Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Iraq Inquiry - Chilcott's Circus Clowns Come to Town
#1
Chilcott describes his terms of reference as being "very broad" (see: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/). Which arguably is true, when the public actually want an Inquiry where the terms of reference are strict, tight and under legal jurisdiction. But the pubic rarely get what they want.

So get ready to sit down, light that roll-up hanging from your bottom lip, suck on a Stout, put on your comfy armchair slippers and prepare to be dazzled by the new Circus due in town next year. They'll be paper Tigers, several trapeze artists, a bearded lady and lots and lots of painted Clowns who will pantomime us to sleep via our nightly news.

Naughty men will be scolded, yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8357963.stm

Quote:Blair faces Iraq probe next year

[Image: _46721123_008207986-1.jpg]

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is to be called to give evidence to the Iraq War inquiry early next year.

He will be among senior Labour figures to be publicly grilled just months ahead of an expected general election.

Mr Blair and the others may be quizzed again in more detail, but that will not happen until after the election, which must take place by June.

Inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot has said his report will be published at the end of next year, or even 2011.

In a statement, Sir John said the first five weeks of public evidence sessions, which will begin on 24 November, will hear from senior officials and military officers.

"We will ask them to explain the main decisions and tasks, and their involvement," he said.

"That will give us a clear understanding of how policy developed and was implemented, and what consideration was given to alternative approaches."

'Face-to-face'

Ministers, including Mr Blair, will be called in January and early February.

“ It is not for us to make findings of guilt or innocence - only a court can do that ”
Sir John Chilcot
The parents of soldiers killed in Iraq have already warned that they intend to confront Mr Blair at the hearings.

At a pre-hearing last month, Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was among the soldiers killed in the war, said the families wanted to be "face-to-face" with the former prime minister.

The first round of public hearings will be followed by private meetings and analysis before a further round of public sessions in mid-2010.

"In some cases, those hearings will be used to invite witnesses to discuss issues in more detail than in earlier evidence, or to pursue further lines of inquiry," Sir John said.

He added that the inquiry would seek first-hand accounts on the "thematic issues" that need addressing during its initial phase.

These issues would include equipment, personnel, the "key decisions taken and their rationale", the legal basis for military action, policy and communication, said Sir John.

'Open as possible'

He said the committee would be "thorough, rigorous, fair and frank", but added that "no-one is on trial".

"It is not for us to make findings of guilt or innocence - only a court can do that," he said.

"I have, however, made clear that we will not shy away in our report from making criticisms - of individuals or systems - where that is warranted."

When he launched the inquiry he said it would be "as open as possible" with hearings televised and streamed online.

But he said some hearings would be held in private for national security reasons or to allow "more candour".

He has said he does not expect anyone to refuse a request to give evidence.

The inquiry will cover the entire eight-year period from the build-up to the war to the withdrawal of British troops - from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#2
If anything happens I will be more than surprised. Stupid
Reply
#3
Hmm - the official version is rapidly falling apart. :hmmmm2:



Quote:Lord Goldsmith told Tony Blair war to topple Saddam would be illegal

Then attorney general's hitherto unpublished letter, written eight months before invasion, given to Chilcot inquiry into Iraq war

Tony Blair was told by his government's most senior legal adviser that an invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein would be a serious breach of international law and the UN charter.

Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, issued the warning in an uncompromising letter in July 2002, eight months before the invasion. It was becoming clear in government circles that Blair had had secret meetings with George Bush at which the US president was pressing Britain hard to join him in a war to change the regime in Baghdad.

The hitherto unpublished letter has been given to the Chilcot inquiry on the Iraq war. Goldsmith is due to be questioned about it early in the new year with other senior government lawyers who questioned the legality of an invasion at the time. Goldsmith warned Blair that "as things stand you obviously cannot do it [invade Iraq]", a source familiar with the dispute told the Guardian.

Increasingly concerned that Blair was ignoring his earlier advice that regime change was "not a legal basis for military action", on 29 July 2002 Goldsmith wrote to Blair on what the Mail on Sunday described as "a single side of A4 headed notepaper".

The typed letter was addressed by hand, "Dear Tony", and signed by hand, "Yours, Peter". In the letter, whose existence was confirmed by other sources, Goldsmith warned that the UN charter permitted "military intervention on the basis of self-defence", but it did not apply here because Britain was not under threat from Iraq; that the UN allowed "humanitarian intervention" in some circumstances, but such was not the case in Iraq; and that it would be very difficult to rely on earlier UN resolutions approving the use of force against Saddam.

