“I am hoping that Michael will redeem himself in the eyes of decent people tomorrow, and I believe that he will”.

If he is still in his post then I don’t fully share your confidence here. However, if he does start to rock the boat, it will be interesting to see if he receives much sterner cross-examination than did Powell.

MJ

He’s left the FCO now

Another excellent post Craig and I will follow this week’s Iraq Inquiry with more interest now. Thank you.

How can I get it across that this Chilcot thing is just a liberal exercise in whitewashing…a diversion..a deflection..a veneer..an illusion of democracy. They even stop for polite cups of tea at prearranged times.

Where is the justice for those killed, maimed, widowed, orphaned, made refugees? What do the millions of Iraqis that are left think of this? ‘These pink Britons have no laws. They lynched our president with victor’s justice and they try war criminals over tea. The sentence will be words on paper.’

Perhaps so many of our establishment are guilty with Blair, they need to expunge their own guilt.

‘Military Families will join writers, musicians, Iraqi refugees, poets,

human rights lawyers, comedians, well known actors, MPs and ordinary

citizens in a day of protest, performance and politics outside the

Iraq Inquiry on Friday 29 January, as Tony Blair faces his judgement

day.’ Military Families Against The War website.

What judgement day? What nonsense.

Jane18

“Again, I resent the assertion that because the AG was friendly with the Blairs that this in any way would influence his decision making. You obviously are awfully ignorant of the role of Senior Lawyers in making such a suggestion.”

I think that the vasy majority of people would agree that it is not I who am ignorant, it is you who are naive.

Yes, many who toadies to Blair in power are now prepared to give him a kicking out of power – that does not prove they did not toady in power.

Your difficulty is that you take a typical conservative view that to state the status quo is to justify it.

No rational person would argue that Sir Michael Wood did not have greater qualifications as an individual to judge the legality of the Iraq war. If you were commissioning an academic article on the subject, there would be several hundred other candidates after Wood you would consider before Goldsmith, if he crossed your mind at all.

Of course I know the history and that the Attorney General is considered THE Law Officer and the authority on all points of law – even when that is self-evidently not true.

All you do is outline the established nonsense I am railing against. Have you ever thought outside a box.

Alternatively just read her final sentence

“As the newspapers report today the only two people who have acted with dignity and conviction regardless of ones own personal views are Tony Blair and Robin Cook.”

And then look at the dignity of Tony Blair’s results

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html

Is it O.K. if I throw up now all over Tony Blair’s dignity and conviction?

Tony

I share MJ’s doubts that establishment types will be as forthright on the issue of illegality as they need to be. But, I appreciate that you’re in a better position to judge Craig – hope you are right.

However I think Wilmshurst will bring some much-needed sanity back to the conversation. Were it the case that she could ask her own questions!

But it is of interest that just two hours after this post appears, that a new poster quickly writes a substantial post disagreeing. Tut, I might turn into a (whisper it) conspiracy theorist at this rate!

‘Murder in Samarkand’ is obviously an essential read.

Elizabeth I believe from her past actions is forthright, decisive, incensed by the illegal invasion of Iraq that murdered the innocent, resulted in ethnic violence, torture and I firmly believe, fractured British honour and decency for the sake of a binding friendship. She alone will be the face of the British people at this inquiry and she will make a stand.

Friendship is precious but as I have said before – true friendship means protecting those dear from harm, and that also includes advice and even admonishment when trust is a stake. Such was the case of the Iraq war, where an International agreement was crucial, a legal binding resolution before invasion, death and destruction of a sovereign country that future generations will read in Wiki history.

A ‘Coalition of the willing’ was crude, weak and quite frankly unacceptable in this Global connected world of the 21st century and equates to a gang of thugs.

No, to preserve our honour, protect our people and put us somewhere back on the path of decency, Blair must take responsibility and that means recognising publicly that he was wrong in committing his country to a ‘war’ that unlike the Falklands was based on lies and the pretence that a man gone bad could be removed by what can only be described as genocide, a massacre and the obliteration of a ancient established civilisation. Walk tall, stand firm Elizabeth.

“It is like saying why should we have an Appeals Tribunal with Higher Court Judges when it is sufficient to accept the lower court decision”.

No it isn’t. Judges at the RCJ are more experienced and knowledgeable in the field than the circuit judges whose judgments they are required to review.

MJ

Thanks – wish I’d said that.

This is O.T. but might be of interest to Craig or others interesting in Uzbekistan:

‘Negative images of Uzbekistan?’:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8473285.stm

Breaking News1:01pm UK, Monday January 25, 2010

Tony Blair Secures Lucrative Hedge Fund Role

Tony Blair is set to earn a small fortune in a new role as a paid speaker at one of London’s biggest hedge fund managers, Sky sources say.

