Trump, Twitter, Theresa, and Tribalism

This morning’s big BBC headline was “Trump hits out at May over Tweet Criticism.”

Yesterday we had “Donald Trump wrong to share far-right videos – PM“

And before that, a couple of days ago, it was “Democratic leaders cancel meeting with Trump after Twitter attack.”  Then there was “Trump calls for boycott of television network CNN: tweet“.  And there was also an attack on NBC for putting out ‘Fake News’.   

And that’s just in the past week.

Personally, I am surprised that anyone still expresses outrage at Trump’s tweets. It seems that the more obvious reactions are to groan, or shake one’s head sadly, or even to just laugh.

That tweet

But back to the tweet that traumatised Theresa. What was the problem?

A Downing Street spokesman said:

“It is wrong for the President to have done this. Britain First seeks to divide communities through their use of hateful narratives which peddle lies and stoke tensions. They cause anxiety to law-abiding people. British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far-right which is the antithesis of the values that this country represents: decency tolerance and respect.”

Similarly, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tweeted: “Britain First is a divisive, hateful group whose views are not in line with our values”, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said it was “deeply disturbing” that Mr Trump had “chosen to amplify the voice of far-right extremists”.

What is interesting is that most people are objecting not to the point that Trump is seeking to make, per se (though they may well find it objectionable) – but to the group that originally made it. They feel that he is giving it credibility.

How should we respond?

I for my part, am inclined to welcome these tweets from Trump – even if without much enthusiasm.

Let me explain. Britain First are a tiny, marginal group. To say that they represent no threat to anyone would not be true, but they strike me as being in the same category as a gang of car thieves. Yes, they do represent a threat to some people, but their threat to the country as a whole is pretty negligible. There is no sign whatsoever that Britain First and its message, are having, or will have, any influence in the corridors of power in Britain – either in politics or the media. Like the bogeyman threat of Islamic terrorism, they are a paper tiger, to use an old Chinese proverb. 

Islamic terrorism and groups like Britain First may terrify millions, and they may be what politicians want us to worry about, but they are the least of Britain’s problems.

Hence I am not remotely concerned that Trump may amplify the voice of Britain First. I don’t think that he is adding much to their credibility. Rather, what he is doing, is further detracting from his own credibility. And that, I think, is an excellent thing. The more Donald Trump does things that show that he is not to be taken seriously, the better it is for our world.

And that is because it would be a great thing if people took the utterances and statements that come out of the White House a lot less seriously. I say that because a lot of what is coming out of the White House is seriously dangerous.

Things that actually matter

Let’s start with Iran. Donald Trump is doing his best to ratchet up tension with Iran, and using the issue of Iranian compliance with that Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the deal which allows Iran to have a nuclear power program, but not do do anything toward developing nuclear weapons) to do so. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly said that Iran is in full compliance. Donald Trump keeps on making wild accusations against Iran, and saying that America should pull out of the agreement

To quote Daniel Larison,

Iran has been in compliance with the requirements of the nuclear deal in nine consecutive reports issued by the IAEA. Reports of Iranian compliance have become so predictable by now that they scarcely seem newsworthy, but it is worth remembering how certain opponents of the deal were that this would not happen. Opponents of the agreement were sure that Iran would cheat and fail to meet its obligations, and they insisted again and again that there was no point in making a deal with a regime that wouldn’t honor its commitments. For the ninth time in a row, the deal’s opponents have been proved completely wrong on this point.

Iran has been consistently adhering to the restrictions imposed by the JCPOA, so now we hear from critics of the deal that their compliance isn’t enough. Iran hawks no longer claim to care about cheating by Tehran, and instead express their horror that Iran is abiding by the terms of the agreement. These complaints serve as a reminder that no deal will ever satisfy these critics, because they are opposed to any agreement that reduces tensions with Iran and removes a pretext for war. 

That is much more dangerous than re-tweeting the tweets of a marginal British political group.

Then there is Lebanon. I’ve already written about the extraordinary resignation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri. It seems pretty clear that what happened was that the Saudi government basically summoned him to Saudi Arabia, put him in a TV studio, and ordered him to read a resignation statement. This was was effectively the kidnapping by the Saudi government of the prime minister of another sovereign state. If any other country had done this, there would have been international uproar, but the the Western political establishment treated this, at least in public, as if it was no big deal. But what is much worse is that it appears that the Saudi plan was known in advance and approved by the White House.

Again, that is much more dangerous than retweeting the tweets of a marginal British political group.

And then there is Yemen. A few weeks ago, after the bombing of a market and a hotel in Yemen by the Saudi-led coalition, Daniel Larison wrote:

This is just the latest in a long string of indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas by the coalition. Saada province has suffered some of the worst bombing over the last two and a half years, especially after the coalition illegally designated the entire area a military target. Other civilian targets that have been hit over the years have included schools filled with children, health clinics, and civilian homes, among others. When the U.S. fuels and arms the Saudis and their allies, this is what our government is enabling in Yemen. These are all violations of international law, and by helping to make them possible the U.S. knowingly makes itself complicit in the commission of war crimes. That must end if there is to be any hope of halting the war in the near future.

I think that being complicit in the commission of war crimes by a government that is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians is a lot more serious than retweeting the tweets of a marginal British political group.

The real problem

Donald Trump is pursuing policies in the Middle East which have been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths – and which may cause the deaths of a lot more. These things are seriously worrying. If Trump were president of a small central African state, it wouldn’t be a major problem. But he isn’t. He is president of the wealthiest, most influential, and most powerful country in the world – so powerful that it’s military budget dwarfs that of every other country in the world.

The more that he discredits himself with his tweets, the better. One would like to hope that between the Saad Hariri fiasco, and the utter nonsense that Trump has been spouting about Iran, that no other world leaders would take him seriously. Sadly, some still seem to. Maybe, just maybe, these tweets will help discredit him further. If so, they might prove to make a contribution to peace and stability in the world.

Alas, while I think that will happen to some extent, I don’t think this is going to happen nearly as much as it should.

