If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The sham of "independent" inquiries
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
For all those who are amazed that the Hutton Report has let the darling Fuhrer completely off the hook, I point out one thing: there is no such thing as an independent inquiry.
How can there be? I'm sure Hutton had no particular political or moral leanings, but the question always is: who appointed the members of the inquiry? If it was Bliar then the appointees will only be those who he thinks will back him, and if it was appointed by an "independent" or cross-party committee, then who appointed the committee?
There is no such thing as independence because it always, no matter how indirectly, always goes back to the Government. And the Government aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot- look how shabbily Elizabeth Filkin was treated.
As I've said before, I wouldn't wipe my arse with the findings of any "independent" inquiry.
How can there be? I'm sure Hutton had no particular political or moral leanings, but the question always is: who appointed the members of the inquiry? If it was Bliar then the appointees will only be those who he thinks will back him, and if it was appointed by an "independent" or cross-party committee, then who appointed the committee?
There is no such thing as independence because it always, no matter how indirectly, always goes back to the Government. And the Government aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot- look how shabbily Elizabeth Filkin was treated.
As I've said before, I wouldn't wipe my arse with the findings of any "independent" inquiry.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Everyone here knows my thoughts about the war. Accuse me of bias if you will, but I have GREAT trouble believing the government is not at fault here. What is crystal clear is that the government has misled the country repeatedly and LIED to all of us with regard to Saddam's WMDs and the perceived threat Iraq posed. To be frank I couldn't care less who inserted the 45 minute claim or in which circumstances. The government, starting with the Right Hon. Anthony Blair MP, have lied through their bloody teeth to us.
And I’m sorry, but any enquiry that clears Campbell of wrongdoing looks hopelessly flawed to me.
Very cheeky (to put it mildly) of Bliar to accuse others of lying now and to demand an apology. We're all still waiting apologies from him concerning the WMDs, the need for the war, the 52 British soldiers dead and the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in our name.
God do I hate the man! :mad:
I think that was me actually:p
Join the club. And then when I start ranting about the bastard, people think I'm being stressy *sigh*
Why do people have to resign over this though!!
the great unwashed would like to hear about the reasons for going to war. the reasons why a labour government blindly or with eyes wide open, went along so willingly with such a right wing american admin. the lies and bullshit we were all arguing against here before the invasion took place have stood to be true. our truth has stood. criminals are running the country ...war criminals.
Something more concrete and substantive than your own opinion would be appreciated.
No, but there are plenty of other experienced law lords who WEREN'T chosen. I don't begrudge Hutton anything, but the reasons why he was chosen and not, say, Browne-Wilkinson LJ, should always be taken into account when dealing with these reports.
Though Matadore, the operson who appoints judges is the Lord Chancellor. Who is appointed by the Prime Minister and is a member of the Cabinet. Erm.
Wait a minute Clandestine ... I have lurked (mainly) on this forum for ages and enjoy the running battles you and Aladdin et al have with The Matadore. I always support you! Except here.
With respect, Lord Hutton is an extremely distinguished judge. He is impartial ... to suggest otherwise is as serious as the charge Andrew Gilligan made regarding the 45 minute claim. Political favours in return for appointing Law Lords a la the US Supreme Court are completely unheard of in the UK - we truly have an independent judiciary, appointed by the legal profession (only really ratified by the Lord Chancellor, I think, Kermit) - just think of all the defeats for Michael Howard as Home Secretary, or the criticism from Law Lords regarding Guantanamo Bay.
Hutton was appointed 1) because he is retired, so he needn't fear that his report, whichever way it came down, might affect his future career and 2) because he was the Northern Irish Law Lord and spent his career well away from the legal and political career of Tony Blair etc.
We might not like the conclusions he has drawn. We might disagree with them (which is why he has written such a long report - so we can make up our own minds. Let's clamour long and loud for a full, independent inquiry into the whole war - why we went, what we were and weren't told, and why it is all going so wrong! But let's not impugn the character of a man who has worked long and hard to digest mountains of evidence with the eyes of the whole world on him and the careers of many in his hands. And let's not become so cynical that we are unable to trust any inquiry - judge each one on its merits!
