Home Politics & Debate
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.

Man Of Straw blocks Iraq papers release

"Justice Secretary Jack Straw has vetoed the publication of minutes of key Cabinet meetings held in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003. He said he would use a clause in the Freedom of Information Act to block the release of details of meetings in which the war's legality was discussed. Releasing the papers would do 'serious damage' to Cabinet government, he said, and outweighed public interest needs. The Information Tribunal ruled last month that they should be published." More details here.

Quite astonishing, really. This is the second time in as many months that this government has tried to break the law for its own purposes. Last month, Harriet Hagperson - she who wants to lead the Labour Party in opposition, ha ha! - tried to mount a bid to cover up MPs expenses after the courts had ordered that the details be released. Now we have an information tribunal ordering that minutes should be released, Jack Man Of Straw decides he doesn't like it so he's going to block them being disclosed.

Yet again, the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" line which this Darien Government trots out doesn't seem to apply to themselves. What are these bastards hiding from us? Why are the likes of Jack Straw so desperate to make sure they're either very old or very dead before these papers have to be released in 2033? [Cabinet papers are released after 30 years, in case you're wondering where I got that date from] How many more lies did they really tell us?

The impending mass riots and street protests can't come soon enough!
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »

    "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

    Im not Miss Debate 2009 so im not very experienced and im new to this whole forum. And yet that statement is so very true. Im sure the rights and wrongs and the 'we were right to go to war' and the 'we shouldn't have gone to war' debates have happened so I wont go on about that.

    However, that statement rings true in my mind. If the government has nothing to hide then why are they hiding information? Again.:banghead:
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    I'm not really surprised to be honest, the whole Iraq war was/is and forever will be a joke.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How the fuck could possibly "damage to the Cabinet" be an acceptable excuse not to release information? :crazyeyes :mad:

    Bastards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    How the fuck could possibly "damage to the Cabinet" be an acceptable excuse not to release information? :crazyeyes :mad:
    Any grounds will do, so long as Master Broon isn't left embarrassed. Nice to see him doing his usual Macavity act over this. No chance of him being asked at PMQs about it either - the Tories were complicit in getting us into the war. Dear oh dear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Any grounds will do, so long as Master Broon isn't left embarrassed. Nice to see him doing his usual Macavity act over this. No chance of him being asked at PMQs about it either - the Tories were complicit in getting us into the war. Dear oh dear.

    The Tories were not 'complicit', in the sense they did not know that the threat of WMD etc were untrue. If by voting for the war means the Tories are 'complicit', then I am complicit too because I was certain Tony Blair wouldn't be lying and that he MUST have had access to information which would substantiate his claims. It soon became clear, however, that I had been lied to and I will never forgive this government for the innocent blood they have placed on my hands by proxy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    The Tories were not 'complicit', in the sense they did not know that the threat of WMD etc were untrue. If by voting for the war means the Tories are 'complicit', then I am complicit too because I was certain Tony Blair wouldn't be lying and that he MUST have had access to information which would substantiate his claims.
    How can you be complicit in the Iraq war? You didn't bloody vote for it - not unless you're actually the Member for Parliament in a Devon constituency. :p

    Unfortunately, I too believed that the Prime Minister was telling the truth. I was uneasy about the conflict in the first place, but I supported it - I simply could not believe the idea that a PM would openly lie to get us into a war. How foolish I was to trust a charlatan and chancer like Blair - a man who should now be spending his days in a rough jail fearing for his own life, not being paid a million pounds for his "work" in the Middle East. So far as I can tell, all he's done since leaving Downing Street is fly round the world giving crap speeches whilst being paid shitloads of money by banks who haven't a fucking clue what they're doing.

    Incidentally, has anyone noticed the blatant conflict of interest in this? Quentin Letts today wrote in the Mail today that "Mr Straw, at the time [of the Iraq war], was Foreign Secretary. A man with a sharper sense of conflicts of interest might have said 'sorry, lads, I'm too closely wrapped up in this case - let someone else decide'.". Even those of you that hate the Mail newspapers would have to agree he's got a valid point...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JsT wrote: »
    I'm not really surprised to be honest, the whole Iraq war was/is and forever will be a joke.

    albiet not a very funny one...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    How the fuck could possibly "damage to the Cabinet" be an acceptable excuse not to release information? :crazyeyes :mad:

    Bastards.

    Strictly speaking it was damage to Cabinet Government, which is a totally different thing
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I think he thought he was telling the truth - there were proviso's in the intelligence, but the main agencies not just UK and US, but France et al thought he was working to develop WMDs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Strictly speaking it was damage to Cabinet Government, which is a totally different thing
    I must confess to not knowing the difference. Can you explain in a few words?

    To me it sounds as 'we can't release this information, because it might show we behaved inappropriately and thus damage us'. If that the case that is completely unacceptable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest I think he thought he was telling the truth - there were proviso's in the intelligence, but the main agencies not just UK and US, but France et al thought he was working to develop WMDs.
    Obviously I was heavily biased against the use of force, but I still thought it had become clear several months before the war that Saddam no longer had WMDs. It was shown that evidence presented to the UN by the US was actually fabricated and doctored (and why would the US need to do that if it wasn't lying), and more importantly even the UN inspectors had been on record saying they did not find any indication whatsoever of WMDs during their last round of inspections in Iraq in early 2003- which is exactly why the US and Britain told them to get out as they were going to attack. Because the official report was going to declare Iraq free of WMDs, and this was going to remove the justification for an attack.