Of pigs and men

And one of the main reasons for that is that in America, and even outside America, a remarkable number of political leaders seem to be broadly supportive of the policies that Trump is pursuing in the Middle East. A lot of people think that simply changing the president would solve the problem. It wouldn’t. A lot of Trump’s views are widely shared by the political establishment in America – not just by those members of his own party who don’t like him, but also by Democrats. Look it up yourself – there has been bipartisan support for Saudi Arabia’s policy in Yemen over the past two years, with very little criticism; there has been remarkably little criticism of Saudi involvement in the resignation of Hariri, and surprisingly little criticism of Trump’s anti-Iranian rhetoric. In many ways, where Trump is at his worst, he is simply taking the establishment line.

The Democrats and the Republicans may have a lot of differences, but a lot of them are pretty minor. And so often, their political behaviour is simply tribalistic. I recently listened to an interview with a long serving Congressman who spoke about how he was convinced that whether his fellow members of Congress would vote for or against a measure depended on whether the president who proposed it was a member of their own party or not. If Clinton proposed it, they would vote one way, if Bush proposed it, they would vote the other. If Trump proposed it, their response would be the opposite of the response they would give if Obama proposed it. And this isn’t just the case for members of congress; it’s also true of a lot of ordinary Americans.

There is a meme that came out last year which summed up this political tribalism well (and my view of the election!)

And of course this is not just true in America; it’s true in plenty of other countries as well. But sometimes I do wonder if it is even more true in America!

And it blinds people to the real problem. The real problem is not that Donald Trump was elected president last year. The real problem, it seems to me – and as I pointed out when he was elected – is that in the American presidency, far too much power is concentrated in the hands of one person. And that is always potentially dangerous, and is a seriously bad idea. And almost nobody is talking about it. (But hey, that’s what this blog does – raises issues than almost nobody is talking about.)

So politicians continue to argue among themselves about trivia. But often, they are a lot more similar to their opponents that one might think. Orwell captured this brilliantly in Animal Farm, in the scene in which the animals on the farm watch a meeting between the pigs and the men: “The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.“

They realised that for all the pig’s anti-human rhetoric, they were just like the men. The new political masters claimed to be completely different from the old ones; but in everything that really counted, they were just the same.

I can’t help reflecting on some words in the Bible, from in the opening verses of Psalm 2.

“Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and against his Anointed, saying, “Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us.””

Basically, it is saying that the rulers of the world have all joined together. And what do they want to do? They want to be free from God – in other words, free from his standards, free to do whatever they want, whether it is morally right or morally wrong. They want to be above the law.

Sadly, history shows that that is really what (almost) all the world’s rulers have in common – a desire for power – to do whatever they want, whatever they think is right. As Lord Acton said, “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

And so it is, for all practical purposes, with Donald May and Theresa Trump – or whatever they’re called.

But as for me, I’m with George Orwell and Lord Acton.

And with what the Bible says.

Faith without reason is superstition

When I was in high school, I had five biology teachers. I guess the one that had the biggest impact on me was the first one, Mrs. Murphy. I had no real interest in biology before she taught me, but her classes changed that – and it is partly because of her that I went on to do biology at university.

The others were a mixed bag. One, Mr. Morwood, was excellent, and after his death, I learned that there was even more to him than met the eye. 

Two only taught me briefly, and I don’t remember much about them.

The remaining one was a little unusual. He was brand new at teaching when he arrived at the school, and some of the boys gave him the nickname “Gringo”. We didn’t learn much biology from him, and he did not remain at the school long.

However, he did say a couple of things that I found very helpful, and that I remember to this day. The first is that one day in class he said something about different kinds of love and showed us a copy of C.S. Lewis’ book “The Four Loves“. I was already into C.S. Lewis, but had not heard of this book, so I went out and bought it and read it.

The other thing he said was “‘Faith without reason is superstition’ – as Christian scientists say.” I thought that was pretty profound, and it stuck with me. (A few decades later, I got around to googling it, and discovered that the quote apparently comes from Arthur Custance, a Canadian anthropologist, scientist and writer, who specialized in science and Christianity.)

So, it is true? Is it true that to believe something without having good reasons for believing it is merely superstition, and therefore wrong?

And here, we need to clarify that this is about believing something. It could be a religious belief – e.g. that Jesus is the Son of God – or it could equally be something very ordinary – e.g. that that I will have food on the table tomorrow.

In the New Testament, the word for “faith” is the word for “belief.” Yes, people have belief / faith on different levels. Yes, Christian faith, as described in the New Testament means more than just believing certain things to be true. But the word “faith” does, basically, mean belief. So to say “Faith without reason is superstition” means “Believing something to be true without a good reason is not a good thing.”

The Bible never suggests that one should believe without some good reason for believing. And that means evidence.

Reason and the Bible

So what does the Bible say? Here are some verses, all of which are about looking at evidence and / or deciding what to believe.

Many people said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?” Others said, “These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (John 10:20-21)

“How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me.” (John 10:24-25)

“Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.” (John 14:11)

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. (John 20:30-31)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

“He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. ” (Acts 17:31)

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (I John 4:1)

These are all about looking at evidence; they are about believing, and the reasons why people might believe something. They are saying “Look at the evidence.”

Looking at the evidence

There are different kinds of evidence. We believe some things because of testimony – because we are told them by people we trust. Most people believe what they read on Wikipedia, or what they hear on BBC News, unless they have good reason to be sceptical.

We also believe things because of our experience. I believe that it will take me about 50 minutes to drive from my house to Inverness, because I’ve done it several times, so I know what to expect.

In court cases, judges and juries listen to various kinds of evidence, and have to make up their minds what to believe. We expect them to weigh the evidence fairly and rationally, because we believe that if they do, they are more likely to do what is right.

Some evidence is stronger than other evidence, of course. And evidence does not always point in the same direction; some evidence can be misleading. That is why evidence must be examined and weighed.

Indeed, in The Message, a very loosely translated modern version of the Bible, the final quote above (do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God) becomes “Don’t believe everything you hear. Carefully weigh and examine what people tell you.” And it seems to me that this is exactly what the writer means. Indeed, it seems to me that this is basically the position of the Bible.

And so people are not simply expected to believe what the Bible says. They are expected to weigh it and examine it – and, based on their examination, to decide whether to believe it.

