firehand

Prometheus 6   

Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same

July 18, 2003

 

Our first 21st century colony

I said it before, and I'll say it again: John Constantine at Hellblazer finds the scariest stuff...

We are now a client state

Britain has lost its sovereignty to the United States
David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian

Britain has by now lost its sovereignty to the United States and has become a client state. As Tony Blair flies in to Washington today to be patted on the head by the US Congress, this is the sad truth behind his visit. No surprise, therefore, that the planned award to him of a congressional medal of honour for backing the US invasion of Iraq has been postponed. To be openly patronised in that way, under the circumstances, would be just too embarrassing.


Okay…didn't congressional medals of honor used to be limited to, like, actual heros who actually fought in actual wars? But it gets worse. Well, for Britain it does, anyway…

These points lead inexorably to the fifth fact about our loss of sovereignty. Britain can no longer fight a war without US permission. Geoff Hoon, Britain's defence secretary, said humbly last month that "the US is likely to remain the pre-eminent political, economic and military power". Britain would concentrate, therefore, on being able to cooperate with it. "It is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the US," he said. As Rumsfeld brutally pointed out, however, the US could easily have fought the Iraq war without Britain.


Of course they won't be in any large-scale combat actions without the USofA. Somebody has to start the damn things.

Want more?

At the height of the Iraq fighting, David Blunkett went to Washington to be praised by John Ashcroft, the US attorney general, for what he termed Blunkett's "superb cooperation".

Blunkett agreed that the UK would extradite Britons to the US in future, without any need to produce prima facie evidence that they are guilty of anything. But the US refused to do the same with their own citizens. The Home Office press release concealed this fact - out of shame, presumably. Why did the US refuse? According to the Home Office, the fourth amendment of the US constitution says citizens of US states cannot be arrested without "probable cause". The irony appears to have been lost on David Blunkett, as he gave away yet more of Britain's sovereignty.


Blunkett is no fool. Why would anyone expect the USofA to guarantee British citizens rights that the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act took away from its own?

posted by Prometheus 6 at 7/18/2003 02:12:43 AM |

Posted by P6 at July 18, 2003 02:12 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1154
Comments
Post a comment
WARNING:I have no problems altering your message to something personally embarrassing if you're rude









Remember personal info?