I do not breathe your politics
The Newsnight "Allies On Trial" thing
What a peculiar thing. The BBC generally seem to do these mock trials fairly well, but this one was just plain odd. The premise is that in prosecuting the war (wrong or right), the behaviour of the allied forces was questionable, and that behaviour is on trial.
The 'defence' of the US position was done by a barrister called John Cooper, who I conclude was finally found at the bottom of a barrel of television lawyers, with scrapemarks on his head. A David Starkey wannabe but without the intellectual rigour (yes, I really did say that), he singularly failed to do anything but pull on heartstrings, or boom about the potential deaths of thousands, in a headmasterly tone. At no point did he even begin to provide any solid support for the neoconservative position that the GWOT truly requires methods falling outside of traditional international norms, even when dealing with an enemy known for not respecting those norms.
He totally failed with Moazzam Begg (resorting to prosecutorial tactics when he is acting in defence, in the face of the quiet lucidity of Mr Begg's testimony), and was unconvincing in the face of a barrage of emotes from Shami Chakrabati. Indeed he seemed not to be able to capitalise on the fact that Ms Chakrabati couldn't give him chapter and verse on why rendition is illegal under international law. I'm sure there is a single concise difference he could have pointed to between extradition and rendition, even in the short time available to do so.
The real insult was the use of the parent of a victim of the 7th of July bombings - someone he could rely on for gutwrenching sadness. This witness could not, of course, provide anything other than 'impact' testimony. It is inappropriate to ask him for his stance on torture of people who might or might not have been tangentially responsible for the death of his child. The 'prosecution' asked him no questions, effectively short-circuiting this slimy tactic.
Now, indeed, to the prosecutor: the brilliant Clive Stafford-Smith, a British-born lawyer, famed for his defence of death row inmates in the USA. My first thought was that this was an odd choice for a prosecutor, but as I watched it occurred to me that this is a man known for very precise interpretation of the law, in genuine life-or-death situations. He essentially prosecutes failings in the legal treatment of his clients.
Mr Stafford-Smith should, I think, have concentrated on the ultimate questions about rendition, extraordinary or otherwise, as they are at the heart of this notion of illegal conduct. Any of these would do it:
'I'm afraid I know nothing about your client or his bottom'A sentence I am unlikely to forget hearing on television. posted by Michael at 12/15/2005 04:20:00 AM |
5 Comments:
Abbie Bright said...
In response to the review of Newsnight's 'Allies on Trial', I would like to clarify the position in relation to John Cooper's (on the Attorney General's A-list of prosecutors) defence of the Allied position.
Firstly, criticism was made of how the defence called the father of a victim of the London bombings. The BBC had arranged for a witness of this type to be called; it had not been within the discretion or control of Mr Cooper.
Secondly, the reviewer takes exception to Mr Cooper's 'headmasterly' presentation of his arguments, and ignorantly comments on Mr Cooper's 'lack of intellectual rigour'. This is a pompous and crass line to take, especially in light of Mr Cooper's highly regarded and authoritative book, 'Cruelty: An Analysis of Article 3', a professional primer on the demands of that particular aspect of the European Convention on Human Rights. The work represents a superb and meticulously compiled example of scholarship, which would grace a place on any criminal lawyer's bookshelf. It has been personally endorsed by Lord Hope, a leading judicial light, and is of invaluable use in this complex and shifting area of law.
Also, the reviewer is unnecessarily indignant that Mr Cooper deployed a prosecutorial examination of Moazzam Begg, a witness hostile to his case. Apparently incredulous at this, the reviewer identifies Mr Cooper as a defence barrister, but in no way is the prosecutorial treatment of a hostile witness in conflict with the role and remit of defence counsel. On the contrary, any adversarial legal system (and the British justice system is a paradigm example) rightly posits a combative style of questioning of witnesses as the very best way in which evidence is tested. Evidence that fails to withstand the 'intellectual rigour' of robust probing at the hands of an advocate is fairly exposed, either as unreliable, or less plausible than would otherwise seem the case.
Perhaps the reviewer might in future care to better research his journalism - not to mention his legal analysis.
Michael said...
Wow. Someone is feeling a little aggrieved, and I feel, perhaps writing on someone's behalf. I am a blogger with personal views. You say "Perhaps the reviewer might in future care to better research his journalism - not to mention his legal analysis". Perhaps the critic would like to identify their position of expertise and their relationship to the key players, if any.
First let me respond to your generally agitated tone by saying that I was 'reviewing' - actually merely commenting on - the programme, not just Mr Cooper. My political bias is obvious, and I am not a reviewer - this is just a blog, not the letters page of the Times. As a blogger I am going to write things you don't like, from a viewpoint you feel might be uninformed. Deal with it. Trash me somewhere else online if you want, I'd love the traffic.
As a viewer I think Mr Cooper could and should have done better, especially if he is as much of a reknowned expert as you say. It was my impression and it remains my impression that Mr Cooper was selected to take a 'Moral Maze'-type aggressive position, and he fell into the TV trap. His academic position did not show to me as a viewer - this is what I mean about a failure to display any intellectual rigour at all. If I was criticising Mr Cooper's wider body of work and using this expression, you would be right to call me pompous and crass. (Nice tone, by the way).
First of all, Mr Cooper's use of the 'victim witness' testimony seemed to me to serve absolutely no purpose except to appear condescending - a personality trait which is magnified dramatically on television. He could perhaps have done as Clive Stafford-Smith had done, and asked no questions. In that way he might have forced Mr Stafford-Smith to take a questioning line in response, which might have made for good television. As it stood, it reminded me (as a viewer) of a David Starkey misfire. The witness has absolutely nothing to offer of substance on the debate, and while I think was a shame the BBC chose to put him on the witness stand, there were better ways to handle it.