I’ve written before about the story of David McIntyre, an agnostic who investigated the historical evidence, and came to the conclusion that yes, Jesus did rise from the dead – and who, based on that conclusion, became a Christian. And that led him to write about the historical evidence in a booklet that he called, appropriately, Jesus, the Evidence.

I heard David speak about his experience a few years ago, and one thing he said surprised me. He footnoted things to references in Wikipedia. I found that surprising because people can edit Wikipedia, and so articles can change all the time. But David, having looked at the historical evidence, obviously believed that the historical facts and opinions he was quoting were so well-established and uncontroversial, that the Wikipedia articles were not going to change substantially. He believes that the evidence is solid, and will stand up to scrutiny without much difficulty – as do I.

So yes, I believe that faith without reason is superstition – in other words, it is irrational and foolish to believe something without good reason, without good evidence.

That applies what is going on in the world today, and the things that are reported in the media. And I think that is important. As regular readers of this blog will know, I think there is far too little serious looking at the evidence.

I see that a big problem. It is a problem partly because the news producers of most of the mainstream media seem to be fairly uninterested in actually looking at the evidence concerning the things that they report. But it is also a problem because ordinary, normal, intelligent people tend often accept a lot of what they hear from the mainstream media with what amounts to an almost superstitious reverence.

But it also applies to what one believes about Jesus Christ and about God. And that is ultimately a lot more important.

Ignore the fluff. What are the real news stories of 2017?

Yesterday morning, one of the main stories in the “World” section of the BBC New website concerned a minister from India’s ruling party being criticised for urinating in the open. I know I shouldn’t have, but I clicked on the link. Apparently the problem with this was that there is a government drive to persuade people to use toilets. Apparently he felt unwell. 

Yes. We really needed to know that.

Even more remarkably, the BBC gave even higher prominence to a story entitled “Charles Manson dies after decades in jail.” I didn’t bother clicking on that. I was pretty sure that he would die some time.  Most people do.  When exactly it happened didn’t seem to me to make any difference to anything.

The BBC is considered to be a pretty serious news source, and yet they treat us to the most amazing fluff and trivia. Just the other day we were being told that a few years ago an unnamed government official had touched a journalist’s breast at 10 Downing Street.

Other stories the BBC give us are less obviously trivial, but, I suspect, not really that significant. For example, we get endless stories on how the Brexit negotiations are going. I’m sure the final outcome will be interesting, but the details will not be of earth-shattering importance. As for the details about what politicians are saying about the negotiations, I can’t see that it really matters at all.

So – what are the real news stories of 2017 – the serious stuff?

I am going to suggest five.

I am not including those long-running things that go on year after year after year. What are the things happening this year – or that came up last year and have gotten even bigger this year?

Yemen

Yemen has been a mess for years, with a brief civil war in 1994. Things were better for a few years after that, but violence between different factions returned a few years later, there was a revolution in 2011 which brought down the president, but the replacement president didn’t please everyone, and he was brought down when rebels seized the capital in 2014. Fighting continued, and in 2015, a Saudi-led coalition invaded. Despite widespread reports of the coalition repeatedly bombing civilian targets, America and Britain continued to support the Saudi invasion, and continued to supply military equipment to the Saudi government.

What is new is the Saudi blockade, which has made it difficult to get food and medicine into Yemen, with the result that malnutrition is widespread and famine threatens. It could be the largest famine the world has seen for decades, with millions of victims.

What is new is that with almost a million cases, Yemen is experiencing the worst cholera outbreak to be reported in human history.

And what is really newsworthy is that this cholera outbreak and the approaching famine are man-made – caused by the coalition, with the active support of the British and American governments.

Journalist Barry Malone’s tweet that “This should be the biggest story in the world right now” has been re-tweeted 87,000 times. Glenn Greenwald commented: “One of the worst atrocities of the last two years – if not the worst – is what’s being done to Yemen. But because the primary culprits are the US, UK and their Saudi partners, it gets virtually no attention. “

Over a year ago, I expressed my concern about American and British ties to Saudi Arabia. I think that I have been proved right. And in particular, note these two quotes. The first is from the UK’s Prime Minister, when questioned about Saudi Arabia’s bombing of civilian targets in Yemen: “What matters is the strength of our relationship with Saudi Arabia.“

The second is from the woman who was expected to become President of America, but who, surprisingly, lost the election: “American leadership means standing with our allies because our network of allies is part of what makes us exceptional. “

The resignation of of the Lebanese Prime Minister

On November 4th, Saad al-Hariri announced his resignation as Lebanese prime minister in a televised broadcast. What was distinctly odd is that he did it from Saudi Arabia, and has not been back in Lebanon since. Five days later, Reuters reported that a senior politician close to Hariri said that Saudi Arabia had ordered him to resign and put him under house arrest. Another source familiar with the situation said Saudi Arabia was controlling and limiting his movement.

The most readable and startling account of what happened was that of veteran Middle East reporter Robert Fisk, in the Independent. It begins with the words “When Saad Hariri’s jet touched down at Riyadh on the evening of 3 November, the first thing he saw was a group of Saudi policemen surrounding the plane. When they came aboard, they confiscated his mobile phone and those of his bodyguards. Thus was Lebanon’s prime minister silenced. “

This story is important, because, like what is going on in Yemen, it tells us a lot about the current government of Saudi Arabia. And because of Saudi Arabia’s alliances, that is important for the whole world.

Catalonia

The Catalonia independence referendum and the response of the Spanish government have been well covered, but it is worth saying that what is going on there is fascinating. It has been brewing awhile, but most of us didn’t see it coming. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few years.

Russia – or rather, American hysteria about Russia

In terms of events happening in the country, or actions of the country’s government, or reports coming out of country, news of Russia has been no more significant in the last 12 months than news of, say, China, Germany, South Africa, or Brazil.

However, the biggest story of the year concerns Russia. It is the Russia-hysteria that has gripped America and spread to much of the rest of western world. I wrote about this in my December piece, Bearing false witness: The western media, Syria, and the evil Russians.

I returned to the subject in January in my look back at 2016, which asked, “Are we living in a post-truth world?“

And I also referred to it in my February post “Why you shouldn’t trust the BBC” . 

