The Killing of Troy Davis

Now, my thoughts on the death penalty are on record, and there is nothing in the events surrounding the state-sanctioned murder of Troy Davis that has changed my mind in any way. In fact, the opposite is true. It isn't just the moral case against the death penalty that is brought into sharp relief by this execution, but also the extent to which the decision to execute, the run-up to any execution and the implementation of that execution all highlight how the death penalty is not about the emotionless and dispassionate administration of justice, but rather as tangled a mess as any system created and run by fallible humans inevitably ends up being.

Let's look at the evidence that led Davis - or more properly meant that Davis was led - into the execution chamber. The lack of a gun and of any DNA evidence meant the case against him at his original trial was far from conclusive. The fact that the vast majority of those witnesses who led to his conviction have recanted their testimony makes that evidence even less conclusive. And the fact that one of those two remaining witnesses who have not recanted is also a suspect in the murder that earned Davis the death penality is yet another indicator that all is not right in the conviction that led to the execution of Davis. Had I been on the jury at Davis' initial trial, I probably wouldn't have convicted. I certainly wouldn't based on the evidence (of lack thereof) floating around just before he got the needle. It appears a man who was most likely innocent was put to death in the state of Georgia. Of course, I can't know for certain that he was innocent - indeed, that level of knowledge is arguably impossible except for the murderer and the murdered. But we've not talking here about a sentence that can be reversed. Davis died. He was killed by the state. There is no going back on this. Now, I understand that it is perfectly possible that we will never come up with a justice system that can guarantee that it is not convicting the innocent. But that is precisely why we shouldn't have the death penalty - an innocent in prison can be released. An innocent in the ground can't.

Yet there are other reasons some argue should make us ok with the death penalty. After all, with the introduction of the lethal injection, it surely became just a case of putting people to sleep. Of course, the idea that humans should just be put to sleep, like sick dogs, is inhumane to some - even if they are (apparently) guilty of the most heinous crimes. But even the supposedly painless lethal injection can end up being anything but. Take the execution that had to be abandoned as the executioners couldn't get the IV line into their victim's veins. Or the prisoner whose execution lasted for 90 minutes. Or the condemned man who had to be given a double dose of the lethal chemical cocktail. Or even the poor sod whose execution went on for so long that he had to be given a toilet break*. I think all of these could be seen to be cruel and unusual punishments, but they also highlight that the notion of the clean, sterile, painless execution is a myth. And that's before we get onto whether the lethal injection is actually painless. Or the fact that its creator argues that it is flawed because he never realised when he helped to set up the execution method that "complete idiots" would be "administering the drugs." As for the deterrence argument, the research is far from conclusive. The experts can't agree. And when it comes to taking the lives of potentially innocent people, is a little consensus on the wider implications on society too much to ask?

So to summarise, we have a system that executes people who are almost certainly innocent. It isn't, at least in its existing forms, painless or humane - not least because it is implemented by people incapable of doing so properly. And is it a deterrent? Fuck knows. Yet it is something that doesn't make sense that can also carry an appalling cost, as the Troy Davis case shows. And as a result I can't help but think that we shouldn't be debating the potential reintroduction of the death penalty on this side of the Atlantic - rather, they should be debating it's abolition on the other side of that ocean.

*And isn't that a good indicator of the total insanity of executions? They pump the victim full of lethal drugs, but he get's a bathroom break so he doesn't piss himself.

That *Special* Relationship

So the media and the internet is alive with stories about how Obama may have snubbed the Prime Minister. Certainly, Brown’s visit has been met with less fanfare than those of Brown’s predecessor – both with Obama and with Bush Junior. Then again, I dare say if Gordon Brown were coming to visit you then you wouldn’t be rushing to clear your diary for the fucker.

Which is the point – perhaps Obama was just too busy to meet properly (ie a photo opportunity that might boost Brown’s popularity) with Brown. Ok, he had time to meet the scouts, but it is all a matter of priority. The scouts are just as, if not more, important to Obama than meeting the British Prime Minister.

Leaving us with the question of "where exactly does our special relationship sit with the US at the moment?" Well, it hasn’t really changed that much from where it has always sat. See, the relationship between the US and the UK is like the relationship between a charismatic, powerful individual and a needy, clinging partner. With the UK very much playing the part of the needy lover. Being treated to a special relationship with the US boosts the ego of the British nation and – in particular – the ego of whatever muppet is resident in Number 10. Yet the simple truth is we are the junior partners in the relationship with the US, and Gordon’s visit highlights that we need the power and influence of the US far more than the US really needs us.

