British Justice, Really?

[JackLuis]

Lord Hutton, who is apparently a high judge in England is 'inquiring' into the Pre-War intelligence and justifications, seems to have a good deal of authority, having just sealed the evidence in the David Kelly 'suicide' for 70 years.

"To protect the children," was his excuse.


I wonder if he isn't a reincarnation of Earl Warren?

So here is what his detractors say.

The suppression of evidence in a case as important as this is criminal in my judgment. But I'm a mere American and we've got our own problems with government 'transparency'.

Any British comments on the inquiry?

 

[oggbashan]

The detractor is not unbiased.

As for the judge? I don't know.

In many such cases it isn't the judge that is a fault, but the politicians who set the parameters for the enquiry. And we know that politicians can be biased.

Og

 

[manyeyedhydra]

I doubt the real truth behind the run-up to the Iraq war will ever see the light of day.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Cheney was pissed that George Herbert didn't 'go after' Saddam Hussein after Desert Storm. Saddam Hussein hatched a half-witted plot to assassinate George Herbert. Cheney convinced Dubya that Saddam Hussein had tried to 'off' Daddy. It was all about spite. What else do you need to know?

 

[polynices]

Lord Hutton, who is apparently a high judge in England is 'inquiring' into the Pre-War intelligence and justifications, seems to have a good deal of authority, having just sealed the evidence in the David Kelly 'suicide' for 70 years.

"To protect the children," was his excuse.


I wonder if he isn't a reincarnation of Earl Warren?

So here is what his detractors say.

The suppression of evidence in a case as important as this is criminal in my judgment. But I'm a mere American and we've got our own problems with government 'transparency'.

Any British comments on the inquiry?

I hadn't heard this before, but if it's true it's appalling. (And yes, I'm a Brit.) Norman Baker MP's book - 'The Strange Death of Dr Kelly'; Methuen, 2007 - raises lots of questions about what happened, and there have been several public statements by qualified and experienced medical people as well, questioning the suicide story. Some say he just couldn't have killed himself in the way he's said to have done. That doesn't mean the conspiracy theories are necessarily correct, of course - but suppression of pertinent evidence is bound to raise suspicions. If the establishment has nothing to hide, why hide evidence? Either somebody important is deeply culpable, or the people who decided to deny public access to these records are very stupid. Either way, it's disturbing.

- polynices

 

[Handley_Page]

There's a big big problem here, with very wide coverage.
Whilst a lot of Brits feel that PM Blair got us into this mess wrongly (illegally?) there's just too much buck-passing and plain lying to believe anyone in any form of 'power' or influence. Things will be glossed over, words twisted and re-defined, old words from dusty dictionaries hauled out and re-used; and thus we cannot believe anyone at all.

 

[rgraham666]

I'll say again. The chief reason for the Iraq War was to send a message to the world. That message was, "The U.S. is in charge. We'll do what we want, when we want, where we want. This is what happens to people who get in our way."

It was to install a Pax Americana with the motto: Oderint Dum Metuant. Let them hate so long as they fear.

 

[Handley_Page]

I'll say again. The chief reason for the Iraq War was to send a message to the world. That message was, "The U.S. is in charge. We'll do what we want, when we want, where we want. This is what happens to people who get in our way."

I grant that is how it is perceived in many nations, but I sure as hell hope that the statement is untrue.

 

[rgraham666]

I grant that is how it is perceived in many nations, but I sure as hell hope that the statement is untrue.

The first piece of business discussed by George W. Bush's National Security Council was the invasion of Iraq.

Many members of the cabinet had signed the Project For A New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses, a document that to my mind made clear that they intended the U.S. to be an imperial power.

It was doomed to fail, luckily. Americans don't like costly wars. They don't like having their sons and daughters come home in boxes and they really hate taxes. War cause the former and raise the latter.

 

[JackLuis]

The first piece of business discussed by George W. Bush's National Security Council was the invasion of Iraq.

Many members of the cabinet had signed the Project For A New American Century's Rebuilding America's Defenses, a document that to my mind made clear that they intended the U.S. to be an imperial power.

It was doomed to fail, luckily. Americans don't like costly wars. They don't like having their sons and daughters come home in boxes and they really hate taxes. War cause the former and raise the latter.

Yet we are still "at War", face it Rob, the people have no power until they rise up and subdue their masters. This happens very seldom.

 

[JackLuis]

I heard..read at thing a few days ago, said about the Tea Partiers:

It starts out as a Movement.

Becomes a business and,

Then degenerates into a racket!

I guess the same thing can be said of any Government that is unsupervised.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Lord Hutton, who is apparently a high judge in England is 'inquiring' into the Pre-War intelligence and justifications, seems to have a good deal of authority, having just sealed the evidence in the David Kelly 'suicide' for 70 years.

"To protect the children," was his excuse.


I wonder if he isn't a reincarnation of Earl Warren?

So here is what his detractors say.

The suppression of evidence in a case as important as this is criminal in my judgment. But I'm a mere American and we've got our own problems with government 'transparency'.

Any British comments on the inquiry?

Since Danny Morrison is a flack, which is an occupation not known for the reliability of their statements, and he has a personal grudge against the subject of the thread, I would be reluctant to believe anything he says. I'm not saying he is lying, because I have no way of knowing that, but I would doubt his truthfulness.

I remember the mysterious death of a government official in the Clinton administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Vince_Foster

 

[JackLuis]

Since Danny Morrison is a flack, -- but I would doubt his truthfulness.