Back then, it was seemed pretty clear to me that there was no evidence that the Russian government had done anything improper with regard to the American election. And no significant further evidence has emerged, though a huge amount of froth has.   And yet the hysteria continues unabated.

In July,  a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cited new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 “assessment” that Russia “hacked” Democratic emails last year.  In September, two of those former intelligence officers published an article showing more holes in the Russia-gate narrative.

This month, Donald Trump, speaking of the stories about Russian interference in the presidential campaign, said of Vladimir Putin, “Every time he sees me he says I didn’t do that, and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it.” Many American politicians were outraged. One said “You believe a foreign adversary over your own intelligence agencies“, while another accused him of “taking the word of a KGB colonel over that of the American intelligence community.”

The choice of words of these politicians is worth noticing. The KGB has not existed for over a quarter of a century, and the description of the president of Russia as a “foreign adversary” is bizarre. Exactly how is Putin an adversary? There has been a huge amount of adversarial language toward Russia on the part of the American government, and a considerable amount of adversarial action – the expulsion of diplomats, the passing of sanctions legislation, the requirement that Russia Today register as a foreign agent – but it is difficult to actually see any adversarial behaviour on the part of the Russian government toward America.

But even stupider than the language of these American politicians is their logic. The leaders of the American intelligence agencies may believe that the Russian government interfered in the election, but they don’t know it. They could be wrong. Indeed, these US intelligence chiefs could be deliberately misleading Americans.  As has been pointed out, the top people in the CIA and FBI don’t exactly have a great record for honesty.

A year after the American presidential election, we are still waiting for evidence to emerge that Russia interfered improperly in the American election. 

Despite the total absence of evidence, the claims are repeated ad nauseum, with the result that most Americans now simply accept them as true. I doubt that any intelligent, open-minded, rational person, looking at the evidence, would be convinced that Russia had improperly interfered in the election. But the number of intelligent, rational people who have looked at the evidence with an open mind is pretty small. And most people, if they hear something often enough about a subject they know nothing about – and never (or rarely) hear it questioned – will believe it.  On the eve of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, most Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks – despite the total absence of evidence.  In the same way, today, most Americans believe that Vladimir Putin improperly interfered in last year’s presidential election.  Again, that is despite the absence of serious evidence.  

In Russia, it is different. Russians who read American media reports about Russia can spot what is obviously laughable drivel. And the Western press has already reported so many inaccurate, exaggerated, knowingly untrue things about Russia that most Russians, including those who have no time for Vladimir Putin, no longer take the western media seriously. Educated Russians, who have long been sceptical of their own media, used to look for truth about Russia in the western media.  They no longer do so. And that is a change that has really only happened in the last year.

The news itself

Which brings me to the fifth big story of 2017: the news itself. A week ago, an article appeared on Consortium News, a highly respected independent news website. It was by the site’s founder, Robert Parry, a veteran reporter and investigative journalist. It is worth reading.

It begins:

“A stark difference between today’s Washington and when I was here as a young Associated Press correspondent in the late 1970s and the early 1980s is that then – even as the old Cold War was heating up around the election of Ronald Reagan – there were prominent mainstream journalists who looked askance at the excessive demonization of the Soviet Union and doubted wild claims about the dire threats to U.S. national security from Nicaragua and Grenada.

Perhaps the Vietnam War was still fresh enough in people’s minds that senior editors and national reporters understood the dangers of mindless groupthink inside Official Washington, as well as the importance of healthy skepticism toward official pronouncements from the U.S. intelligence community.

Today, however, I cannot think of a single prominent figure in the mainstream news media who questions any claim – no matter how unlikely or absurd – that vilifies Russian President Vladimir Putin and his country. It is all Russia-bashing all the time.“

Note those words: “I cannot think of a single prominent figure in the mainstream news media who questions . . .” That is pretty serious – considering that it comes from Robert Parry, who knows the media well.  It means that the mainstream news media are prepared to – and often do – publish things that are unlikely – or even absurd.   Not just part of the mainstream media but pretty much the whole of it.  I think that is pretty scary.  And as news, it is important.

The article ends with the words

“But what is perhaps most troubling to me about these developments is the silence of many civil liberties advocates, liberal politicians and defenders of press freedom who might have been counted on in earlier days to object to this censorship and blackballing.

It appears that the ends of taking down Donald Trump and demonizing Vladimir Putin justify whatever means, no matter the existential danger of nuclear war with Russia or the McCarthyistic (even Orwellian) threats to freedom of speech, press and thought.“

What is happening in the American media – and the British media as well, albeit to a lesser extent – indicates that we live at a time when increasingly, people in the west – even in the media – do not believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of thought.

Parry’s article is worth reading. In fact, it is probably worth reading two or three times. Not least, because I think he is right. I think that we are living in a time when, increasingly, people in the west do not believe in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of thought. 

And not only that, we are living in a time when the mainstream news media, are prepared to unquestioningly publish stories that are incredibly unlikely, or even absurd.

And that, I think, is probably the big story of 2017.

Two American teenagers. One had her bottom squeezed by a president. The other was killed on a president’s orders. Which matters more?

What would a visitor from another planet make of BBC News? Over the last three weeks they have treated us to three stories which certainly had me scratching my head.

On the 31st October we had “Michael Fallon ‘apologised for touching journalist’s knee.’“

And, on the 14th of November, we had a story about how a TV producer said that a government official had put his hand on her breast during a visit to 10 Downing Street.

And on the 13th November, the BBC showed its concern for international affairs by reporting that a woman had revealed that in 2003, when she was 16 years old, she and her mother were having a photograph taken with former American President George H W Bush, and that as the picture was being taken, “he dropped his hands from my waist down to my buttocks and gave it a nice, ripe squeeze.”   

(By the way, it seems to me that Bush’s motivation was quite different from that of Fallon and the unnamed official.  Bush, who was 79 years old at the time, apparently has a habit of doing this, and thinks it funny.  The “David Cop-a-feel” joke is very revealing.  I guess people would describe this as an “earthy” sense of humour.  Being a humourless Presbyterian when it comes to earthy humour, I don’t think it’s at all funny – but I guess humour is a very individual thing. )

Politicians and character

These stories will undoubtedly have shocked people who previously believed that politicians and government officials were morally impeccable figures who should be looked up to with reverence and admiration.