Think about it – Obama doesn’t need Brown to achieve what he wants to achieve. He has billions of dollars to throw at the recession, and he has the goodwill and Congressional influence to achieve that at the moment. The last thing he really needs is some sort of grey ghoul brown-nosing him – people on his side might start to question the wisdom of what he is doing if they associate his policies with such as colossal failure as Gordon Brown. Obama doesn’t need to do a massive press conference with Brown; the brief chat he had with him yesterday was probably enough of a waste of time as it is.

Which is why Brown’s arrival in Washington was greeted with far less fanfare than Blair’s arrivals when Bush Junior was resident in the White House. Bush Junior needed Tony Blair – partly to create an illusion of coalition against Iraq, and partly because the emotive Blair was far better at making the case for the War on Terror than any of the ruthless hawks in his administration. There was no real love between Blair and Bush, and no relationship of equals between the UK and the US in that era of international relations, but a grudging understanding that the US needed the UK more than normal.

Our relationship is special only in that UK-US relationship is better than the US relations with so many other countries in the world. And that isn’t really an achievement when you consider that other countries worry far less about not getting on too well with America. France is a great example; whilst Sarkozy has been much keener than others to court the US, the general attitude – especially under Chirac – was that the US could go fuck itself. So whoopee-do – we get on far better with the US than other countries that don’t really care how they get on with the US.

So let’s be very clear – Brown wasn’t snubbed; his visit simply shows the reality of the special relationship with have with America. We are not equals; we just have more influence with the US because when they shout, we come running. When the US needs us, our Prime Minister will be treated better than other world leaders visiting the US and our nation will appear to be bosom buddies. When the US doesn’t need us, then guess what – we’ll be left floundering.

C’est la vie.

So this is freedom?

So, they are free then. A gift from Iran to the British people. Very generous Ahmadinejad is too.

It took me a while to figure out what had happened, because the course of events seems quite surreal. Iran captures our sailors (most probably in Iraqi waters, judging by the Iranians changing the co-ordinates of the seizure to prove themselves right), takes them prisoner, mumbles about putting them on trial for spying, then puts them through various wince-making and unconvincing confessions on the tele, before Ahmadinejad announces their release in a hyper-active press conference. And then sending them on their way with gifts, apparently:

And whilst the sailors are imprisoned in one of the least friendly* regimes in the world, our government embarked on a mild propaganda war against Iran, and aside from that seemed to sit on their hands, hoping for the best. Sure, a lot of the diplomacy will have been in secret, but our government never really seemed to do anything more than make the right noises.

It is the end of a tense two weeks in British-Iranian relations, but as the dust settles and the 15 go off to enjoy their funky Iranian gifts in Devon, it is difficult to see who actually won this little confrontation. The commentators and pundits are in total disagreement, as the front page of The Independent nicely shows. And the reason is simple - no-one can really claim victory from this little crisis.

Last night I was convinced that Iran had won, but now I am not too sure. They don't seem to have gained anything other than a bit of publicity from this kidnapping. And the UK certainly didn't gain anything - they lost 15 sailors for a fortnight, and seemed incapable of doing anything other than waiting for their release.

But then again, what more could either side have got? Iran was always going to have to return the sailors at some point - had they kept them for much longer, or even have gone as far as putting them on trial, then the international outcry would have been tremendous and the sanctions deeply damaging for Ahmadinejad's increasingly unpopular (in Iran) regime. Equally, the UK could do nothing other than wait and hope. Blair et al could not apologise** without losing face in the West and further damaging the UK's already terrible reputation in the Middle East. Equally, they could not attempt to rescue the troops - the sub-Rambo talk of special forces grabbing the sailors back is deeply naive.

Which begs the question, what was the point in all this?

I reckon the answer is simple - nothing. There was no point. Someone, somewhere, fucked up. The UK sailors were not sent into Iranian waters as spies, and equally the Iranain government did not order the kidnapping of the sailors. Either the UK forces accidentally strayed into Iranian waters or (far more likely) Republican Guard units over stepped their boundaries and procedures and seized the British troops. Now the medals have been handed out for the cameras, I think someone in Iran will be getting a bit of a kicking. Or, as Jackart so eloquently puts it:

"I suspect Tehran was as surprised as the 15 Sailors about the capture and some Republican Guard commander might catch a sly bullet over this fiasco."

Quite right - I think Britain was staggered to lose 15 sailors, and I think Iran was staggered to gain the 15 sailors. And from that point on, there was no doubt the sailors would be returned, it was just a question of both countries trying to save as much face as possible.

Which is why I think that now the sailors are back home and now Ahmadinejad has had his moment of glory, this crisis will be swiftly brushed under the carpet. Neither side could ever have won from this crisis, but the sailors spent two weeks as prisoners in a hostile country
because neither side wanted to be seen to have lost.

*To the West, anyway
**Assuming the British sailors were in the wrong, which I deeply, deeply doubt