Goldsmith is reported to have ended his letter saying "the situation might change".

Blair not only ignored Goldsmith's letter, he banned the attorney from attending cabinet meetings. Goldsmith was so angry that he threatened to resign – and lost three stone in weight as Blair and his closest advisers gagged him, according to the Mail on Sunday. A spokesman for Goldsmith told the paper: "His focus is on the legality of the war, its morality is for others."

Goldsmith issued his private warning to Blair before a new UN security council resolution – number 1441, in November 2002 – held Iraq in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations and gave Saddam "a final opportunity" to comply with them. He subsequently allowed UN weapons inspectors into the country. The inspectors were withdrawn once Bush made it clear he was about to bomb Iraq and invade the country.

On 7 March 2003, Goldsmith warned the government that although Saddam could be said to be in breach of his international obligations, British forces could still face legal action if they participated in an invasion. Ten days later, he issued a brief statement saying invasion would be lawful. The Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence to justify war revealed that Goldsmith changed his advice after a meeting with two of Blair's close advisers, Lady (Sally) Morgan and Lord Falconer.

It also revealed that a worried Lord Boyce, then chief of the defence staff, needed "unequivocal" advice that the invasion was lawful. He got it after Goldsmith's office contacted 10 Downing Street. Downing Street advised the attorney to say that an invasion would, indeed, be lawful, and unequivocally so. Boyce is due to give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry this week.

Lord Falconer told the Mail on Sunday that the version of events it described was "totally false".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/29...ith-letter
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#4
It always was clear that the real reason was to grab Iraqi oil and, later, Iranian oil.

The inquiry by Chilcott very much reminds me of the Iraq weapons inquiry by Lord Justice Scott that took place shortly after Margaret Thatcher was tossed out of power. Despite all the excited trailing in the media, by Richard Norton-Taylor and others, building great expectations of justice that was soon to be visited on us long suffering Brits for the wrongs done to us by Her Nibs, the report - as was to be expected by anyone with even a dim insight on how government works - a complete load of bollocks.

But it achieved what it was intended to --- it earthed the boiling anger and discontent.

Tone has nothing to fear.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#5
David Guyatt Wrote:The inquiry by Chilcott very much reminds me of the Iraq weapons inquiry by Lord Justice Scott that took place shortly after Margaret Thatcher was tossed out of power. Despite all the excited trailing in the media, by Richard Norton-Taylor and others, building great expectations of justice that was soon to be visited on us long suffering Brits for the wrongs done to us by Her Nibs, the report - as was to be expected by anyone with even a dim insight on how government works - a complete load of bollocks.

But it achieved what it was intended to --- it earthed the boiling anger and discontent.

Tone has nothing to fear.

Yes, I agree in general.

However, in their weasly, highly calculated, mandarin testimony, both Meyer & Greenstock said, essentially, "It was all legal if distateful, but if it's proven that there was a secret high-level deal between the Americans and the Brits to get Saddam regardless, then we knew nothing, guv. Such a deal, if indeed it did exist, was agreed between Blair and Bush personally, and we were out of the loop."

Goldsmith didn't show any courage at the time, but is now allowing his private correspondence to be leaked to cover his own sorry ass similarly.

It is of course almost impossible to imagine that Chilcott would grow a pair and state that the British and Americans agreed on regime change in Iraq and then tried to cook up legal cover. But if Chilcott even suggested this, the British establishment apparitchiks are already cackling mad mandarin laughter at how they've stitched up Blair, attempting to render him solely responsible for the pre-meditated regime change option.

A plague on all their houses.
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War."

Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Reply
#6
I have some reason to doubt the veracity of the below claim that we Brits knew nothing about US plans for the invasion of Iraq until June 2002.

Without going into details I know someone who I believe worked in military intelligence (military as opposed to MI6/SIS) who had retired but had been called back to temporary service in the Winter of 2001. It didn't occur to me at the time the significance of this but later it made sense as Iraq was the only thing of any military significance that going on.

Quote: Moment US revealed Iraq war plans

[Image: _46854026_iraqchilcotpa226.jpg]

A senior British military figure has described the moment that the US "drew back the curtain" on its plans for possible military action in Iraq.

Maj Gen David Wilson, who was UK adviser to US Central Army Command, disclosed the UK was made "privy" to US plans in Florida in June 2002.

The UK later said it could not offer "even basic support" if political and legal hurdles were not cleared.

The Chilcot inquiry is examining UK policy on Iraq between 2001 and 2009.