However, it seems to me that there has long been plenty of evidence that this was not the case.

When I was a boy, one of the most significant long-running news stories of the early 1970s concerned the Watergate affair. This did not show Richard Nixon in a good light, and in 1974, he felt forced to resign over it – the only president in American history to do so.

One of the things that came to light during the investigation was tapes of conversations involving Nixon.  As a result, I learned a new phrase: “Expletive deleted”. I didn’t understand this, but a more worldly-wise school friend explained to me that these were bad words, and that Nixon could be foul-mouthed. I was shocked. It was bad enough that he might have been dishonest in matters of state, but it was absolutely horrific that he swore.

And in the decades since, I have learned a lot of things about top politicians which have suggested to me that in terms of personal morals, most of them are no different from the average person. The touching of knees, breasts and bottoms does not constitute good behaviour – but then again, nor does the use of certain four letter words. But is it important news that a government minister, a retired president, or an unnamed government official does it?

Unacceptable as this behaviour may be, it seems to me that these stories are much ado about nothing. Of the three incidents, it seems to me that the worst was the one involving a 16 year-old. The others involved grown women, who were professionals, and perfectly capable of responding vigorously.  This was a girl.  Nevertheless – it has to be remembered that the girl’s mother was standing beside her. It wasn’t exactly Mimi Alford.

What matters more?

To put it bluntly, what these three, white, well-off, middle class ladies suffered was pretty inconsequential compared to the suffering of hundreds of thousands of poverty stricken people living in war zones in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc.

And yet, people who seem utterly unconcerned about the latter think that what happened to the former is a major scandal.

For example, in Yemen, an estimated 17.8 million – six out of every 10 Yemenis – don’t know where their next meal will come from. At least 7 millions across Yemen are on the verge of famine. We have known about this situation for over a year. We have known what the causes were. Western governments have had the power to do something about it. And they haven’t. And one of the reasons for that is that there has been no popular or media pressure on them to do so.

And yet the British government, and much of the media, seem to be much more concerned about the suffering caused by the touching of journalist’s knees and breasts.

The presidents and the teenagers

And as for presidents and 16-year-old’s, I’ve already told about the 16-year-old whose bottom was squeezed.  The other story, it seems to me, was strangely under-reported.  Wikipedia sums it up:

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American of Yemeni descent who was killed while eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant in Yemen by a drone airstrike ordered by U.S. President Barack Obama on 14 October 2011.   Abdulrahman’s father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was an operational leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who was killed two weeks before his son by a CIA drone strike also ordered by President Barack Obama. 

Ironically, as Wikipedia then points out,

On January 29, 2017, Anwar al-Awlaki’s 8-year-old daughter, Nawar, the half sister of Abdulrahman, was killed in a commando attack ordered by President Donald Trump.  

(I’ve written about that here.)

Personally, I find it curious that people don’t use the word “assassination” when talking about these drone strikes, because that is what they are.  Apparently Obama gave the order for some extremist to be assassinated, and the assassins managed to accidentally kill a 16 year old American citizen who was having lunch in a restaurant.  It is bad enough to have a situation in which the most powerful man in the world is giving orders for people to assassinated in countries half way around the world – but when an American teenager eating lunch in a restaurant can be killed in one of these strikes, you know something has gone seriously wrong.

And while the BBC did cover the story, the media coverage was generally pretty low key, and most people didn’t seem particularly bothered. 

But yeah, I know.  These people are in Yemen, so they doesn’t matter. 

Remembrance: What would Jesus tell us to remember? (Updated)

(Updated and expanded 16th November)

If you are a Christian, the obvious question to ask on Remembrance Sunday is “What would Jesus want us to remember? What would he tell us to remember?”

Those who know me will not be surprised that my answer is “I don’t know. But I do know what he told us to remember.”

So – what did he tell us to remember?

Let’s start by . . . er, . . . recalling what remembering means, and what memory is. It means bringing back into your mind something that you know, but had forgotten – or, at least, were not thinking about. You cannot remember something that you never knew. So if someone tells me to remember something that he told me, then there is a chance of me being able to remember it. You can only tell someone to remember something if they once knew it, or were aware of it.

The Bible mentions four times when Jesus tells people to remember things.* But three of those times he is telling people to remember things that he had told them (John 15:20), or that they had heard (Revelation 3:3), or that happened to them (Revelation 2:5).

Those all involve the word “you” – what I said to you; what you received and heard, from where you have fallen. The word “you” tells us that he is asking specific people to remember things that were specific to them – part of their own personal experience. So Jesus isn’t telling us to remember them.

Which means that only one of the four remains. There is only one thing that we could say that Jesus tells us to remember. It is said to his disciples, and hence we could say that it is something Jesus is telling all his disciples, all Christians, to remember. (Especially since it is something that we have no evidence it was something that Jesus had ever mentioned to his disciples before.)

So – what is it? Well, we were told in church yesterday – which is very appropriate on Remembrance Sunday – though oddly enough, I have never heard this on Remembrance Sunday before.

It is Luke 17:32 “Remember Lot’s wife.”

What did he mean? Here’s the context (Luke 17:28-33):

“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all— so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife. Whoever seeks to preserve his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will keep it.”

Jesus is assuming that the disciples know the story of Lot, and the destruction of Sodom – found in the book of Genesis 19 – about how God destroyed the city of Sodom because of its wickedness, but told Lot and his family to get out to save themselves. Because Lot seemed a bit hesitant about leaving, God sent a couple of angels who took grabbed him and his family and practically dragged them out, with the words “Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley.” Lot’s wife, however, looked back, and became a pillar of salt.

So that’s what Jesus was talking about when he said “Remember Lot’s wife.”

What did he mean? He is talking about the Christian life. He is saying “God offers us salvation – escape from destruction. The destruction of Sodom is a powerful picture of that. The Christian life means leaving things behind, things that we might be attached to – just as leaving Sodom meant that Lot and his family were leaving things behind – things that they were attached to.

