"REPRIEVE" ?:U.K RENDITION AND THE FORMER DPP KEN MAC DONALD.
MacDonald: WAR CRIMINAL.
Clive Stafford Smith who runs Reprieve, has on the face of it, done enormously good work over rendition and torture.
GUARDIAN: LIGHT SHED ON RENDITION PROJECT
(The Guardian "gatekeepers" of government information, work with the state to put information into the public domain, to collect information on what, if anything people will do about, what is going on)
However, we cannot understand - why - Clive Stafford Smith now has the former Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Ken MacDonald as the - Chair - of a charity, called of all things... Reprieve.
The appointment of Mr MacDonald, casts a dark shadow over all the good work of Reprieve.
It does not sit well that the former DPP (who worked alongside Jack Straw, and who were -both - , in any legal sense, involved in Rendition and Torture) is now the Chair of Reprieve, who catalogue the abuses that happened (and continue to happen)
banner stolen by U.K Police State in August 2011.
Ken MacDonald should be on trial for war crimes, yet has the opportunity with Reprieve, to selectively frame for public consumption, the legal arguments etc. over rendition.
Yet in law, MacDonald was wholly complicit in war crimes, including rendition and torture.
And while MacDonald was complicit, he not only enthusiastically, but viciously launched entirely malicious prosecutions against those of us on the front line, actively speaking out about war crimes.
I was unlawfully imprisoned on MacDonald's watch, too.
What he covered up in his time as DPP beggars belief.
It is simply untrue to claim, as the Reprieve website does, that he "championed defendants’ rights, fair trials and due process“.
MacDonald wrote a few cheap words to oppose some of what was going on, but his words were in stark contradiction to his actions, which are and were, entirely devious.
MacDonald was one of Blair's butchers, who sat in his ivory tower, taking a slegehammer to the rule of law, during war.
A mindset that propagates the view public officials can do what they like in public office, then when they leave, that is the end of their legal culpability, is not only delusional, but dangerous.
My questions are these ?
Why do Reprieve not distance themselves from MacDonald?
And if the people were actually able to bring a private prosecution against MacDonald, would Clive Stafford Smith really defend MacDonald?
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 5 of 1113