Second, on Moazzam Begg: it is merely my opinion, my impression, that he floundered with Mr Begg, who appeared quiet and lucid. I stand by my view. Mr Begg's case may be complex but we got nothing except an inference that his viewpoint was not to be trusted because he was an inmate. This didn't go down well with me. I'm sure there was a better way an 'expert' could have used this witness to make a point in a short time on television, rather than just giving us a snippet of an aggressive defence style that may very well be more effective in a courtroom over a longer period of questioning.
Third, he simply failed to get anywhere with Shami Chakrabati, who he could have gored quite justifiably. In my post, as a non-expert, I wondered if he could have made a point on the difference between extradition (what the allies infer they are doing) and extraordinary rendition (what critics infer). As an expert he surely must be able to find one, and was that not the point of Ms Chakrabati as a witness - the legal perspective? He did not, and as such, failed again to put his viewpoint across on television, instead only seeming to 'nag' Ms Chakrabati. More echoes of Mr Starkey.
As for 'unnecessarily indignant', thankyou for the sideswipe but I remain necessarily indignant. I'm going to assume for a moment that he didn't take this job on against his will. By showing us only a snippet of pushy defence style and failing to make a point, he wasted a nationally televised opportunity to provide a defence for a style of imprisonment that is justly in need of one.
As far as legal analysis and journalism goes, I am of course not a lawyer or a journalist - well spotted! You will notice that in my 'analysis' I was critical of both perspectives. I was merely personally more critical of Mr Cooper because I think he made for truly uncomfortable viewing. If this upsets you, I apologise.
I am however a citizen of the UK, and I wanted to see a prosecution and a defence of the key issues; guantanamo, rendition, the blurring of the line between insurgency and terrorism, islam and 'islamism'. In my view, Mr Stafford-Smith failed to drive home the key point about the tactics of the GWOT, and that is that rendition (of the ordinary or extraordinary kind) to foreign regimes can serve no purpose except to expose them to lesser justice, and Mr Cooper failed to provide a reason why it was not rendition but extradition, or why rendition is legal. The television programme itself failed as a result. The only witness I will remember is Tim Collins, and for the wrong reasons.
Michael said...
(Update of sorts).
Reading back, I in fact wrote in my original post: "a David Starkey wannabe but without the intellectual rigour (yes, I really did say that)".
This was quite harshly worded and a little hyperbolic (see my earlier remark about this being a blog and me saying things people don't like), but I think it should be clear I was referring to his performance on the programme (hence the comparison with a bellicose radio regular who is not a barrister).
Equally, it would appear that the qualifier in parentheses is a nod to irony, but as this was two months ago now, I can't be sure.
However, it seems that it provoked quite a personal defence, along with a plug for a book that would not shame a publisher's agent. Quite unnecessarily; nobody really reads this blog.
Abbie Bright said...
Michael,
I am perfectly happy to identify my position, as that of a Times reader who takes an interest in the Tuesday legal supplement. Just as I would take issue with an unfair and misleading review (or comment, if you prefer) of a position taken by David Pannick or Marcel Berlins, Times columnists, so I have done in respect of John Cooper, the Times media columnist. I am a fourth year law student, who takes an interest in public international law and so stumbled across this blog. I spent a few minutes researching the BBC programming policy behind 'Allies on Trial', after watching the Newsnight feature, because I too had thought the second witness was a somewhat suprising call to make. I'm aware of Mr Cooper's book because, as mentioned, I'm a law student and I follow developments in this area closely. I'm a huge fan of Clive Stafford-Smith, and have followed him to events organised by his charity (Reprieve) twice to date.
I had thought that the tone of my blog was temperate but apologise if it came across as anything other. Since 'agitated' merely suggests that, as a blogger, I have a pulse and can be moved to write, you and I at least have this in common.
Irritating but iconic smiley face.
Michael said...
Abbie,
You seem to be a little terminologically confused. (I have no idea if that's a word. Suck it up, OED!)
This page is part a blog. These are comments on a blog article. You are commenting, not blogging. Also, you don't seem to have a blog of your own or any comments elsewhere. This by no means compulsory of course (sometimes I wish I had this measure of restraint!), but if you do have one, a link would be great.
Forgive me for sounding a little cynical about your position, but in your first comment you gave Mr Cooper's book a glowing review, but failed to offer up a reason why it is unfair to call someone 'headmasterly' when they seem it. You also appeared to answer from a position of some assumed authority - 'clarifying', rather than suggesting an explanation.
In your second comment you identify Mr Cooper as a columnist for the Times (I did not), and name columnists who are unrelated to the discussion at hand. This troubles me and does not rid me of my cynicism. I've not mentioned the Times in this post (indeed I generally try not to, but that could be my political position showing, I guess).
I've had a couple of 'astroturf' comments on this blog before, and have commented on the plasticbag.org/Cilit Bang debacle. It would disappoint me if these were shill comments, but not surprise me, as in researching a reply to your comment I discovered that I am on the first or second page of a google search for 'John Cooper barrister', depending on whether or not the search is restricted to the UK. (Sorry, Mr Cooper, but that's the internet. I'm not entirely sure how it happened that way either.)
If you are not, I apologise, and I would like to add that in my own research on Mr Cooper I've found that I agree with his position on many issues, which just makes his total non-starter in the televisual defence all the more puzzling. I accept that it could be from the point of view of the devil's advocate, but even then it was a failure. A failure matched, I'm afraid, by the marvellous Clive Stafford-Smith's blunder into Tim Collins' withering putdown, and by the programme as a whole.
(Relatedly I just saw Col Collins interviewed on the current UK armed forces abuse scandal, and I am repeatedly impressed by his televisual ability).