The Gray Monk

« Sorting ourselves out � | Main | Murder most foul. »

May 11, 2004

Providing aid and comfort to the enemy?

A recent comment left on my post "Public interest reporting", ties in very well with something I was pondering as I drove to work this morning. The news in these last few days has been full of yet more distressing pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused, each paper and TV newscast seemingly vying with all the others to see who can put the most shocking spin to it. Inevitably we now have those classic bleeding hearts at Amnesty International trying to pin a case against the entire UK military contingent.

How al Qaeda and its many vicious surrogates must be enjoying this. The best recruiting agents they now have are not the radical Mullahs, but our own media circus and the likes of Amnesty International's grim faced little hobgoblins who always seem to be promoting the cause of vicious and murderous organisations against civilised society. I find it absolutely incredible that it can be seriously suggested that these well meaning but sadly blinkered people can honestly believe that only the soldiers and "bad guys" get shot, killed or injured in a war zone. Even more incredibly they seem to think it is appropriate to rush into these trouble spots armed only with their zeal for "justice" and "peace" and to determinedly set about undermining the efforts of everyone concerned to bring about just that, by promoting the cause of every murderous gunman they can find.

Yes, there has been a disgraceful breech of the rules of common decency in the treatment of these prisoners, and yes, it must be dealt with. But will somebody please round up all the bleeding hearts and charge them with aiding and abetting lawlessness, disorder, and the promotion of terrorism! Every new photograph merely further inflames the situation and makes the peaceful conclusion even more difficult. They have made their point; it is now for the authorities to deal with it swiftly and effectively. This process will not be helped by the publication of further pictures; these should now be turned in to the custody of the Investigation Teams in all involved countries and the due process of law applied. Trial by the media is what is now taking place, and worse, the self-appointed jury seems to have become the highly political International Committee of the Red Cross and equally politically active Amnesty International.

Not political you say? Think again; both make poiltical decisions, and there is a long record of their refusing to aid countries where refugees had taken shelter from regimes these organisations chose to see as "just" while condemning the country the refugees felt safer in. Rwanda is one such example.

Much is made these days of something called "international law" - a nebulous concept which is resorted to every time an organisation like Amnesty International finds itself up against world opinion that doesn't sit in accord with their rose tinted view of murder and terrorism applied against the people or supporters of governments they disapprove of. International law is a complete misnomer since it has its foundations not in any recognised government but in a series of treaties and UN decisions which neither bind non-signatories nor any signatory who chooses to ignore them. It is argued, however, that it sets a guideline for legal opinion in subscriber countries - and this is what unrepresentative bodies like the International Court in the Hague and certain other bodies rely on. Frankly, if told to shove off by some sensible government, the whole sham would collapse.

The subject of legal precedence does, however, raise another interesting point, also tied to the point made in the comment to my post. What is treason, and when is it treasonous to do something?

In my dictionary it is defined as violation of allegiance by a subject by plotting to kill the Sovereign, overthrow the Authority of the State (and more besides which encompasses the concept of citizens of other forms of government). Arising from this in legal terms, there is a serious, if lower charge, that of "comforting" an enemy of the State - in other words providing assistance to anyone who is defined as a person who is a citizen, soldier, agent, of a nation or state against whom war has been declared or with whom a war is in progress. This charge was last used in the UK in 1939 - 1945 against those supporters of Moseley's Blackshirts who wanted a Britain under Hitler.

It seems to me that Amnesty International and one or two other supposedly "impartial" organisations are walking a very fine line between promoting their stated aim of peace and justice for all, while abusing their hosts by providing "comfort" to the enemies of the nations they choose to operate from. Perhaps it is time to dust off the law on this issue and examine their methods, their funding, and above all their objectives in so blatantly undermining any attempt at getting to the truth in this issue, let alone presuming to "try" the allegedly involved soldiers in the media.

It is one thing to protect the victims of oppression from totalitarian regimes, it is another entirely to undermine the nations and governments who are attempting to bring an end to the violent and vicious abuses of governments like Saddam's, the Taliban, and the world visions of al Qaeda. I suggest that everyone who considers putting any money into anything for Amnesty International reconsider - and let them submit to public scrutiny and judgement as well.

I do not support the abuse of prisoners, I do not support the killing of innocent bystanders in a "fire fight". But, we must recognise that it is the likes of the al Mehdi, al Qaeda and other "irregular" forces to use bystanders as shields and to fire on patrols from a crowd - in the full knowledge that the return fire is likely to cause "collateral damage" and death to the innocent. These cowards do not deserve sympathy, support, or the protection of the likes of Amnesty International - they deserve public execution for their crimes of murder and violence. Only when it is seen by everyone very clearly that there is no hiding place for these murderers and cowards will there be an end to terrorism. As long as they can rely on Amnesty International and other bleeding heart sympathisers for "succour" and "comfort" when the heat is on, we will have no chance of eradicating this plague.

I suggest that the media and Amnesty should consider very, very carefully their promotion of the terrorists causes in their campaign to expose "injustice". Treason is a word with ugly connotations, serious consequences, and very damaging implications. It is perhaps time all those who think that "jaw jaw is better than war war" looked carefully at who and what their constant sniping is supporting. They may want to think about it very carefully indeed.

Posted by The Gray Monk at May 11, 2004 12:57 PM

Comments

Posted by: Ozguru at May 11, 2004 03:02 PM

Posted by: IXLNXS at May 12, 2004 05:56 AM