SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Over the last several years, the British Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith has been increasingly vocal in his criticism of Bush administration policies towards detainees stemming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has condemned the detention system created in Guantánamo using rather sharp language, and he has repeatedly stated that the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions applied.
While British forces have not been subject to abuse charges either as numerous or severe as their American allies, there have nevertheless been a number of incidents reported in the press. And there have been a number of court-martials, some with curious outcomes – dismissals following what appears to have been intervention from the Attorney General’s office.
London’s Independent now reports that Lord Goldsmith had a difference of opinion with the British Army’s chief law officer in Iraq, Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer, over the applicability of the Human Rights Act of 1998 to those taken into custody in Iraq. Colonel Mercer argued for the higher standard, in part out of concern for the migration of harsh tactics used by the Americans. The English Court of Appeal ultimately sustained his view as correct. Lord Goldsmith is now taking an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, where he is expected to make arguments much like those made by American authorities against the applicability of international treaty standards.
The airing of the underlying correspondence today in the Independent does more damage to Lord Goldsmith’s reputation, already tarnished by his mixed advice on the legality of the Iraq War from the outset.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”