Oops - long post!
The BBC was at fault, that is for certain and yes perhaps heads should roll, but I have a terrible feeling the government is going to use this to change the BBC.
It was so one sided.
If you condemn the one source which has legitimately opened the window of scrutiny on illicit government intent, what precedent do you set except to encourage increased lack of scrutiny and thus increased capacity for duplicity and coverups in the future.
The BBC was right and the public should be supporting it unreservably.
Who was, is he accountable to then?
On what basis do you say this?
At the time that Gilligan made his "sexed up" comment there was no suggestion that the Govt has deliberated misrepresent the intelligence information which they had. That was a fundamental ruling that Lord Hutton made.
Now, I'm not going to dispute that hindsight makes a mockery of the 45-minute claim, but even Dr Kelly didn't dispute it at the time.
This inquiry was never about the move for war, it was about what had led a man to take him own life. The report was the main reason for that.
That Gilligan is still reporting for the BBC when he has put them into the position they find themselves is shameful.
The government DID make the claim of a 45 minute preparedness and thus that Iraq was an imminent threat, knowing full well that their "evidence" was thoroughly contrived/plagiarised from uncredible or out of date sources. Gilligan merely did the job which investigative journalists should in exposing the truth of the government's lies and spin.
To blame the BBC for Kelly's suicide when Kelly freely gave his testimony on the matter is to willfully allow yourself to be diverted to yet another govenrment scapegoat rather than levelling the blame where it truly belongs (regardless of Hutton's whitewash) and that is squarely on #10.
On the matter of accountability i refer to the accountability of the government, that's who. And you shouldn't have to be told to whom the government is accountable.
As for the "at the time" comment, that is merely a convenient sidestepping of the fact that the government HAD spun the intelligence to promote its intent to support the illegal and aggressive actions of the Bush admin. Insofar as Gilligan opened the public's eyes to this fact and awoke the otherwise slumbering civic duty of the masses when precious few were undertaking such scrutiny is to be applauded, not condemned.
Otherwise perhaps youd rather simply believe what any given administration chooses to let you know according to their own PR. I fear to think how much greater the duplicity would become then.
How? How can it be their fault the whole thing got started? The BBC is there in part to provide a news service and it would have been wrong of them to ignore their source and fail to expose the claims made about the Dossier by an internal source.
Gilligan didn't make the comment - Dr Kelly did. Gilligan just reported it.
So you missed the findings of the report then.
You know the part where Hutton pointed out that at the time that the 45-minute claim was included, the Govt and intelligence agencies were satisfied that it was credible.
They didn't make it up, nor did they have anything at that time which contradicted it.
Dr Kelly did not say that the dossier had been "sexed up", other than to suggest that the most damning available evidence was included - provided that the intelligance agencies supported the evidence. If they didn't - then it didn't go in.
Gilligan made a report which he himself now admits was incorrect and unfounded.
Is it only a whitewash because it doesn't fit with the way you wanted it to go?
Kelly gave a testimony to Gilligan, but this isn't the same as was reported. That is why I blame Gilligan.
Hutton is and was not accountable to the Govt.
No it isn't.
I am happy to apply hindsight to the whole affair. But Dr Kelly's suicide has little or nothing to do with that. The pressure he came under was a direct result of Gilligan's fabrication.
He claim that the document was deliberately changed, it wasn't - such is the findings of a judge and his reasons are set out in the document.
What you are talking about there is a separate issue - one I cover elswhere (The Dyke resigns thread).
The fuller inquiry would have to look at all of the intelligence which was available at the time, to see if Blair deliberately misled the country, or if he was acting on the information which was available at that time.
Remember, Parliament voted to go to war, based on the information they were given. You cannoot claim that Blair had difference information without supporting that...
