US defence officials are preventing Barack Obama from seeing evidence that a former British resident held in Guantánamo Bay has been tortured, the prisoner's lawyer said last night, as campaigners and the Foreign Office prepared for the man's release in as little as a week.
Blimey, he’s not been in power a month and we’re already getting “if only the chairman/fuhrer/caudillo knew what was being done in his name.”
Call and response: who do the Cossacks work for?
Symbolically you're probably right, but I think it's important to note that CS-S appears to be speaking the literal truth: information has been intercepted, and censored, while on its way from C. Stafford-Smith to B. Obama.
Posted by: Phil | February 12, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Yes but part of the skill in that is knowing what the president wants to see and not to see. It keeps the agenda where it can be controlled.
Posted by: jamie k | February 12, 2009 at 11:27 PM
However, presumably Obbie sees the internet (or has an intern bring him a digest) so he now knows that something's been kept from him. So he's presumably summoned the hapless flunky responsible and told him...
Posted by: ejh | February 13, 2009 at 07:54 AM
Yes, but perhaps he only sees the bits of the Internet they want him to see!
(Or perhaps he only lets them let him see the bits of the Internet he wants them to let him see. Or...)
Posted by: Phil | February 13, 2009 at 08:44 AM
So he's presumably summoned the hapless flunky responsible and told him...
You're joking, right? This is all in the name of plausible deniability.
Posted by: NomadUK | February 13, 2009 at 03:22 PM
You can get too clever about this stuff.
Scenario 1: Clive Stafford-Smith sees information being censored. CSS thinks: "well er basically this was an utterly predictable move from this so-called reforming presidency". CSS says: nothing. No news story.
Scenario 2: CSS sees information being censored. CSS thinks: "maybe Obama's people are seriously out of control, but he probably just doesn't want to be told what he doesn't want to hear - sneaky bastard". CSS says: "while it's possible that people are genuinely keeping stuff from Obama on their own initiative, it's more likely (although I can't prove it) that they're acting on the basis of an understanding (which may not even be written down) that he just doesn't want to hear certain things". News story: "...while some, including Clive Stafford-Smith, speculate darkly about a presidential double-bluff on the basis of an unwritten understanding".
Scenario 3: CSS says, "people appear to be keeping stuff from Obama, and here's the evidence". News story: "Clive Stafford-Smith says that people appear to be keeping stuff from Obama, and here's the evidence".
Which approach do you think is going to be most effective?
Posted by: Phil | February 14, 2009 at 09:52 AM