Uzbekistan

[Sauron]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/29/13419/922

The British government is trying to prevent the publication of memos which detail how information procured by torture in Uzbekistan is being used by the US and the UK. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and author of the memos Craig Murray explains:

With Tony Blair and Jack Straw cornered on extraordinary rendition, the UK government is particularly anxious to suppress all evidence of our complicity in obtaining intelligence extracted by foreign torturers.

The British Foreign Office is now seeking to block publication of Craig Murray's forthcoming book, which documents his time as Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The Foreign Office has demanded that Craig Murray remove all references to two especially damning British government documents, indicating that our government was knowingly receiving information extracted by the Uzbeks through torture, and return every copy that he has in his possession.

In a big "fuck you" to the British government, UK bloggers have done a coordinated leak of the documents being supressed today. In case those sites are shut down by the British government, I have republished the documents as well. At this point, Blair might as well admit defeat on these memos and move on.

And:
http://thismodernworld.com/

Here’s what that partnership looks like in action :

At the Khuderbegainov trial I met an old man from Andizhan. Two of his children had been tortured in front of him until he signed a confession on the family’s links with Bin Laden. Tears were streaming down his face. I have no doubt they had as much connection with Bin Laden as I do. This is the standard of the Uzbek intelligence services.

And this is the standard that we’re living under with a President who looks the other way while children are being tortured.

To the fools out there who routinely praise the President for having the “moral clarity” to call terrorists evil, how can you reconcile that with the chummy relationship he’s made with tyrants? The lesser of two evils argument doesn’t really work when you chide anyone whose view of fighting terrorism is more nuanced than “smoke them out of their holes” and you verbally fellate the President for being “right on the only issue that matters”. You’re either in favor of moral relativism or you’re not.

[username]

We had issues with Iran so we supported this little nobody called Hussein in Iraq. Then we had issues with Hussein so we support whats his name in Uzbekistan.

The wheel keeps on turning.

[California Tanker]

Wheel's turning faster than you think. If you're not keeping up with current events, the Western World gave Uzbekistan a bit of a slap on the wrist over its recent elections/repressions, and the Uzbeks kicked the US (and others) out of the country.

Right now, really only the Germans are keeping close ties with them.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Wheel's turning faster than you think. If you're not keeping up with current events, the Western World gave Uzbekistan a bit of a slap on the wrist over its recent elections/repressions, and the Uzbeks kicked the US (and others) out of the country.

Right now, really only the Germans are keeping close ties with them.

NTM

Could you draw out the relevance of this point for me?

I have a hard time seeing the point of responding to evidence that X was complicit in gang robbery or gang rape by asserting that X later fell out with his accomplices.

But then, what is the point in this case? Is it really just that the US and UK may (may) have stopped using Uzbekistan in particular as a torture outsource? How does this address the observation that they did?

[California Tanker]

It doesn't. I just make it as an observation as to how quickly ties/alliances are made and broken, even these days.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

Oh. Okay.

Also, look both ways before crossing the street.

And neither a borrower nor a lender be.

[Adam]

To the fools out there who routinely praise the President for having the “moral clarity” to call terrorists evil, how can you reconcile that with the chummy relationship he’s made with tyrants? The lesser of two evils argument doesn’t really work when you chide anyone whose view of fighting terrorism is more nuanced than “smoke them out of their holes” and you verbally fellate the President for being “right on the only issue that matters”. You’re either in favor of moral relativism or you’re not.

It's always perplexed me how quickly a president who relies on moral absolutist arguments for his own ends falls back to relativist arguments when justifying his actual means. It's not just the current administration of course...politicans have always made (sometimes of their own accord, sometimes due to forced choices) moral compromises in order to get their job done. It's just that the most recent president has made such a grand show of his own 'moral clarity' that it stands out in abnormally sharp relief.