Balancing Fairness, Disputing Circumstances

The Vicar of Downing Street has informed journalists that he thinks "it would be better" if the anomaly at Guantánamo Bay were closed. Unfortunately, no one seems to have asked him whether it should be closed after the fashion of the similar anomaly at Abu Ghraib, whose luckless residents will simply be transferred to other anomalies for further edification.

Reassuringly, there is one thing the Reverend always does to balance it out. "The only thing I always do to balance it out," the Reverend said, "is remind people that it arose out of the circumstances of 9/11". Three thousand dead stockbrokers plus extensive property damage justifies pretty much anything, it seems. Again, the journalists do not seem to have questioned the Reverend on how this ethical rigour translates into other contexts. Brutal warlords may arise out of the circumstances in Africa; suicide bombers may arise out of those in the Middle East; yet it is rare for the Reverend to balance his condemnations of the activities of such people with the thundering moral fervour he displays on behalf of the Bush administration.

Still, "In fairness to the Americans, they dispute many of these claims that are made", which obviously must count in their favour. The Iranians dispute the claim that they are building a nuclear bomb, and Saddam Hussein disputed the claim that he had weapons of mass destruction; and we all know how fair and balanced is the Reverend's judgement on both of those issues. Besides, there are things he has read: "there are things, certainly, that I have read about the circumstances of some of the British who were in Guantánamo that are strongly disputed in certain quarters." This is certainly convincing. Indeed, given the manifold justifications of which the Reverend has read and reminded us, it is hard to see what he considers wrong with having the anomaly remain precisely as it is.