To: letters@guardian.co.uk
Re:
British barbarity  - at siege of Iranian embassy
Date: Mon,
13 January 2003

 

 

Return to index

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Having missed the first showing in July, I was shocked by the repeat last Wednesday of Peter Taylor’s account of the siege of the Iranian Embassy in 1980 on BBC2.

 

The following day I searched the Guardian’s website for any articles on the subject and found the following response to the first showing of Peter Taylor’s report: Siege SAS men 'told not to take prisoners', July 24, 2002.

 

I had heard what I assumed to be unsubstantiated speculation about some of the hostage takers being killed in cold blood by members of the SAS after they had thrown down their guns and surrendered, but - clinging to my belief of "British decency" - had been reluctant to believe it.

 

The account left no doubt about the truth. Not only had Britain’s elite SAS soldiers killed in cold blood, they had been told to do so (implicitly, but quite clearly) by the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, and were criticised afterwards by her husband for allowing one of the hostage takers to live.

 

In the light of what is now known, the coroner’s verdict of “justifiable homicide” makes a mockery of British justice, which at the time was presumably judged preferable to having to charge our “heroic” soldiers AND the British Prime Minister with murder, or, at the very least, with manslaughter.

 

Now I understand why Mrs Thatcher was such an ardent supporter of General Pinochet in his fight against extradition to Spain, she herself being responsible for actions deserving a very long prison term.

 

To kill someone who has surrendered is an act of barbarity, for which we, in whose name it was done, should feel deeply ashamed.

 

20 years later, does it really matter?

 

It matters a lot – not least, when condemning acts of barbarity committed against ourselves or our friends, we stand accused of double standards and hypocrisy.