    At that point some of those who supported the war said it did not matter because there were other good reasons to oust Saddam. But in my mind it had become very clear and evident before the war started that there were no WMDs left in Iraq and that the US and Britain were acting quite illegally and lying blatantly to the world about it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I must confess to not knowing the difference. Can you explain in a few words?
    Don't be distracted by this line of argument, Aladdin - it's a non-starter regardless of the wording is damage "cabinet" or "cabinet government". It was well known that Tony Blair didn't consult the cabinet that often. By his own admission, he far preferred to talk to loyal appointed advisors and spin doctors - hence why the likes of the corrosive Alastair Campbell were so powerful in his government. (even more ironic that the likes of Campbell and Dolly Draper are the ones "leading" Labour's online fight nowadays, but I digress) Was the Cabinet divided about the issue of Iraq? Almost certainly. Did Tony Blair give a damn? Certainly not.

    Also, there's a certain amount of self-preservation behind this. Gordon Brown was said to harbour serious doubts about the Iraq war. Nobody knows whether this is true, because he refuses to tell us. If it's revealed that he had massive doubts about the legality/sensibility of going to war in Iraq but didn't do anything about it, it would look extremely bad for him. And when the Tories are 15 to 20 points ahead of Labour in the polls, it would make the situation even worse for him.

    Oh, and let's not forget Jack Straw's role in all this. His constituency of Blackburn has a large Muslim population - and they weren't terribly friendly about the Iraq war, were they? He won't want to give them yet another reason to put him on the dole at the next general election.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    I must confess to not knowing the difference. Can you explain in a few words?

    To me it sounds as 'we can't release this information, because it might show we behaved inappropriately and thus damage us'. If that the case that is completely unacceptable.

    Damage the cabinet would be as you say

    However cabinet government is a description of UK's top layer of government. A principle of this system is that inside you can say what you like, but outside everyone takes collective responsibility for decisions reached or resigned. If you showed papers which basically show the disagreements you weaken collective responsibility. Which is why they're not released for 30 (?) years.

    Now you can argue that either it wouldn't make any difference, the damage would be minor or that cabinet govt is outdated. But that's a different argument from saying he said he blocked it because it would damage the cabinet (even if that may be the real reason)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought Hain made a very convincing argument on 'Question Time'. Ministers shouldn't be afraid to let the Prime Minister lead the country into an illegal war just because of what we, the public, might think when we find out...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A principle of this system is that inside you can say what you like, but outside everyone takes collective responsibility for decisions reached or resigned.
    Yes, how is that 'collective responsibility' working out?

    Sounds more like 'We must all hang together, gentlemen, else we shall most assuredly hang separately'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JsT wrote: »
    I'm not really surprised to be honest, the whole Iraq war was/is and forever will be a joke.

    How many lies were we told ...more so the Yanks?
    The same shite repeated over and over and over and fucking over till it was seared in the public psyche ....?
    A whole new thread listing the lies could run to many pages.
    Heres one of my favourites ...printed in papers and magazines ...shown on news progs and discussed in serious debates ...over and over but ...the attention span of Joe public is short. Very short as Joe ...the plumber ...has to work provide etc ...and now has to deal with a financial collapse of the economy.
    Let me remind you of just one lie ....

    mad_tea_party.jpg



    0ops wrong picture ...;)


    How about this one ....

    bullshitcaves.gif
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just listen to the first two minutes of this interview with Arron Russo ...who sadly died not long after this interview ......
    Respected film maker and politician ...talks about the none existent caves and none existent people they will be hunting in them ...less than two minutes in ....http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think Flashman brings up an important point about deliberation within decision making organisations, because any committee will only present consensus views, else that committee ceases to be productive (at any level, not just of government). The minutes of any meeting will commonly reflect positive outcomes, decisions and outcomes not the negative factors (although my knowledge of the statutory requirements of Cabinet minutes is nil).

    This I don't have a problem with; to some extent it protects the ability of those present to debate and disagree openly without the pressures of external political ramifications.

    What I don't think is that it is an excuse to withold the details en bloc; a degree of anonymisation could surely take place, and that would be enough to give an idea of the context of deliberations that took place without exposing individual parties.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Uncle Joe wrote: »
    Yes, how is that 'collective responsibility' working out?

    Sounds more like 'We must all hang together, gentlemen, else we shall most assuredly hang separately'.

    Quiet well given the last time the English tried to kill each other was in the seventeenth century, the Scots the eighteenth (and that was mainly involving the French and us paddies) and the Irish... well it's working out well for most of the UK anyway
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I get that we might not find anything useful in the minutes if they were released, but it's this idea that dissent can be brushed over that gets my goat. Great for the United Kingdom, not so much for the people of Iraq.
Sign In or Register to comment.