More follows…

A true psychopath.

Thank you Craig. How silly of me to make what I considered reasonable comment on this blog. I thought that somehow you were involved in academia and welcomed alternate view points.

Don’t worry – no more comment from me.

Craig,

That was an interesting post. Thank you.

Jane18,

That was an interesting post. Thank you.

I wonder. Is Tony Blair, and by exstention, his “gang”, guilty of breaking domestic or international law?

I’ve always considered his role in the invasion of Iraq, as a totally shameful one, but was it unlawful, and in what sense?

I’ve called him a lot of names, which I think were perfectly justified; a murderer, a war criminal, a traitor…

But I’d still give him a trial, a fair trial, not like the one they gave Saddam Hussein. I don’t approve of ritual slaughter. I don’t approve of silencing such an important witness to history, who had a lot to say. Now, we’ll never know. I wouldn’t have executed the leading Nazis either. Interviews with Hitler would have been fascinating and important.

The establishment seem to be wiping it all off on Blair. There’s something unpleasant about that, because almost everyone that’s been called so far were loyal servants and enablers when he was in power. He couldn’t have done it alone, could he? Surely one of the major problems is that our political system has evolved, and the process has only accelerated over the last thiry years, and has given the prime minister extraordinary levels of power. So that the modern pm seems closer to a monarch surrounded by self-seeking, corrupt, and “loyal” barrons, in an anti-democratic gang running the country like a Mafia family.

We should have a system that that allows someone like Blair, with his dubious qualities, the capacity to drag the entire country to war almost on a whim, a promise, or an illusion. In a healthy and functioning democracy, individuals simply shouldn’t have so much power concentrated in their hands, especially when that power can have such disasterous consequences for millions of people, and can result in so much death, suffering, and material destruction.

So Blair “succeeded” not just because he was a knave and a criminal, who was “sincerely” misguided and wrong on host of vitally important isssues, to get things wrong is a human characteristic after all, people do make mistakes. Blair “succeeded” because the rest of our democratic intitutions “failed” to put a rational break on him, hold him to scrutiny and account. It was a systemic breakdown as well. I suppose it’s relavant to mention that Blair won a vote in Parliament authorizing the use of force against Iraq, a supposedly “democratic” vote. Shouldn’t we put all of them on trial as well? Is that practical?

Not that I think that Blair made an honest mistake, or a tragic blunder, or that he carefully weighed all the issues and evidence on the scales. I believe he knew exactly what he was doing and why. He was merely a vassal serving his lord and master and knew that he’d be handsomely rewarded for it in the future, which he has been.

The central question is, did he break any UK domestice laws? Is it a crime to be wrong? Is it a crime to go to war? Is it a crime to twist the truth and lie in order to go to war? Isn’t lying what people like Blair just do? Is it actually a crime to mislead Parliament?

There are people who argue that Blair and his henchmen didn’t actually break international law either, because there is no international law to break.

What about the concept and convention of “sovereign immunity” surely this applies to Blair as well?

Recently other world leaders have been put on trial for war crimes, I’m thinking about Yugoslavia and Rwanda. If it’s possible to prosecute them, why not Blair? How is Blair less guilty than them?

@writemam How’s this list for starters?

http://blairfoundation.wordpress.com/letter/

BWCF ?” THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION

To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d?Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.

RE ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:-

1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention.

2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3

A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America.

We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show.

The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009:

1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.

2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat.

3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens? rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education.

4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace.

5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country.

6: Supporting an ally that employs ?waterboarding? and other tortures.

7: Seizing the assets of Iraq.

8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties.

9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property.

10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment.

11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on ?shake and bake? missions.

12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004

13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004

14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004.

Copy to the Secretary General of The United Nations, Ban Ki-moon

Jane18

You are extremely welcome to comment. Your comment was well expressed and cogent. I am sorry if you did not realise that the style of comments here is often robust. Abosultely no offence is intended, and almost any view is welcome. I expect other commenters will join in on your side of the argument.

Comments can be a mixed bag but most of them do actually make intellectually cogent points, in whatever style. Actually so far this is a remarkably polite thread.

I must confess I feel you are somewhat precious if you feel it is OK to call me “ignorant”, then complain if I respond by calling you naive!

Anyway, you are very welcome so do stick around

Jane18: “I therefore dispute your assertion that because the FCO lawyers earned more money that their legal opinion should carry more weight.”

You should line up your target more carefully. The point was that the FCO lawyers are the highest experts in the field, whereas AGs are political appointments (as you admit). Expertise has to be paid for; the salary is cited as secondary evidence only.

Jane18: “It is like saying why should we have an Appeals Tribunal with Higher Court Judges when it is sufficient to accept the lower court decision. A seriously flawed argument.”