As Christians – we are pulled in different ways. There are things that we like, things that we are emotionally attached to, that come between us and God. Some of these things are wrong in themselves, but some are not. They may well be perfectly good in themselves. But if become too attached to them, they can become idols to us – things that come between us and God. As Christians, we ought to be able to give them up, but are often very reluctant to do so.

Remember Lot’s wife.

That’s what Jesus tells us to remember. It’s a good message to us on Remembrance Sunday.

---

Update: A friend has helpfully pointed out to me (thanks, John) that most Christians, when they read the title of this post, and see the word “remembrance” and the question “What would Jesus tell us to remember?” would immediately think of the words “Do this in remembrance of me.” And I guess they would be surprised that I didn’t even mention those words.

The reason I didn’t is that, technically speaking, when Jesus said that, he was not telling his disciples to remember him; he was telling them to do a certain thing in connection with remembering him.

Rather strangely, he doesn’t actually tell them what to do in remembrance of him; he merely says “Do this“. What is “this”?  What does he want them to do? When he says “this” he could have meant what he was doing at that moment – i.e. breaking bread and giving it to them, and taking a cup of wine. What he probably meant, however, was what they were all doing at that time – i.e. eating bread and drinking wine – and doing it together as a group. That is is certainly the way the apostles understood it, as we see in I Corinthians 11, in which, by the way, the phrase “come together” is used four times in 18 verses (I Corinthians 11:17-34) to describe the believers in Corinth eating the bread and drinking the wine.

What about the phrase “in remembrance of me”? What does that mean? Does it mean “so that you will remember me”? Or “do this when you remember me?” Or “do this as a sign that you remember me?”

It seems to me that when Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me”, he probably was alluding to the fact that in eating the Passover, he and his disciples were actually eating a meal that was about remembering. Indeed, the passage in the Bible that describes the instructions God gave the Israelites for how to keep the Passover, actually says that it is about remembering: “This day shall be a memorial day for you” or “a day of remembrance for you.” (Exodus 12:14)

And what exactly does Jesus want his disciples to remember about him? Again, I Corinthians gives us our answer: “as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” It is about remembering Christ’s death.

Why? What are they to remember about it? Again, Exodus (12:26) provides the clue: “And when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ you shall say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.‘” ” The Passover was to remind the people of Israel about how God had spared them, when there was death all around them – and of course, how that then allowed them to escape from slavery in Egypt.

And the New Testament explains that the death of Christ was about the same things. It was about how followers of Jesus are spared from death (John 10:10-11, I Thessalonians 5:10), even though there is death all around them (Romans 5:12), and thus enabled to escape from spiritual slavery (Romans 6:17).

In other words, Christians come together and eat bread and drink wine in order to be reminded how, through the death of Jesus Christ, God saves them from death and enables them to escape from spiritual slavery. We remember about how God gives us eternal life and true freedom.

So, when Jesus told his followers, “Do this in remembrance of me” – he wasn’t technically telling them to remember something. But, in telling them to do something that would remind them of his death, he was, for all practical purposes, telling them that they needed to remember his death, and what it meant.

Remembrance: what we should not forget. (But probably will)

A few days ago, I read an interesting article about Hezbollah by Sharmine Narwani, (a Middle East specialist and former Senior Associate at St. Antony’s College, Oxford) explaining why Hezbollah is not a threat to America. She wrote:

“Two weeks ago, at a State Department briefing on the Hezbollah “threat,” National Counterterrorism Center Director Nicholas J. Rasmussen tried to paint a picture f an organization that was directing “terrorism acts worldwide” and posing a threat “to U.S. interests” including “here in the homeland.”

“Prior to September 11,” Rasmussen claimed, “I think everybody knows Hezbollah was responsible for the terrorism-related deaths of more U.S. citizens than any other foreign terrorist organization.””

She was surprised by this claim, and contacted the State Department and asked for more information.  Most of the rest of her article looks in detail at the claims made by the State Department in its response – and also other claims made by American government departments and officials over the years.

And it seems that most of them don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The words that came to my mind as I read this were “Weapons of Mass Destruction” – usually shortened to the three letters WMD.

Why? Because WMDs were ostensibly the reason that America and Britain invaded Iraq in 2003 – along with a claim by the American government that the Iraqi regime had been assisting al-Qaeda in its operations. After the invasion, of course, the evidence for both these claims fell apart.

Which is why I thought of WMDs when reading the article. It was a case of “Here we go again – American government departments and officials making claims about people and groups that they don’t like – claims which don’t actually stand up to scrutiny.”

War, Remembrance, and WMDs

My point is that the invasion of Iraq – and thus the whole war – was based on falsehoods and dishonesty. People in the top echelons of government in America wanted that war – and were prepared to make exaggerated and misleading statements in order to ensure that it happened. They may well have believed their own wild claims – but that does not make those claims any less false, and just because you believe your own lies does not make you honest. Falsehood and dishonesty were the basis for that war, and probably for all wars in human history. It is often said that truth is the first casualty in war, but the reality is that truth is often thrown out the window before the war actually begins.

Perhaps more worryingly, wars happen because powerful people want them to happen. A lot of people said of the Iraq War, “It’s about oil.” Well, that was probably part of it – but it was about a lot of other things as well – like political power, influence, prestige – and even careers.

Which brings me to the first thing we should be remembering every time this season of remembrance rolls around – every time we see poppies, wreaths, and war memorials. We need to remember the causes of wars.  Never forget the track record of dishonesty on the part of those who hold political power. Think “WMDs”.

People of great faith

Perhaps the most frightening thing about this, is that not only did people in the UK and America believe the claims that led us to war in Iraq – but people continue to believe political leaders who make claims about governments and nations they don’t like.  They continue to believe the wild claims of politicians who advocate military action. Strangely enough, people who will be sceptical when politicians speak about any other subject will be remarkably trusting when those same politicians speak about how evil the government of some other country is.

Why is it that we have such great faith in the words of our politicians when they speak about the governments of other nations?

