I think Penners resident in the UK should be writing to Marsden offering
him their support. There is no question that he will be subject to an
insidious campaign of smear and innuendo, as with unsourced comments
already made public concerning his "emotional stability". Galloway's
position on Iraq is commendible ("indefatigable", even). And check out
the toadies at the bottom, playing the Polly Toynbee role of "critical
friend/friendly critic":Labour rebels step up campaign Set up an international court for Bin Laden, say MPs Michael White and Lucy Ward Tuesday October 23, 2001 The Guardian Labour critics of Tony Blair's Afghan bombing strategy last night launched a new political offensive to widen public debate when they demanded the setting up of a special international court, including Islamic judges, to try Osama bin Laden if he can be captured alive. On the eve of tomorrow's attempt to launch a Labour against the War group, over 40 MPs signed a Commons motion urging the creation of a UN security council-backed court along the lines of the Hague and Arusha courts which are trying genocide allegations in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The move came as Downing Street distanced itself from the heavy-handed warning against dissent given to the Labour MP, Paul Marsden, by the chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, even as Mr Blair's spokesman also declined to endorse President Bush's reported consent to the CIA to assassinate the "prime suspect" in the September 11 atrocity conspiracy. A court to try Bin Laden and others would "clearly signal to the international community that the pursuit of those responsible for these atrocities is an international endeavour on a judicial basis and that the atrocities are criminal in nature and should not be dignified as an act of war," the backbench motion argues. Though the overwhelming majority of MPs support the cabinet's broad policy - even those who favour a pause in the bombing to allow aid through to refugees - some critics believe that there is also considerable unease which a constructive motion will tap into more successfully than outright condemnation. There was also widespread criticism yesterday of Ms Armstrong's handling of Mr Marsden's high-profile rebellion, which included an allegedly verbatim account of their private row. "Hilary couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding," said one minister, who claimed that the row was mild by historic disciplinary standards. Ms Armstrong is an inexperienced chief whip and Mr Marsden is an inexperienced rebel who yesterday made clear he would not be silenced by the party machine. "This goes much further than the war and much further than the way I have been treated. I am challenging the whipping system, but also the whole question of the erosion of our democracy which the government seems completely complacent about," he told the Guardian. The MP for Shrewsbury urged a radical constitutional shake-up, including whips paid for by their party, not the taxpayer, a fully elected second chamber, and a system of public petitions which could trigger Commons debates - a system used in the Scottish parliament. He argued that war against terrorism should be dealt with by the United Nations. It would never have sanctioned bombing on the present US scale, he believed. Privately some Labour MPs believe that pressure on colleagues has ensured that doubts on the war are being under-reported. George Galloway, MP for Glasgow Kelvin and a longtime opponent of sanctions against Iraq, told Guardian Unlimited: "I think that a large number of Labour MPs support my position. Only a few have yet spoken out but this war has a long way to go. It's important that those who feel our way put pressure on their MPs." Downing Street yesterday insisted that British troops will act according to the Geneva convention if directly involved on the ground in Afghanistan, and "attempt to apprehend" Bin Laden for trial in the US. "But war is not a clean business and people can and do die during a time of war," the spokesman stressed. But he also said repeatedly that the government was not looking to supress dissent and that MPs were perfectly entitled to express their views - even when wrong. Mr Marsden yesterday ridiculed whispers over his emotional stability. The MP said he felt he would not have been able to justify his career to his two children if he had not stood up for his beliefs over the war and the need for greater government accountability. How other MPs see the row Graham Allen, ex-whip, MP for Nottingham North: "The government has actually been much more generous than it need be in terms of keeping parliament informed. It's a war situation. Parliament has been recalled three times, there's a statement from a minister every other day. Parliament is certainly more in the know than it was during the Falklands war. So, given that this has been a very inclusive and open conduct of war, this little problem [the Marsden affair] goes against the grain of what the government is actually doing." Karen Buck, (Regent's Park and Kensington North) "Like most people I watch the war with a great deal of anxiety. I am OK about what's happened so far because there was justification for taking action in pursuit of Bin Laden. Most of us do not have the information which would enable us to say 'this particular tactic is wrong.' I think Paul (Marsden) is wrong to say this is a matter of conscience, not policy. It's reasonable to have different views, the question is, are you doing it in a way that puts it under proper scrutiny." Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): "My position is the same as it was at the beginning. I couldn't see any action apart from the bombing, but I wanted the diplomatic and humanitarian action running in parallel with the Afghan borders open. As for Paul, people have always expressed their views and always been leaned on by the whips. He must have had a tape recorder - or a verbatim memory." Tom Watson (West Bromwich East): "Mine's the view of the man in the street. I don't think we have much choice in the bombing, whatever people's personal views duty kicks in. I thought Paul was a bit silly giving out a transcript (of his talk with the chief whip)." Tony Coleman (Putney) "Like most Labour MPs I support the government and was annoyed when (critical) MPs who had spoken in the last two or three debates were called in the fourth debate too. As for the whips, it's up to MPs to decide what they wish to do, but the whips are there to note what individual MPs are saying and inform them of government policy." Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): "People are entitled to speak on these issues. It is counter productive and politically maladroit when you try to prevail upon people talking about something which they demonstrably feel strongly about as a matter of conscience. As it happens, I wholeheartedly support and conduct and stewardship of this crisis, and I think the prime minister has played a blinder. But I think a lack of a confirmatory vote in parliament before we send armed forces to war is a serious deficiency in our democracy and our unreformed parliament." Gerald Kaufman, ex-minister (Gorton): "I support what the government is doing in Afghanistan and I support the chief whip." Anonymous minister: "I got far worse tickings off from the whips when I was a backbencher. Hilary Armstrong couldn't knock the skin off a rice pudding." Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,579092,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
