30 January 2010 The Chilcot Inquiry showcases the conspirators
Christopher King argues that Britain's Iraq Inquiry “appears now to be part of a general unravelling of the Blair conspiracy" and has underlined that UK politicians cannot be trusted. He says the lesson of Iraq lies not in whatever the inquiry might report but in the necessity for British people to take on oversight of the political process themselves.
“The Iraq war is a ‘critical incident’, that is, a catastrophic failure that indicates fundamental problems and demands appropriate change to avert future failures from the same cause. The Chilcot objective of defining theoretical ‘lessons learned’ is wholly inadequate. In the case of, for example, a bridge failure, the basics of bridge design must be revisited and extended. In the case of the Iraq war only a tribunal or court ruling that the war is or is not aggressive warfare will appropriately extend law. This is entirely consistent with the development of English common law. Paper reports are binned or archived without trace. Criminal proceedings and prison sentences are meaningful and remembered.”
We have learned very little that is new from the Chicot Inquiry but it is useful to see those involved in the Iraq war accounting for their actions. We get background and can judge their credibility as well as see the sort of person one finds in these positions. Jack Straw, former UK Foreign Secretary who presented the UK case for war to the United Nations, was completely unconvincing with his evasions and careful wording on critical points but the inquiry was never going to get anything of substance from him.
The inquiry has been at its best in the last two days in pursuing the question of the war’s legality. The entire Foreign Office legal department was unanimous in ruling that it was illegal to go to war without a specific United Nations resolution. This was communicated to the office of the attorney-general, Peter Goldsmith, who was in no doubt about their view when he declared the use of force to be legal. Sir Michael Wood, who headed the Foreign Office legal team, was at one point asked to comment and sent the Foreign Office’s contrary view to the prime minister’s office which drew the angry response: “Why did you put this in writing!” >>>>>
Serious call for Prosecution of Tony Blair.
Call for Blair to face trial in Scotland
31 January 2010
TONY Blair should be tried in a Scottish court for his decision to take the country to war in Iraq, according to a group of SNP MSPs.
The Crown Office, which leads prosecutions, is examining their arguments following the former prime minister's appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry last week, in which he expressed "no regrets" over deposing Saddam Hussein.
A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.
The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair. >>>>>
Blair testimony at Iraq Inquiry 'ludicrous'
Two days after former British premier Tony Blair gave his evidence before the country's independent inquiry into the Iraq war, a former cabinet minister has described his testimony as "ludicrous."
Clare Short told the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that it was fallacious to suggest that al-Qaeda would team up with "rogue states," after the September 11 attacks.
Snip
On January 12, a Dutch inquiry into Netherland's support of the 2003 invasion said the US and Britain had rushed to war without sufficient legal backing under international law.
The commission's 551-page report said UN resolutions prior to the outbreak of the war did not provide a legitimate mandate for the attack. >>>>>
Britain and Genocide
The official annual commemoration of a century of genocide and its victims should be accompanied by a responsible awareness of Britain’s own historical record
The date of the liberation of the Nazi concentration-camp at Auschwitz, 27 January 1945, has since 2001 been marked in Britain as a moment for the remembrance of the victims of the Nazi holocaust – and, by gradual extension, of all those subjected to genocidal assault over the last century. The annual commemoration of “Holocaust Memorial Day”, now in its tenth year, has become an established part of the national political calendar: the highlights include educational programmes and exhibitions, and a series of events attended by survivors of genocide, leading politicians and representatives of religious groups – most of them taking place under the auspices of a charitable trust which works throughout the year (the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust).
Britain is the locus of these activities, but what of its own relationship to the histories and practices being commemorated? >>>>>
BLAIR LIED TO CABINET ON IRAQ
February 3, 2010
Tony Blair lied to his cabinet and misled Parliament over the war in Iraq, according to Clare Short, the former international development secretary.
Snip
"He certainly misled me. I think for the attorney general to come and say there's unequivocal legal authority to go to war was misleading." >>>>>
UK inquiry into Iraq wants meeting with Bush officials
11 February 2010
John Chilcot, head of the inquiry, confirmed that he hoped to obtain evidence from officials in the United States, but did not name specific individuals, or specify if his panel hopes to put questions to former President George W Bush himself. >>>>>
And some more on the Dutch Inquiry which has finished and submitted it's report.
Dutch cabinet responds to Iraq war report
In a letter to parliament, the Dutch cabinet has admitted that MPs could have been better informed in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Snip
Opposition parties were less happy, with the Socialists complaining that mistakes had not been acknowledged. Green Left said the prime minister should accept responsibility for what went wrong and the conservative VVD argued that there are still unanswered questions. Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing Freedom Party, mocked Mr Balkenende for bowing to PvdA demands. >>>>>
FreeVideoCoding.com
Cabinet survives Davids report
After weeks of deliberation, the coalition government has reached agreement on a reaction to the Davids inquiry, writes Trouw. After Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s impromptu statement when it was first published, dismissing the findings of the inquiry into the Dutch support for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, it was always going to be difficult for the prime minister to save face while satisfying coalition partner the Labour Party, which has always been critical of the then Dutch government’s position in the matter. Finally, the two sides managed to find a formula to agree on and ministers are photographed smiling as they leave the meeting. >>>>>
But will it survive the Afghanistan decision?
Trouw and nrc.next agree that, with an eye to the future, it was no accident the cabinet informed parliament yesterday about a NATO request for the Dutch army and police trainers to remain in Afghanistan. >>>>>
Still have a number of reports to go through as the Brit Inquiry continues.
No comments:
Post a Comment