Michael Howard, MP, spoke today [Wednesday 12 July 2006] in the House of Commons [UK] debate on the so-called NatWest Three that was prompted by the procedural steps taken by the Lib Dems. In his speech, Howard reportedly stated this, "It surely would be an affront to our standards of justice and everything this House should stand up for if these men were to find themselves in a Texas jail for up to two years before they even have the opportunity of answering the charges against them."
Could not the Michael Howard words be more truthfully and appropriately applied to back the universally recognisable human rights of men held for so many years somewhere else by the USA and in many parents of the European Union following the cynically mis-named RENDITION torture collaboration by the Blair administration?
Why hasn’t Michael Howard spoken like that about those men?
Why haven’t the Lib Dems spoken about those men like the speeches they gave in the London House of Commons today for the NatWest Three?
Why didn’t the Lib Dems move a similar motion for the rights of those men?
Why didn’t ex-Editor of the Times, William Rees-Mogg ooze outrageously [in the platform given him by the very biased and war-backing Daily Mail group of newspapers] in praise of Menzies Campbell on any aspect of the Blair violations of the rights of so man innocent hundreds of those in the oil-containing desert and sub-desert states in Asia?