I remember the mysterious death of a government official in the Clinton administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Vince_Foster

I included that piece more as color that as FACT. Although I do understand the position of the Irishman and the Imperial attitude of the British Government in Ireland over the last few centuries.

I expect that their Government and Judiciary are no more corrupt than ours, which gives them a lot of wiggle room, but not much to admire.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

After the American Civil War President Johnson put Quakers in charge of Indian Agencies, and the Redskins ran riot terrorizing whites throut the Great Plains region. The Indians raided and looted and killed and took captives, and subsisted free at the Quaker sanctuaries. The Quakers wouldnt let the army deal with the Indian outlaws.

Then Ullysses Grant became President and unleashed Phil Sheridan, Sherman, Custer, and other Union Cavalry Commanders, and the Indian problem vanished. They destroyed millions of buffalo to starve the Indians, destroyed Indian villages, and killed every Indian off the reservations. This is how youre supposed to deal with adversaries.

 

[ishtat]

The British government has frequently supressed the publication of evidence in cases. The evidence which convicted and resulted in the execution of so called cowards (sometimes shell shock victims) in the first World War 1914 1918 and the Boer war1899 1902 was still suppressed until a few years ago. Those documents may possibly still be off limits but I haven't checked recently.

 

[JackLuis]

I had thought that Lord Hutton was part of the Chilcot inquiry, I was wrong.

"Legal staff ruled Blair's war illegal?"

The Chilcot inquiry is still going on and today should provide some interesting testimony.

Chilcot inquiry: Fireworks expected

25 January: Des Browne and John Hutton, former defence secretaries and loyal servants of Tony Blair. Gordon Brown may be more wary of their evidence if they suggest his cuts while at the Treasury contributed to current problems in Afghanistan.

Fireworks rating: 1/5

26 January: Sir Michael Wood, legal adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2001–6. If he suggests that he told the Government the war was not legal without a second resolution, it will further erode Mr Blair's legitimacy for backing the invasion.

Fireworks rating: 3/5

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2001–3. Ms Wilmshurst resigned in protest at what she saw as a "crime of aggression". She may suggest that those around her shared her concerns. Fireworks rating: 4/5

27 January: Lord Goldsmith QC, Attorney General, 2001–7. Mr Blair's most senior legal adviser appears to have changed his mind over the legality of the war in the final days before the invasion. Any suggestion that he was leant on would be damaging for Mr Blair. Fireworks rating: 5/5

29 January: Tony Blair to give evidence. Mr Blair's adeptness during select committee appearances suggests he may leave unscathed. But he has tough questions to answer over his attitude to regime change and the language he used in the 2002 dossier on Iraq. Fireworks rating: 5/5

Any bets on what they will conclude?

 

[Handley_Page]

No takers; it will be at best a slap on the wrist.

 

[polynices]

Now that I’ve absorbed the shocking news, here’s a little more detail on the suppression of the evidence relating to the David Kelly inquest and inquiry.

1. Dr. David Kelly, a senior British weapons inspector during the lead-up to the second Iraq war, had embarrassed sections of the British government by allegedly casting doubt on statements it had made in the so-called ‘dodgy dossier’ - most notably on the claim that, if left to his own devices, Saddam would be able to launch an attack on British interests in only 45 minutes. The dossier had been published as justification for possible military action against Iraq. Kelly was found dead in a wood a few days after appearing before a House of Commons committee. An inquest was begun, then suspended when Lord Hutton's enquiry into the incident was announced. [See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) for the full story.]

2. Five doctors recently made an application to have the inquest on David Kelly re-opened, but they were told that Lord Hutton had ruled in 2003 that medical evidence and photographs would be sealed for 70 years - and other records from his enquiry for 30 years. This seems to have been done very quietly. The news only became public at the end of last week. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/25/david-kelly-suicide-hutton-inquiry )

3. The original inquest on Kelly’s death had been suspended to allow the Hutton enquiry to proceed. Then, after the enquiry - which was generally seen as a whitewash - it was decided that no further inquest was necessary, despite the fact that Hutton admitted he hadn’t actually bothered to look into the details of Kelly’s death very deeply. (Norman Baker: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-feeble-amateurish--MUST-told-truth-week.html. ) In hindsight this is, to say the least, suspicious.

4. Today‘s “Guardian” says:

“Questions have remained around the death of Dr Kelly after an initial inquest into his death was never resumed. Instead, the Hutton findings were said to be sufficient. But the inquiry applied a less stringent test than would have used in an inquest, where a coroner has to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that a person intended to kill themselves.”

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/25/david-kelly-suicide-hutton-inquiry )

5. Surprisingly, this news has only leaked slowly into the British press. I only heard about it on Sunday when I read JackLuis’s post here - and I still haven’t heard the story mentioned on TV yet, despite Blair’s imminent appearance before the current Chilcot enquiry into the events surrounding the Iraq war.

6. The fact that Hutton was able to seal the evidence in this way really is an outrage. It’s to be hoped that a strong enough head of steam will build up in public opinion and the press to force the release of the inquest documents and to demand a complete re-examination of the case. However, the general public in Britain is - rightly – so cynical about the political process at the moment that this case may be seen as just another instance of cover-up by government and officialdom - and it may well be overlooked as a result. (It looks as if that’s what some figures in the British establishment are hoping for, anyway.)

- polynices