'Defining moment'

It is scrutinising the military build-up to the 2003 invasion, looking into when military preparations began in the UK and US and whether they made a diplomatic solution less likely.

Maj Gen Wilson said there was no talk about Iraq by senior US commanders when he first took up his role as the link between UK and US military headquarters in spring 2002.

But he said this "suddenly changed" in June following a meeting between senior UK and US commanders.

“ This is when not just the British, but the Australians, were made privy to planning that had gone to that point by the US ”
Maj Gen David Wilson
In what was a "defining moment", he said the UK was presented with what he described as "options without any commitment" regarding possible military action in Iraq and how the UK might contribute.

"This is when, not just the British but the Australians, were made privy to planning that had gone to that point by the US," he said.

This development raised all kinds of questions in the UK, he said, since British commanders did not know how the US had got to this stage.

"The secure wires went hot," he said of reaction in the UK.

Maj Gen Wilson said he "assumed" the decision to sanction disclosure of the plans was made by then US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

'Observations'

In early August, UK and Australian commanders attended a meeting in Florida and were asked to provide what Maj Gen Wilson said were "early observations" on the plans.

He said he advised that "unless political and legal issues are resolved it would be difficult for the UK to deliver even basic support".

He also suggested that other US allies be given insight into the plans and stressed "no decision" was taken on Iraq at that stage.

Earlier, another senior commander said he set up a small "scoping" group in Whitehall to look at potential military options for Iraq in May 2002, not long after a key meeting between Tony Blair and President Bush.

"My job was to bring options," Sir Anthony Piggot, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff in 2002 said. "There was no talk about plans at that stage. We were talking about options".

INQUIRY TIMELINE
November-December: Former top civil servants, spy chiefs, diplomats and military commanders to give evidence
January-February 2010: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and other politicians expected to appear before the panel
March 2010: Inquiry expected to adjourn ahead of the general election campaign
July-August 2010: Inquiry expected to resume
Report set to be published in late 2010 or early 2011
He said this exercise was driven by an "evolving political intent".

Asked what this intent was, he said he believed it was focused on dealing with the weapons of mass destruction Iraq was believed to possess not regime change.

'UK ideas'

From an early stage, he believed the minuses of the UK not contributing anything to a potential action "outweighed" the pluses.

Recalling the June 2002 meeting with US commanders which he attended, he said he was told the US had "enough combat power" to go it alone in Iraq but wanted UK support for military and political reasons.

"What we want from the Brits is ideas," he said he was told. "You are the thinkers."

Sir Anthony told the Iraq inquiry that it was never "a stitched-up deal" the UK would be involved in any invasion.

"It was a remarkable logistic achievement to get that force structure in that timeframe into there to play a leading role," he said.

Asked what the UK got out of the mission, he said it showed the UK was a "serious player" and "enhanced no end" its military relationship with the US in terms of future operations and sharing intelligence.

In the first few weeks, the inquiry is hearing from senior diplomats and policy advisers who shaped policy in the run-up to the war.

The crucial question of the legality of the war will not be addressed until early next year, when Tony Blair is expected to give evidence.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#7
David Guyatt Wrote:"What we want from the Brits is ideas," he said he was told. "You are the thinkers."
:hahaha::hahaha::hahaha:
That's priceless! If they'd given it more than 3 seconds thought they'd never have gone.

Quote:Asked what the UK got out of the mission, he said it showed the UK was a "serious player" and "enhanced no end" its military relationship with the US in terms of future operations and sharing intelligence.
Confusedheep: The UK is allowed to play with the big boys. Wow. I am underwhelmed. Oh, and be the recipient of dodgy US intelligence no better than toilet paper. Like the Nigerian yellow cake, mobile chemical weapons vans in the Iraqi desert and those missing WMD that were sold to Saddam by the west. Ending up with all that shit doesn't seem much of a privilege. :bike:
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#8
Quote:Asked what the UK got out of the mission, he said it showed the UK was a "serious player" and "enhanced no end" its military relationship with the US in terms of future operations and sharing intelligence.

