PDA

View Full Version : Brown Botch War Enquiry



David Guyatt
06-17-2009, 09:51 AM
The British penchant for secrecy. Sshh! Don't let the public know what we do in their name and with their money:


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090617/tuk-ex-army-chief-slams-iraq-probe-plan-6323e80.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090617/tuk-ex-army-chief-slams-iraq-probe-plan-6323e80.html)


Ex-Army chief slams Iraq probe plan
Wednesday, June 17 03:14 am

The head of the Army at the time of the invasion of Iraq has joined the criticism of Gordon Brown's decision to hold the inquiry into the war behind closed doors. Skip related content

General Sir Mike Jackson, the then Chief of the General Staff, told The Independent that he would have "no problem at all" in giving his evidence in public.

Holding all the hearings in private would, he said, simply feed the current climate of "suspicion and scepticism" about government.

He said that it should have been possible to have a "halfway house" arrangement in which most of the proceedings were conducted in public while those relating to secret intelligence were held in private.

"They say they are modelling this on the Franks inquiry into the Falklands War. Well, that was 30 years ago in a very different world," he said.

"The main problem with a secret inquiry in the current climate of suspicion and scepticism about government is that people would think there is something to hide. And public perception at the moment is terribly important."

He urged the PM to reconsider whether the inquiry should be given the power to subpoena witnesses and take evidence on oath.

"We are told that having a private inquiry will make people more candid. But none of the evidence will be given under oath and also the inquiry has no power of subpoena. These are things that should be looked at," he said.

Magda Hassan
06-17-2009, 10:03 AM
I heard about this on the radio today. What a sham. Why have an inquiry if it is going to be secret? And they've got Chilcot as the trustworthy mandarin jellyfish to cover it up nicely.

Peter Lemkin
06-17-2009, 10:39 AM
The British penchant for secrecy. Sshh! Don't let the public know what we do in their name and with their money:


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090617/tuk-ex-army-chief-slams-iraq-probe-plan-6323e80.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090617/tuk-ex-army-chief-slams-iraq-probe-plan-6323e80.html)


Ex-Army chief slams Iraq probe plan
Wednesday, June 17 03:14 am

The head of the Army at the time of the invasion of Iraq has joined the criticism of Gordon Brown's decision to hold the inquiry into the war behind closed doors. Skip related content

General Sir Mike Jackson, the then Chief of the General Staff, told The Independent that he would have "no problem at all" in giving his evidence in public.

Holding all the hearings in private would, he said, simply feed the current climate of "suspicion and scepticism" about government.

He said that it should have been possible to have a "halfway house" arrangement in which most of the proceedings were conducted in public while those relating to secret intelligence were held in private.

"They say they are modelling this on the Franks inquiry into the Falklands War. Well, that was 30 years ago in a very different world," he said.

"The main problem with a secret inquiry in the current climate of suspicion and scepticism about government is that people would think there is something to hide. And public perception at the moment is terribly important."

He urged the PM to reconsider whether the inquiry should be given the power to subpoena witnesses and take evidence on oath.

"We are told that having a private inquiry will make people more candid. But none of the evidence will be given under oath and also the inquiry has no power of subpoena. These are things that should be looked at," he said.

Now why would anyone suspect the Brits (or the American's that have them on a leash and would have their dirty laundry washed in public, as well) have anything to hide?!....:marchmellow:

As for not under oath and no subpoena power.....one must choose to laugh or cry.....it is obviously a sham investigation of the new and 'approved' type. Nothing will come out that will hurt the criminals at the top. :ridinghorse:

Any real investigation would put quite a few in prison. :congrats:

Magda Hassan
06-23-2009, 07:43 AM
BROWN WAS ‘BEGGED BY BLAIR’ TO HOLD WAR INQUIRY IN SECRET


http://images.dailyexpress.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/109109_1.jpg

PRESSURE: Blair called on Brown to keep inquiry behind closed doors
Monday June 22,2009TONY Blair pleaded with Gordon Brown not to hold the forthcoming Iraq inquiry in public, it emerged last night.

In secret messages passed via Britain’s top civil servant Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell, Mr Blair feared he would become the accused in a show trial. Mr Brown’s decision to hold the inquiry sparked outrage last week.
But Mr Blair is said to have told the Prime Minister he was worried about giving evidence on oath – and also feared revealing the truth about intelligence reports and secret conversations with US President George Bush.
Signing on to American plans to topple Saddam Hussein amid false claims that the Iraqi dictator was developing weapons of mass destruction was the most controversial decision of Mr Blair’s time at Number 10.
Giving a full picture of what happened could mean Mr Blair revealing details he is planning to keep secret until his memoirs – for which he received £5million – are published.
A spokesman for the former Labour leader said: “This was a decision for the current prime minister, not for Tony Blair.”
A Downing Street spokesman said that a number of people had been consulted.
But Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward yesterday confirmed that Mr Blair had been involved. He said: “Of course the Cabinet Secretary discussed this with the former Prime Minister because he obviously will be one of the major witnesses who will be giving evidence to Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry.”
Despite suggestions of a U-turn, Mr Brown’s decision to hold the inquiry in public attracted more criticism from ministers yesterday. Transport Minister Sadiq Khan said that it looked awful.
Justice Secretary Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary at the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, said he would have no objection to giving most of his evidence in public.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/109109

Peter Lemkin
06-23-2009, 08:05 AM
I'll try to find the url, but heard only yesterday there is a new release of a leaked memo showing that Bush and Blair had long ago agreed on a date to start the war, and only needed a reason or excuse and were discussing this...

Magda Hassan
06-23-2009, 08:08 AM
Peter I have that on the forum just a couple of days ago. Yes, all arranged. Using UN as a decoy.
Here it is: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1669

Peter Lemkin
06-23-2009, 06:38 PM
Peter I have that on the forum just a couple of days ago. Yes, all arranged. Using UN as a decoy.
Here it is: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1669

I think Tony and W will not do a lot of international travel soon - for fear of being arrested for War Crimes..well, it never was W's 'big' thing to travel too far from the barbecue pit.....but it might just crimp Tony's 'style'.......Thanks Magda, that's the one!