Corbyn did win, what's next?

[Craig B]

... Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.

The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”

That Torygraph article is quite amazing.

According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.
The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”
It mocked Norman, now Lord, Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel, saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.”

• Jeremy Corbyn has turned the Labour Party into a laughing stock
• John McDonnell praised women who spat in employers tea over strike​

I like the "according to an authoritative parliamentary reference work". Looks like cautious phraseology suggested by lawyers. The "reader's letter" is a wonderful touch. People are responsible for the opinions of readers of journals when "authoritative parliamentary reference works" say they are editors of these journals?

And the two bullet points are things of beauty, even by Torygraph standards. The spitting in the employers' tea is a gem.

 

[baron]

Except that he didn't. What he said was that it was a tragedy that OBL had been killed rather than being put on trial.

A tragedy? That a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands was killed instead of going on trial? Check out some of the words he could have used to make the point you claim - off the top of my head: undesirable, regrettable, disappointing, frustrating, lamentable even, but a tragedy? Er, no. Saying that disqualifies him from making a basic point of judicial due process in the eyes of all but his apologists.

 

[baron]

That Torygraph article is quite amazing.

According to an authoritative parliamentary reference work, Mr Corbyn was general secretary of the editorial board. He wrote the front-page story in the same issue of Briefing.
The same edition of Briefing, for December 1984, carried a reader’s letter praising the “audacity” of the IRA attack and stating: “What do you call four dead Tories? A start.”
It mocked Norman, now Lord, Tebbit, the trade secretary who was dug out of the rubble of the Grand Hotel, saying: “Try riding your bike now, Norman.”

• Jeremy Corbyn has turned the Labour Party into a laughing stock
• John McDonnell praised women who spat in employers tea over strike​

I like the "according to an authoritative parliamentary reference work". Looks like cautious phraseology suggested by lawyers. The "reader's letter" is a wonderful touch. People are responsible for the opinions of readers of journals when "authoritative parliamentary reference works" say they are editors of these journals?

I wonder what the situation would be if a person happened to be on the editorial board of - and wrote for - a magazine that published readers' letters saying "The only good black is a dead one" or making jokes about Jews and gas chambers. Something tells me that you'd be a little more reticent in rubbishing the idea that this editor and contributor might share similar sentiments.

 

[lionking]

A tragedy? That a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands was killed instead of going on trial? Check out some of the words he could have used to make the point you claim - off the top of my head: undesirable, regrettable, disappointing, frustrating, lamentable even, but a tragedy? Er, no. Saying that disqualifies him from making a basic point of judicial due process in the eyes of all but his apologists.

My view as well. Words have meanings. A tragedy it wasn't.

 

[Antony]

A tragedy? That a terrorist responsible for the deaths of thousands was killed instead of going on trial?

Never tried. Never convicted.

Check out some of the words he could have used to make the point you claim - off the top of my head: undesirable, regrettable, disappointing, frustrating, lamentable even, but a tragedy? Er, no.

Irrelevant. The tragedy is the death of due process.

Saying that disqualifies him from making a basic point of judicial due process in the eyes of all but his apologists.

"Apologists", are we? The one acting as an apologist - for extra-judicial execution - is you.

 

[lionking]

Never tried. Never convicted.

No. Just self-admitted.

Do you have any doubt that he was a murdering terrorist? He was always a legitimate target in my view.

 

[Ziggurat]

Never tried. Never convicted.


Irrelevant. The tragedy is the death of due process.


"Apologists", are we? The one acting as an apologist - for extra-judicial execution - is you.

What exactly do you imagine happens in war?

 

[Craig B]

I wonder what the situation would be if a person happened to be on the editorial board of - and wrote for - a magazine that published readers' letters saying "The only good black is a dead one" or making jokes about Jews and gas chambers. Something tells me that you'd be a little more reticent in rubbishing the idea that this editor and contributor might share similar sentiments.