The answer, it seems to me, is pretty clear.  One way of putting it is that it is a case of misguided patriotism. But I would put it more strongly than that. I think that most people have an almost religious belief in the goodness and righteousness of their own nation. If fact, why use the word “almost”? There is something religious about it. Our nation and its symbols have, to many, a mystical quality about them. There is often a reverence for members of the armed forces in times of war. In the words of Kipling’s poem, Tommy, (about how people view soldiers),

“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! ”
But it’s ” Saviour of ‘is country ” when the guns begin to shoot.”

I think the word “saviour” was well chosen.  (See, for example, this – though be warned; it is pretty repulsive.)

And for those of us who are Christians, I think that this does amount to idolatry. I cannot imagine the first Christians, in the days of the Roman Empire, having such great faith in Caesar, or such a feeling of loyalty to Rome and its symbols, or such reverence for the legionaries.

There is a phrase found in the Bible; it speaks of “the gods of the nations”. The truth is that many people in the world – including in western countries – make gods of their nations.

And so there is something else that Christians must not forget during this season of remembrance – the first commandment:

“I am the LORD your God. You shall have no other gods before me.”

Even more important than the three letters WMD, is the three letter word “God.”

Saudi Arabia and Yemen: is honesty too much to ask?

This morning, BBC News published an astonishing story under the headline “Yemen conflict: Saudi ban ‘catastrophic’ for aid”. At least I found it astonishing. It was written in a very restrained and understated way. Very British. But the story it told was astonishing – at least if one stops and thinks for a couple of moments.

Let’s take a look at it.

Aid agencies are seeking urgent access for humanitarian supplies to war-torn Yemen, after the Saudi-led coalition closed all routes into the country. The UN and the Red Cross said a “catastrophic” situation threatened millions who rely on life-saving aid.”

So – what we have here is a country that currently has the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, where people are dying of disease and starvation, and the neighbouring country has closed the borders, thus making it impossible for aid to get in. And this neighbouring country, Saudi Arabia is actually responsible for much of the disease and suffering.

Saudi Arabia justified the move saying Houthi rebels were being supplied with weapons from Iran, and has accused Tehran of “direct military aggression”. Iran denies arming the rebels, who have fought the coalition since 2015.

So the government of a country that invaded its neighbour, which by most definitions, constitutes “direct military aggression” justifies its closing of the border by accusing another country of “direct military aggression” – despite the fact that any Iranian military support for the Houthis has been pretty limited, and there is no evidence at all of any Iranian military support of the Houthis before the Saudi invasion.

On Saturday, a ballistic missile was intercepted near the Saudi capital. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said providing rockets to the rebels “may be considered an act of war”.

So was Saudi Arabia’s invasion in 2015 not an act of war?

The US permanent representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, said Saturday’s missile and others could be of Iranian origin. She said Iran was violating two UN resolutions simultaneously and said it should be held accountable. She appeared to be referring to:

A ban on Tehran supplying, selling or transferring weapons outside the country without prior approval from the UN Security Council

A ban on the supply of weapons to Houthi leaders and their allies, including former Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh

I’ll come back to that in a minute.

Iran’s foreign ministry has insisted that the missile launch was “an independent action” by the Houthis in response to Saudi-led coalition “aggression”.

Seems reasonable. If Saudi Arabia invades Yemen, to expect no Yemeni attacks on Saudi Arabia in response would be remarkably optimistic.

In response to the attack, the coalition announced the “temporary” closure of all Yemeni land, sea and air ports, tightening an existing blockade, but said humanitarian aid could continue to enter Yemen under strict vetting procedures.

And we know from what has been happening for the past two years that in practice, that means very little humanitarian aid getting into Yemen.

However, the BBC’s Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says aid agencies have reacted with dismay and anger to the border closures. The Red Cross said its shipment of chlorine tablets, vital to combating a cholera epidemic which has affected more than 900,000 people, had been blocked.

“If these channels, these lifelines are not kept open it is catastrophic for people who are already in what we have said is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis at the moment,” said Office for the Co-ordination for Humanitarian Affairs spokesman Jens Laerke. “So this is an access problem of colossal dimensions right now.”

The UN says seven million Yemenis are on the brink of famine. The country relies on imports for virtually everything civilians need to survive, but now neither food, fuel nor medicine can get in.

And this has been the case for well over a year now, and it has been no secret, and the situation has just continued to get worse.

More than 8,670 people – 60% of them civilians – have been killed and 49,960 injured in air strikes and fighting on the ground since the coalition intervened in Yemen’s civil war in March 2015, according to the UN.

That’s important bit. Read it again. The vast majority of the people killed by the Saudi coalition in its air strikes have been civilians. Saudi Arabia is accusing Iran of an “act of war”, when not only has Iran not actually done anything, but Saudi Arabia has carried out much bigger acts of war, and not only that, but it has been killing civilians by the thousands. It has repeatedly bombed civilian targets, and it has deliberately killed civilians by blockading the country to kill as many people by starvation and disease as possible.

To accuse another country of an “act of war”, as if that was something terrible, when you are busy committing war crimes on a daily basis, is just beyond belief. It tells you all you need to know about the Saudi government.

And by the way, what is happening to people in Yemen is truly horrible. Cholera causes vomiting and diarrhoea – which in turn cause dehydration. To die of vomiting and diarrhoea isn’t a pretty way for children to die.

Which brings us to what the BBC report leaves out.

Which is connected to the rather strange thing that it includes. Why are the comments of the US permanent representative to the UN, Nikki Haley being mentioned? Why is she talking about this?

Well, there is a helpful article in The Independent this morning which throws some light on the matter.

Here is what it tells us:

The number of British-made bombs and missiles sold to Saudi Arabia since the start of its bloody campaign in Yemen has risen by almost 500 per cent, The Independent can reveal. More than £4.6bn of arms were sold in the first two years of bombings, with the Government granting increasing numbers of export licences despite mounting evidence of war crimes and massacres at hospitals, schools and weddings.

And of course, that is where Nikki Haley comes in. The American government and the British government have given their full backing to the Saudi campaign in Yemen. As The Independent reports,

The British Government has emphasised that it is not a member of the Saudi-led coalition or party to the conflict, but reinstated its support for its intervention to “deter aggression by the Houthis and allow for the return of the legitimate Yemeni Government”.

