Yoosk today! - Craig Murray on Yoosk today

Login

Username

Password
Remember me
Forgot your password?

Click the "ask" button on the right to post your question.

Name: Craig Murray
Occupation: Political Activist, Rector Dundee University
Country: UK
Total Questions: 6
Total Answers: 5

Links
craigmurray.org
Yoosk - Related Features

What Yoosk members think about

Honest	Yes	3	No	1
Clear	Yes	3	No	1
Well informed	Yes	3	No	1
Inspiring	Yes	3	No	1
Consistent	Yes	3	No	1
Well intentioned	Yes	3	No	1

Answered Questions

paulharnby asked Craig Murray: "having read the Guardian account of your experiences, would you recommend a career in the Foreign Office and why?"
Craig Murray answers: "I think if decent people decided they weren't going to work for government at all that would simply make the situation worse. So I wouldn't recommend people to boycott the Foreign Office or government..." Show more»" I think if decent people decided they weren't going to work for government at all that would simply make the situation worse. So I wouldn't recommend people to boycott the Foreign Office or government service in general. "Show less«
Is this a good answer? 1 0
0 comment | Topic: World Affairs | Email to friends | Dec 08 2007 8:06:39 PM
bonzo1 asked Craig Murray: "Do you believe there are grounds for going after Tony Blair and George Bush for human rights abuses? Are there any leading figures you think might have human rights cases to answer?"
Craig Murray answers: "I have no doubt whatsoever that in terms of international law Tony Blair and George W. Bush are guilty of major breaches of international law, which in the past have been shown to be breaches that can..." Show more»" I have no doubt whatsoever that in terms of international law Tony Blair and George W. Bush are guilty of major breaches of international law, which in the past have been shown to be breaches that can be sanctioned, where action can be taken. I think the first reference for that has to be the statutes of the Nuremberg tribunal, which made absolutely plain that launching an aggressive war and planning and conspiring an aggressive war, including not using diplomacy in good faith, was a war crime, in fact was the most fundamental war crime. I think the launching of the war against Iraq on the basis of lies, and the fact that they sought an aggressive war against Iraq for a long time is undoubtedly a sanctionable war crime, and that's the most important answer. There are then further breaches of international law. Under the Hague convention, once you have occupied a country it is illegal to exploit its resources, or to change its laws. The Hague convention of 1907 is quite explicit on that point. And when Bush and Blair obtained the legalisation of the occupation of Iraq, post-facto, by a Security Council resolution, that Security Council resolution specifically said they must abide by the Hague convention. They nonetheless went on to break the Hague convention by privatising hundreds of Iraqi companies and giving their assets to American companies, which was done by the US provisional administration, and was a despoliation of Iraq, contrary to the Hague convention. So, you’ve got two areas there, launching an aggressive war and then economic exploitation of a conquered country, both of which are plainly illegal in international law. And in both areas Bush and Blair, and on the Nuremberg precedents their foreign ministers or secretaries of state, their top military leadership and others are plainly guilty. "Show less«
Is this a good answer? 0 0
0 comment | Topic: World Affairs | Email to friends | Dec 08 2007 8:08:50 PM
hanoian asked Craig Murray: "Do you support the policy of liberal intervention and if so, which heads of state would you like to see removed? If not, then what is the alternative?"
Craig Murray answers: "No. I don't support the policy of liberal intervention. I think in practice it really doesn’t work very well. Obviously there is a spectrum of cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan at one end, to perhaps..." Show more»" No. I don't support the policy of liberal intervention. I think in practice it really doesn’t work very well. Obviously there is a spectrum of cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan at one end, to perhaps Kosovo and Sierra Leone and you find people who argue that liberal intervention is justified in some cases, and not in others. My view is to be very cautious about it always, partly because people very seldom welcome occupiers as liberators, which is the major lesson of Iraq. You have to be certain that loss of life caused during the liberal intervention is going to be outweighed by the improvement you are going to bring to the situation, and you get into the difficulties of weighing up the Utilitarian argument - is it really worth killing fifty thousand people to ameliorate the lives of a million? Also, of course, you have the whole concept of international law. The rather painstaking build up of international law, which had been led by countries like the United Kingdom, has been somewhat demolished by the behaviour of the United States and the UK in recent years. We've absolutely smashed through the UN charter through our invasion of Iraq without security council authority and we have effectively torn up documents like the UN convention against torture, the Geneva conventions, the Hague conventions, and numerous others. One of the great difficulties with interventionism is that very often it is predicated on an over simplistic analysis of the problem that you are trying to solve. For me this was the biggest single failing of Tony Blair's foreign policy. He saw the world significantly in black and white terms, and in quite complex conflicts he would ask - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, in effect. Then we would perhaps intervene on behalf of the good guys. But the sad truth is that in conflict situations there seldom are any good guys. "Show less«
Is this a good answer? 1 0
0 comment | Topic: World Affairs | Email to friends | Dec 08 2007 8:10:37 PM
lucy1983 asked Craig Murray: "Can a government ethically act on intelligence obtained through torture, if the intelligence is likely to prevent loss of life through, say, terrorist action?"
Craig Murray answers: "I think the problem with this question is that it is often posed as an abstract philosophical conundrum, and we don't live in an abstract philosophical world. The question was put to me in the Foreign..." Show more»" I think the problem with this question is that it is often posed as an abstract philosophical conundrum, and we don't live in an abstract philosophical world. The question was put to me in the Foreign Office in the days when I was there trying to get the FO to stop using intelligence gained from torture. My management asked, quite directly, what do you do about the ticking bomb scenario? The trouble is that that's a Hollywood scenario, and life doesn't actually happen like that. There is very little point in arguing through abstract ethical situations - in real life intelligence from torture isn't very reliable. People will confess to anything through torture, and what you get from them is the answer that you want to hear. And the torturer isn't an abstract seeker of truth. It isn't the truth particularly the torturer wants, it's some thing that he wants to know. And remember, that torturer, in real life, isn't some noble and heroic person, he is some extremely unpleasant security official of Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, with his own very warped agenda. So, in practice what happens is the intelligence from torture comes from regimes which have themselves a very limited relationship with the truth. In November 2005 Dame Eliza Manningham Buller, then head of MI5, gave the ricin plot as an example of an occasion where evidence from torture abroad could save lives in the UK. (The evidence from the ricin plot came from torture in Algeria.) The trouble is, that information turned out to be totally bogus. What nobody remembers about the ricin plot was that everyone was found not guilty of conspiracy. The court found that there was no ricin and there was no plot. So this is an abstract philosophical question that doesn't relate to what happens in the real world. The vast majority of the intelligence you get from torture is untrue and simply clogs up and pollutes the intelligence pool, thus making the job of combating terrorism harder, not easier. "Show less«
Is this a good answer? 0 0
0 comment | Topic: World Affairs | Email to friends | Dec 08 2007 8:12:16 PM
paulo123 asked Craig Murray: "Is it any worse to torture someone yourself than to allow them to be tortured by another person/country?"
Craig Murray answers: "No. I think certainly if you had the power to stop it you should stop it. If you are encouraging the torture by another country, as I would argue the United Kingdom was in Uzbekistan for example, by being..." Show more»" No. I think certainly if you had the power to stop it you should stop it. If you are encouraging the torture by another country, as I would argue the United Kingdom was in Uzbekistan for example, by being a regular and reliable customer for the intelligence it produced, then I would think you are morally just as culpable. If it is going ahead without your encouragement, I would argue you have a duty to try to stop it. "Show less«
Is this a good answer? 1 0
0 comment | Topic: World Affairs | Email to friends | Dec 08 2007 8:05:28 PM