Nope, it’s like saying why should we allow a political appointee to overrule the judgement of a top legal adviser who has considerably more expertise in the subject. And your argument in favour of that is … missing.

Are you aware of how the AG position is actually regarded amongst the law fraternity? In his book ‘The Attorney General, Politics and the Public Interest’, John Edwards, founder of the Centre of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, argued that there have been “distinct whiffs of political pressure being exerted”. Also see Prof. Gary Slapper’s article in the Times (April 25, 2007): “You may not be prejudiced, my Lord, but you look it: Why the role of Attorney-General is an anachronism.” Hardly a touchstone of legal impartiality, then.

You’re clearly intelligent, Jane, and it’s interesting to hear arguments for the establishment position. Just don’t expect them to be accepted uncritically.

Slightly off-topic, but related to Blair’s forthcoming appearance. Has anyone read the front page of the Daily Mail today, which reports on the projected security bill for Friday?

“Thousands of anti-war protesters are expected to form a gauntlet of hate for the former Prime Minister on Friday as he attempts to justify Britain’s involvement in the controversial conflict.”

I know the Mail doesn’t like Blair, but “gauntlet of hate” sounds more like the racist excrement they’d reserve for Muslim radicals, not the mix of races and classes that one would expect to be in attendance on Friday. Or am I reading this the wrong way?

Craig writes:

—start

One of the most important structural questions that the Chilcott Inquiry must ask, is this:

Why does the Attorney General have the power to overrule the Legal Adviser on a point of international law?

—end

The real answer is, of course, because the AG gave the desired response. But it will be interesting to see what excuse is spun. Clare Short apparently looked at the single sheet, checked to see if there was anything on the back (there wasn’t) and asked – surprised – “Is this it?” It strikes me that an opinion substituted for legal argument, and it would be a fascinating principle of British law if this became a precedent.

For instance, I could ask an unqualified legal person if it’s OK to break into my neighbour’s house and take his stuff. This legal representative says sure, he thinks that’s ok. I then go ahead with the burglary. Could anyone be held legally accountable my theft, should the AG, Blair et al get away with all they have done, thus setting just such a precedent?

Addendum to my above post – though the Mail hacks are in a less than charitable mood towards protesters and activists, the comments on the online copy of their story are significantly anti-Blair and anti-war. My view of the DM readership is very slightly improved!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245767/Huge-security-operation-Judgment-Day-looms-ex-PM-Tony-Blair-Iraq-War.html

Jon,

There is a huge gap between the Mail’s readrship and its commentators. The comments on ther ecent David Kelly story are fascinating.

My little bit of it will indeed be a gauntlet of hate.

Glenn, I agree but be careful of the word “Opinion” which in this legal context means a formal reasoned view after reviewing the law and arguments. What Goldsmith’s one page was not was an “Opinion” in the sense applicable to this case.

So are the BNP leadership ‘anti-Blair’ and ‘anti-war’. Larry and angrysoba have consistently, if sometimes rudely, make the valid point here that the activities of our government have engendered mistrust, anger, suspicion and even paranoia in the electorate. This, however, is then being fed back to them by the even crazier extreme right-wing, disguised as ‘information’.

It’s a truism that the polar extremes of right and left actually meet. What worries me is that I don’t view this board as ‘extreme’ but yet one can see the neo-Nazi anti-semites posting any amount of stuff on Kelly, and 9/11, together with whispering ‘they’re coming to get you, don’t trust the government, don’t trust anyone’ fear posts, together with ‘it’s the Jews/Muslims what done it’ fear posts, and therefore being greeted with some tolerance here.

If anyone has forgotten the Daily Mail’s history, I suggest they look it up. Of course the readership will not be as extreme. But of course they are affected by the continual campaign of fear, hatred, self-righteousness and fury being run by it.

If the centre falls apart, who will that benefit, I wonder. Just to remind everyone: 149 MP’s voted against the invasion of Iraq, 139 of them Labour.

Back (right on) topic: I too hope this enquiry officially establishes the truth behind this invasion. Or rather, invasions – is anyone discussing Afghanistan? Or was that OK?

Finally, Craig, I’d like to ask: what do you think we would have lost by refusing to support the US in this? Answers I got at the time ranged from being penalised by trade embargoes to losing Trident (and therefore Security Council status). It would be interesting to hear your view.

Leaked conversion from the Ministry for Public Integrity:

Minister: Two matters are before us. First: we need to establish the case for war. We need a lawyer who will tell us that we are right in going to war.

Junior minister: Minister, the legal advisor told me this morning (in confidence, of course) that the war was illegal. And if we shop around the advisors till we find the ‘right’ one, it may well leak out. So what do we do?