This raises three obvious questions.

1) What about deterring aggression by the Saudis? Why is aggression by the Houthis so much worse?

2) What makes the government in Yemen that the UK supports the legitimate one?

3) If the UK is so opposed to efforts to overthrow legitimate governments, why did it participate in the violent overthrow of the internationally recognised governments of Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya?

The dishonesty concerning Yemen shown by so many governments is, in my humble opinion, breathtaking.  

And the reticence of media to give proper priority to what should be one of the biggest stories of the day is not much better.

Michael Fallon resigns: seven strange things

1) Two days ago, the fact that Michael Fallon had touched a journalist’s knee 15 years ago made the headlines. I published a piece, asking why he hadn’t been sacked. With hours, he had resigned.

It was strange enough that he resigned within hours of me posting my article. What was very strange indeed is that I had actually composed the post before I even heard about his knee-touching activities.

2) The second thing that was strange is that had nothing to do with the subject of my article – (which was about his disgraceful part in enabling the mass slaughter of civilians in Yemen – and being completely unapologetic about it) – but, apparently, because of the knee touching incident.  If so, that is bizarre.  As Julia Hartley-Brewer (the journalist whose knee was touched) said, if he had gone because of her knee, it would be “the most absurd reason for anyone to have lost their job in the history of the universe”.

Well, I did say, in my post, that it was absolutely astonishing that such a trivial item was considered by the BBC to be one of the 6 main UK News stories this morning – and a sign of the idiocy that prevails in this country.

Now it may be that Fallon resigned because of something other than the knee-touching incident. But it is clear that it has nothing at all to do with his support for the Saudi regime’s brutal actions against Yemeni men, women, and children. 

(There has been speculation that it may have been connected with lewd remarks he is said to have made to Andrea Leadsom, who, in a statement to Parliament on Monday, said Commons procedures for handling complaints about MPs needed to be overhauled as women working in Parliament had “a right to feel safe”.   One wonders how many MPs believe that people in Yemen have a right to “feel safe”.)

3) The third strange thing is that the BBC, in the profile of Fallon that it published on his resignation, gave no hint at all about the fact that he had given his full support to Saudi Arabia’s actions in Yemen – nor to the fact that he had expressed support for the brutal rule of the Islamic extremists who had captured and held the city of Aleppo for several months.

What it said was “His time as defence secretary was characterised by his role overseeing UK military efforts against the so-called Islamic State in the Middle East.” Well, that may have been what he spent his time doing, but it ignores his words in support of Jihadists in Syria and the Islamic extremists who run Saudi Arabia.

4) The fourth very strange thing is that entirely by coincidence, on the very day that Fallon resigned, a report came in that the Saudis, whose bombing of Yemeni civilian targets Fallon had enabled and defended, had done it again.. According to the BBC report,

“A suspected Saudi-led coalition air strike has killed at least 26 people in rebel-held northern Yemen, medics and local officials say. War planes are reported to have bombed a hotel and a busy market in the Sahar district of Saada province.”

The BBC report also says “The coalition also stressed it was “morally and legally committed to protecting civilians as well as civilian objects” and that operations were “conducted according to the highest standard measures of targeting”. ”

Based on Saudi Arabia’s record so far, one can take those claims with a grain of salt.

5) A fifth strange thing is that the BBC report managed not to mention British or American government support for Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that just last week, Campaign Against the Arms Trade was saying “Fallon should be doing all he can to stop the bloodshed and end UK complicity in the suffering, ….” and opposition in Congress to America’s involvement has been in the news this week. 

Let me again quote Daniel Larison, again, speaking about an article in the Financial Times:

That’s the other thing you won’t find in the article: any mention of U.S. or U.K. support for the coalition or the complicity of those governments in what is being done to Yemen. It’s a glaring omission that is unfortunately still all too common in news reports about the war.

Larison can call it a glaring omission. I’ll just say that it is strange. Very strange.

6) A sixth strange thing is the remarkable coincidence that about 3 hours before the market bombing in Yemen, there was an attack in New York City. Innocent civilians killed in both. Whereas at least 26 were killed by the bombing in Yemen, the number to die in New York was eight. Guess which one got all the media attention. Yes, despite the fact that Saada is closer to London than New York is, it was the New York attack.

7) And to make it up to seven (thanks to Glenn Greenwald for pointing this out) there was an interesting response to the New York attack by American Senator John McCain, which, I suppose, could be considered strange. 

According to Salon, 

“Take him to Guantanamo. He’s a terrorist and he should be kept there. And there’s no Miranda rights for somebody who kills Americans,” McCain told reporters at the U.S. Capitol.   In a joint statement with Graham, McCain said Saipov “should not be read Miranda rights, as enemy combatants are not entitled to them.”

Greenwald certainly finds it strange, and I am inclined to agree, that McCain, who was famous before he entered politics because he had been tortured by the North Vietnamese as a prisoner of war, is now calling for a suspect in a crime to be sent to a military prison, and not have the ordinary rights that criminal suspects have.

His grounds for saying so are certainly very strange: he says that these rights are not there for “somebody who kills Americans” – which surely implies that nobody who is a murder suspect in America should have them – and that “enemy combatants” are not entitled to them. I think that any objective person can see that the suspect is obviously a suspect in a murder case, not an enemy combatant.

A final thought

One last thing. In the wake of his resignation, Michael Fallon said “The culture has changed over the years, what might have been acceptable 15, 10 years ago is clearly not acceptable now. “

It is true enough that some things that are culturally acceptable in one culture are not acceptable in others. However, there are some things that are always morally wrong. The sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, forbids murder no matter what culture you live in.

It seems to me that if it was murder for a man to kill eight people in New York by deliberately driving a truck into them, then it is murder for Saudi Arabia to repeatedly bomb civilian targets in Yemen. Yemenis are people just as much as Americans; and the fact that there is a war on does not make attacking and killing a group of civilians anything less than murder.

What would we make of it if some government, somewhere in the world, were shown to be working with New York attacker?

And does that not raise interesting questions about governments that are complicit in the Saudi governments actions in Yemen?  And, in particular, about Michael Fallon?