I would like to see this letter, because the wording is indeed outrageous as presented by the Telegraph. The question is whether Corbyn approves the murder of Conservatives. I really don't think he does. Wiki says of Labour Briefing that

Throughout the early period, Its masthead slogan was "Labour - take the power!" While the magazine's followers often acted as a political faction, its internal politics were non-sectarian and open, ranging from democratic socialist backers of the former Labour MP Tony Benn to some of the Trotskyist groups.​

 

[Antony]

What exactly do you imagine happens in war?

So it was "war" was it, and not "terrorism"? Or perhaps OBL's alleged part (without a trial that's all it can ever be) in the events of September 2001 was "terrorism", but killing him was "war". It wasn't even a combat situation - by all accounts the US navy seals simply walked in on him, unarmed, and blasted him.

In any case, the killing happened on the territory of a friendly state (Pakistan), so the special pleading about "what happens in war" doesn't even apply.

To get back on topic, the events of 9/11 were incontestably a terrorist atrocity. OBL was rightly or wrongly blamed for organising it. There are 2 possible responses to this:

1. we can go along with the trial conducted in the press and in politicians' briefings, declare him guilty, condemn him to death and whoop it up when the "sentence" is carried out;
2. we can tell ourselves that we are better than the terrorists, and call for due process of law.

I don't think "tragedy" is too strong a word for the fact that there can never now be a trial. Even if it had been the case that OBL could not have been lawfully arrested, and had died in a firefight, the fact that he can never be tried is still a tragedy. Apart from the breakdown of due process, it means that most of the facts about the organisation of the atrocity (and, believably, other tragedies) can never be known.

There is, of course, no indication that any attempt to arrest OBL alive was made. Yet with these questions overshadowing the whole operation, the choice of words of a UK politician is regarded as a bigger talking point than the issues he raises. Regrettably, this is par for the course when it comes to the military actions of states regarded as "friendly" to the US and the UK.

 

[Craig B]

No indeed; 9/11 was not war. It was large scale crime, and should have been dealt with as such. War against what? Another country? Internal uprising? Are the detainees treated as POWs? No. As criminal suspects whose cases should be tried in court? No.

So we have neither a war, in any legitimate sense of the term, nor legal action against suspected murderers. It is a hideous mess, and indeed a tragedy that has cost us dear and has reduced much of the Middle East to chaos.

 

[baron]

Never tried. Never convicted.

Are you serious? You think there was a chance he was innocent of terrorist involvement and it was all a big ploy by the West because... well, I don't know, because they didn't like the colour of his beard maybe?

Irrelevant. The tragedy is the death of due process.

Don't be melodramatic. We still have due process and a strong, effective legal framework. The fact that there are sometimes other options better suited to the situation has no bearing on this.

"Apologists", are we? The one acting as an apologist - for extra-judicial execution - is you.

Absolutely I am. That's called "being honest". Want to give it a go?

 

[baron]

I would like to see this letter, because the wording is indeed outrageous as presented by the Telegraph. The question is whether Corbyn approves the murder of Conservatives. I really don't think he does.

It's just another piece of evidence pointing to his very unpleasant character. His associations, both literary and personal, do not cast him in a good light.

 

[Aber]

I would like to see this letter, because the wording is indeed outrageous as presented by the Telegraph. The question is whether Corbyn approves the murder of Conservatives. I really don't think he does.

But if he was on the editorial board which approved that letter for publishing, does he think that the murder of Tories is a suitable matter for joking?

 

[Antony]

No indeed; 9/11 was not war. It was large scale crime, and should have been dealt with as such. War against what? Another country? Internal uprising? Are the detainees treated as POWs? No. As criminal suspects whose cases should be tried in court? No.

So we have neither a war, in any legitimate sense of the term, nor legal action against suspected murderers. It is a hideous mess, and indeed a tragedy that has cost us dear and has reduced much of the Middle East to chaos.

The other tragedy is that all of this is stock-in-trade for the so-called "centre-ground", "moderates" and even "modernisers". Yet a politician who sees this for what it is, faces a torrent of abuse as a "hard-line loony", "left-wing extremist", "unelectable" and worse.