Not to mention multiple instances where the US threatened to end intelligence sharing with the UK over Guantanamo, the murdered Blair advisor etc.
Reply
#9
Just like Cheney and Bush giving their un-sworn testimony in secret. Can't say I am surprised at all. Odious little man.
Quote:
Untouchable: Blair to give Iraq War evidence in secret

Former PM was happy to discuss invasion with Fern Britton on TV show – but the Chilcot inquiry will hear his crucial testimony behind closed doors
By Jane Merrick and Brian Brady

Sunday, 13 December 2009

[Image: blairalt1_274893t.jpg]
AFP
It will be seen as supremely ironic that Mr Blair made the confession in the cosy surroundings of a documentary about his religious beliefs, in Fern Britton Meets...to be broadcast on BBC1 today, yet the public will be denied the chance to see any difficult questioning


Key parts of Tony Blair's evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War will be held in secret, sources close to the hearings revealed last night.
His conversations with President George Bush when he was prime minister, and crucial details of the decision-making process that led Britain into war, will fall under the scope of national security and the protection of Britain's relations with the US.
But there are also suggestions by well-placed sources that anything "interesting" will also be shrouded in secrecy, leaving his public appearance containing little more than is already known.
Related articles


The revelation will dash hopes that Mr Blair will finally detail in public why he committed British troops to the disastrous military invasion on the basis of flimsy intelligence.
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg last night condemned the move, saying if a significant proportion of Mr Blair's evidence were held in private then the public would "rightly conclude that the inquiry is simply too weak to give us the truth".
It followed Mr Blair's extraordinary admission to the TV presenter Fern Britton this weekend that he would have gone to war even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
He would have deployed "different arguments" to remove Saddam, Mr Blair said – undermining his long-held case that Saddam needed to be toppled because of the threat of WMD.
It will be seen as supremely ironic that Mr Blair made the confession in the cosy surroundings of a documentary about his religious beliefs, in Fern Britton Meets... to be broadcast on BBC1 today, yet the public will be denied the chance to see any difficult questioning of how he has changed his justification for war over the past seven years.
All of the evidence held behind closed doors is expected to be redacted from the Chilcot panel's final report on the war.
There are already concerns that Sir John Chilcot and his four fellow panellists have given the 27 witnesses who have so far appeared – mainly senior Foreign Office mandarins – an easy ride over their role in the war.
The former MI6 chief Sir John Scarlett, in evidence last week, distanced himself from the "overtly political" foreword to the September 2002 Downing Street dossier. Yet the panel failed to ask why it was that Mr Blair and Alastair Campbell were able to amend the document he was in charge of. Sir John will also give evidence in private.
The inquiry adjourns for the Christmas break this week. Mr Blair will appear in public in the new year, followed by a private session.
The IoS revealed earlier this year that Mr Blair lobbied Gordon Brown, through the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, for the inquiry to be held in private to prevent it turning into a "show trial".
After widespread uproar, the move was blocked and it was announced that all evidence would be public and televised. Yet a source close to the inquiry said yesterday that the "interesting" aspects of Mr Blair's evidence will still be heard behind closed doors.
The source said: "Anyone who thinks the public will have their day in court with Blair is wrong."
It is thought the move arose from a mutual agreement. Whitehall frequently uses national security as a reason to withhold documents from the public. The Freedom of Information Act also blocks the release of details where the effects of disclosure could damage the UK's relations with any other state or international organisation.
A spokesman for the inquiry said: Mr Blair would be appearing "very much in public". He added: "We have said right from the start that he will be a key figure in the inquiry. Mr Blair has said that he is ready and willing to give evidence in public."
Mr Clegg said last night: "It would be wholly unacceptable for any of Blair's testimony to be held in private, except that which could directly compromise national security. Tony Blair's breathtaking cynicism in stating that he would have found any old excuse to go to war simply underlines how vital it is that we hear his testimony in public.
"It is highly ironic that he is willing to speak publicly to Fern Britton but not to the inquiry set up to investigate the Iraq War."
Another source with knowledge of the inquiry said it was clear the "heavy stuff" was being saved for behind closed doors.
Hans Blix, head of the UN weapons inspectorate in 2003, said that Mr Blair's confession to Fern Britton had left a "strong impression of a lack of sincerity", adding that the WMD argument was a "figleaf".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/hom...39289.html
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#10
THis is how the secret state protects itself. The odious little man Magda, is Opus Dei and, therefore, a deep member of that Anglo-American-Vatican power complex that (imo anyway) is the guiding mind and hand behind much of the crucial deep events of the last century and those of this century.

Let us pray:

Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today,
To ensure that God's Will be done,
As we wish it to be done
So that your humble servants, Lord,
Can benefit from your munificence.

Amen.

Now bring on the hookers and little boys and lets celebrate in Your name....
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  ‘Iraq war unlawful’: all 27 UK Foreign Affairs lawyers, 2003. ‘Official report delayed again’ Magda Hassan 0 2,523 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  "Devastating" dossier on abuse, torture and murder by UK forces in Iraq David Guyatt 0 2,502 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)