact of these measures on Muslims and other minority communities."

You can read the full damning report on the UK here:

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/gbr-summary-eng

The one bright point in the report is the positive role played by the judiciary. No wonder the government wants to limit its powers.

The government is considering teaching core "British values" in schools. For once I find myself agreeing with the government.

So the next question is: what exactly are core British values? Here are three I'd choose:

• The supremacy of the people
  The people give the government leave to exist - not the other way round
  
  
• The importance of privacy
  The government's information on individuals should be restricted to the minimum necessary
  
  
• The assumption of innocence
  People should be able to go about their legal business without constantly having to explain, identify or justify themselves
  
  

I suspect most Brits would agree with those values.

All three are under threat from Tony Blair's proposed scheme to impose compulsory National Identity Cards and a huge, intrusive National Identity Register.

It hasn't taken the government long to start breaking the promises they made over their compulsory identity card scheme. Earlier this year the Home Office said that anyone who didn't want to be forced onto the intrusive National Identity Register (NIR) would allowed to renew their passport early. Based on this assurance, NO2ID started the renewforfreedom campaign.

Today, NO2ID protestors at the Glasgow passport office were refused entrance and told that the facility had been "suspended".

It seems that this government supports civil liberties - until people actually try to exercise them.

If the government is already betraying its promises on ID Cards before they've been introduced, how can we trust them not to abuse the system in the future?

NO2ID Scotland has issued a press release which I've included below.




NO2ID Scotland 15/05/2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

QUEUE TURNED AWAY FROM GLASGOW PASSPORT OFFICE - FACILITY "SUSPENDED"

Glasgow Passport office turned away a queue of people this morning,
refusing to allow passport application forms to be handed in. Despite
assurances in Parliament from Home Office ministers that people would
be able to renew early to avoid registration on the National Identity
Register (NIR), the chief of security announced that the facility to
do so had been "suspended".

NO2ID, the campaign against ID cards and the database state, are
calling on people to renew their passports this month to avoid losing
their privacy to the NIR. After checking with the Passport Advice line
last week that Glasgow Passport office would accept applications at
the door, NO2ID Scotland invited the general public to join privacy
campaigners to "Renew for Freedom" this morning at 10:00.



However, the new Identity and Passport Service apparently wishes to
obstruct people wishing to avoid compulsory registration. The queue of
hopeful applicants, including local politician Patrick Harvie MSP,
were turned away, told by the chief of security that the facility had
been "suspended". Members of the general public who tried to hand in
application forms after NO2ID activists had left were also refused
entry.

- ENDS -

NOTES FOR EDITORS

Photos of the event are available from NO2ID Scotland. These include
photographs of the queue which was turned away and activists in
costumes which depict the dehumanisation that will follow the
introduction of new Home Office procedures.

Quotes from local people on their reasons for renewal:

Jo Swinson MP:

"The Government's ID card scheme will be hugely expensive, will erode
the civil liberties of people in this country, and I for one am not
convinced that it will effectively meet its stated aims. The former
Home Secretary Charles Clarke admitted that ID cards would not have
stopped the 7th July bombers.

"I oppose the creation of a national identity database, and am making
sure I renew my passport in May this year in order to postpone my
inclusion on it for as long as possible."


Bob Downie, a geological consultant from Glasgow:

"I am renewing my passport early to avoid, for a long as possible, the
government spying upon my innocent daily activities. This they have no
right to do. I resent their demand to take my fingerprints and iris
scan as if I were a criminal. Most of all, I abhor the climate of
suspicion that the ID cards will cause to permeate throughout our
society."



For further information, or for immediate or future interview, contact
NO2ID Scotland co-ordinator Geraint Bevan e-mail: scotland@no2id.net

Just seen on Sky News:

Sky News Alert

First Pictures of Spurs Lasagne

Words fail me. And before anyone accuses me of a sense of humour failure, the presenters seemed to be treating it as serious news.

If you haven't done so yet, pop into the Post Office and pick up a passport renewal form. Even if your passport doesn't expire yet. Especially if your passport doesn't expire yet.

Why? Because once the National Identity Register goes online, anyone renewing a passport will be forced to provide large amounts of personal information and be registered. Once on the database you won't get off until it's scrapped. You will be subject to various obligations and possible fines, your privacy will vanish.

By renewing early you can - if the government keeps its word - stay off the database for another ten years.

Why May? Because the NO2ID campaign is organising a coordinated protest to make a point. By renewing your passport in May - especially by renewing early - you will be telling the government that you don't want to be scanned, numbered and issued a licence to live.

NO2ID has no intention of upsetting anyone's holiday plans, hence the action in May rather than the summer. If the Identity and Passport "Service" says that they can't cope with the extra numbers then the action will be called off.

More info at the Renew For Freedom site.

It's no good. I thought I had the blogging urge beat, but it turns out I just can't stay away. I need somewhere to rant and throw my thoughts into the void. Even if no-one listens, it makes me feel better! So the Atu XVIII blog is back.

"I tolerate this century but I don't enjoy it."