 

[Craig B]

But if he was on the editorial board which approved that letter for publishing, does he think that the murder of Tories is a suitable matter for joking?

That's why I'd like to see the context of the letter. I often see outrageous letters in journals I read, without myself embracing the views therein, or assuming the editors do. Was this a joke? I don't know. But I'd like to find out more. Corbyn is currently the victim of ridiculous innuendo and distortion. Is this yet another example? I don't know.

 

[Craig B]

Absolutely I am. That's called "being honest". Want to give it a go?

Give what a go? Honest support for extra-judicial killing and unlawful aggression against other countries. No, honest crime is still crime. Maybe Bin Laden was honest. Maybe ISIS is composed of honest bigots and terrorists.

Yes, the religious madmen of ISIS are "being honest". Want to give it a go?

But I wonder if Bush and Blair were "being honest". Not Blair, I'm pretty sure.

 

[baron]

Give what a go? Honest support for extra-judicial killing and unlawful aggression against other countries. No, honest crime is still crime. Maybe Bin Laden was honest. Maybe ISIS is composed of honest bigots and terrorists.

Yes, the religious madmen of ISIS are "being honest". Want to give it a go?

But I wonder if Bush and Blair were "being honest". Not Blair, I'm pretty sure.

What in God's name are you talking about?

 

[Antony]

Are you serious? You think there was a chance he was innocent of terrorist involvement and it was all a big ploy by the West because... well, I don't know, because they didn't like the colour of his beard maybe?

There is no way of knowing without having a trial. Let me remind you of the title of this discussion board: "International Skeptics Forum". You do understand what the word "skeptic" means, don't you?

Don't be melodramatic. We still have due process and a strong, effective legal framework. The fact that there are sometimes other options better suited to the situation has no bearing on this.

Absolutely it has a bearing. "Due process when it suits our convenience" is not due process at all. There can be no exceptions.

Absolutely I am. That's called "being honest". Want to give it a go?

That's a personal attack. I'll do without the "honesty" of the mafia.

Talking of "honesty", let's get back to how this theme started. It seems you now accept that when Corbyn used the word "tragedy", he was talking about the lack of a trial. Whether or not you agree about the trial, it's still a different matter from describing OBL's death as such, as a "tragedy". Do you accept that the UK Prime Minister misrepresented what Corbyn had said - whether from dishonesty or ignorance - and will you apologise for repeating the misrepresentation in your earlier comments here?

 

[baron]

There is no way of knowing without having a trial. Let me remind you of the title of this discussion board: "International Skeptics Forum". You do understand what the word "skeptic" means, don't you?

Yes, and I'm also aware of the saying, "Don't be so open minded your brain falls out." If you witnessed a murder would you say the perpetrator was innocent on account of not yet being tried? If in this instance you can so freely discard such strong evidence on the basis of a legal technicality then truly your argument is that of an apologist.

Absolutely it has a bearing. "Due process when it suits our convenience" is not due process at all. There can be no exceptions.

So let's get this straight. Bin Laden's guilt is uncertain on account of it never being proved in law. Yet the alleged illegality of the killing of Bin Laden, which has never been proved in law, holds true and is to be condemned. That's some double-standards you have there.

That's a personal attack. I'll do without the "honesty" of the mafia.

Talking of "honesty", let's get back to how this theme started. It seems you now accept that when Corbyn used the word "tragedy", he was talking about the lack of a trial. Whether or not you agree about the trial, it's still a different matter from describing OBL's death as such, as a "tragedy". Do you accept that the UK Prime Minister misrepresented what Corbyn had said - whether from dishonesty or ignorance - and will you apologise for repeating the misrepresentation in your earlier comments here?

No, I don't accept Cameron misrepresented anything. I've already explained that. And no, I don't feel the need to apologise for having an opinion different to yours.

 

[666]

[...] I wonder if this will come back to haunt Cameron? No doubt he has said a thousand things that could be misrepresented in the same way.

Surely he wouldn't fall in to that trap.