He could have made a totaly valid story out of the information he got from Kelly and it could have been just as interesting. He fucked it up and because of that the government has got off the hook and the BBC gets in the shite.
Thats why I thought the BBC would come out worse, but not this bad.
It was added by Blair and or his cohorts (however they seek to divert blame or cover their own arses) to politicise the imminence of the threat and justify the invasion. So Gilligan was right in exposing the sham.
It was included by the JIC, based on intelligence recieved from a "reliable" source. What Hutton says is that the standing instruction to the JIC was that nothing should be included which was not evidence based. This instruction can be found in Ali Cambells e-mails to this team.
And, of course, Alistair Campbell only communicates via e-mails which happen to have been stored.
Gilligan was wrong, but to blame him for everything is basically flogging a scapegoat. Something which Blair is particularly adept at.
Not blaming him for everything.
Much like the rest of you, I have concerns about some of the findings, and I don't think that the Govt should be exonerated to the extent that they have, but I don't think that the BBC should have come out unscathed.
With regards Gilligan himself over 47% of people (in a guardian poll) said that he should have resigned - 37% said Blair should, and 35% said Dyke should.
What you have here is a man who reported something incorrectly. He admits this. His Chairman and CEO have both resigned over the issue - and yet he is still there. Where they show integrity and honour, he continues to show none.
Yes, I think that there needs to be a wider inquiry, but I'm not convinced that people really want "the Truth" but want a reason to remove Blair. Any inquiry which doesn't damn him would automatically be seen as a whitewash.
For me we would have to be shown that Blair knew that WMD weren't an issue when the vote took place. That he had the information which showed that he was lying. Anything less is a reflection of the people who report to him...
Why are war advocates so ready to accept the mere word of our leaders (claiming they MUST know more than we little folk) yet demand proof of their duplicity and lies.
Perhaps if we refused to approve of militant action before absolute and irrefutable proof were provided to back their claim of the need for war, we wouldnt return again and again to this Vietnam scenario of war for corporate profit based on spin and contrivance.
It's not going to be their life on the line nor that of their children, so its time we stopped assuming they have a case until one is fully made, scrutinised, debated, and shown to be true.
Actually, if you remember correctly, WMD made no difference to my support for the war.
But the Govt used them as justification. Now, we all know that none have been found so this suggests one of three things:
1. They have been moved/hidden
2. Our Govt knew they weren't there, but lied to us
3. Our Govt were misled through poor inteliigence gathering.
Only number 2 should lead to the resignation of a PM - unless you can show that his personal intervention created number 3.
I was willing to accept that there is intelligence which I will never be allowed to see. That is part of their role, to have it any other way - i.e. that any Tom, Dick, Harry has access to the most sensitive of information, from the most sensitive of sources would undermine the whole process of intelligence gathering.
I am also willing to accept that something intelligence will be used as a cover. That is the price we pay for this service. If we can show that this has been done then a scandal would, rightfully, ensue.
Again, unless you have access to as much information as they do, then you cannot show that they are lying. We put these people in a position of Trust to interpret the information on our behalf. We therefore need proof that this Trust has been betrayed.
There is nothing so black and white. You will never get absolute proof in such a way.
Just as in a court of law we have to apply the "beyond reasonable doubt" rule.
As for trust, well trust is no excuse for lack of public scrutiny and mechanisms whereby that scrutiny may be made at any time. Ive lived through sufficient numbers of adminstrations each of which has lied and used "national security" as a smokescreen for pursuing greater power and the further enrichment of their coproate money men.
Time for trust is over, time for unconditional accountability (as any employee (and public employees they are whatever delusions of rulership they wish to live in) must give when demanded by his/her employer) to become the status quo.
Otherwise you can watch this betrayal of the public repeated ad inifinitum. The future legitimacy of participatory democracy depends on removing these mechanisms and ensuring transparency.
Surely the protection of people who provide us with intelligence (thus commit treason in their own countries) should be paramount?