Minister: Ah, you haven’t been here long. We appoint a lawyer to be a minister as well. He is called the Attorney General. That way, he can be presented as a legal professional, and also follow the party line.

Junior: Brilliant, Sir!

Minister: But here’s something more difficult, the second matter. A company (which supports thousands of jobs) has broken the law. The AG has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. Indeed, he and we have declared it publicly. So how is the AG to help us save the company?

Junior: I’m stumped, Sir. It looks as though the prosecution will have to go ahead.

Minister: Not so fast. Here is the AG, Mr. Anthony Spynne. Spynney old chap, tell Junior here how we get out of this knotty problem.

AG: The key, young man, is Balance. You see, we balance the rule of law with the Public Interest. And the Public Interest is – ?

Junior: – Whatever we say it is! I say Sir, that is brilliant. Sirs, you are truly geniuses!

Minister: Now, now, no need to get carried away. Besides, we have a little job for you. Some bellyaching bloggers are putting it about that the AG must be a bad professional lawyer. Now, how would you deal with that?

Junior: Well Sir, I would say that lawyers could make a killing in the city, so they must be motivated by public service. Um, er, that is to say, the best ones, who turn down the highest salaries.

AG: Not bad, young man, but you are suffering from scruples. No need to mention that they are the best. That would hint at the large number of lawyers who don’t earn so much, or are even unemployed. And we don’t want people picking that up. So just stick to your first sentence.

Minister: All right, young man. Hop to it. You’ll be a good member of the front benches some day!

Junior: Yes Sir, right away!

Hm, I found this interesting

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/24/israel-please-no-more-bin-laden-tapes-nobody-is-buying-it/

On reflection, I take that back about anti-semites being tolerated; they are in fact now being ignored, which is much the best policy. I don’t mean to attack either Craig or posters here either; this board has been fascinating recently.

tech: You’re not calling me an anti-semite neo-Nazi, I trust? It appears you’re painting with a rather broad brush, if you don’t mind my saying.

chnicolour:

People are suspicious of the various official accounts on 911, Kelly etc because they detect serious discrepancies between these accounts and the available evidence, and because the authorities often fail to have proper investigations and enquiries.

It’s nothing to do with being right wing. This is just a diversionary smear introduced by the angrylarrys to try and dissuade people from looking at evidence objectively and airing their often legitimate doubts and misgivings.

Thanks for this great threat and thank you jane 18 for making such a good case to split the decision making.

Would you not say that Clare Short should equally be part of the line up of principled politicians, next to Blair and Cook, in newspapers or eslewhere.

Should Hans Blix and the Dutch PM be called to give evidence?, could Hutton be asked to appear and give a resumee of his main points and subsequent reasoning for the secrecy he applied at such late stage?

do I wish for an editor at times, should have read ‘thread’ off course, claim the prize for most hasty typos.

I find it particularly annoying when I notice my typos just after clicking the ‘post’ button. In my last post I somehow managed to miss out the first two letters of technicolour’s name. Sorry technicolour.

By the way, “Thanks for this great threat” made perfect sense to me.

Glenn, no, was thinking of steelback/apostate/jaded, or whichever name they chose to use next.

MJ: yes, I agree with you. It is nothing to do with being right wing. My 80 year old neighbour, an original Aldermaston marcher, aired his legitimate doubts and misgivings about Kelly to me this morning.

Re ‘looking at evidence’: I think that’s what happens on this board. Glenn & Larry & asoba have carried on the Q&A on 9/11 for example; and credit to the person who did it most politely.

But if you look at extremist web-sites (again, you’re right, they are off the political scale) you find that they throw all the ‘legitimate doubts and misgivings’ into a huge mish-mash which can have people accepting untruths as gospel because they are taking their source for granted. For people who have ended up by default accepting practically nothing they are told by ‘officials’, this is an ironic turn.

And it holds the door wide open for suspicion, fear, paranoia and mistrust: not a pleasant climate for politics to feed on.

Again, why I like this board; it doesn’t do that.

So for ‘extremist websites’ as you say, MJ, read ‘the Daily Mail’, although the Express are as bad. Both currently targeting immigrants, gypsies, Muslims and poor people, instead of ‘Jews’, though.

Back to the topic (sorry); as someone points out on the thread below, at least this enquiry has exposed Hutton: we are getting somewhere.

Craig, I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you have no law degree.

So I would think that you would back off and let more qualified people assess the legality of an action under international law.

writerman

“..and knew that he’d be handsomely rewarded for it in the future, which he has been.”

..the conversation at Camp David that nobody heard perhaps. Does ‘sovereign immunity’ apply to accepting $money for murder?

Technicolour,

“what do you think we would have lost by refusing to support the US in this?”

Withdrawal of intelligence sharing comes to mind – haven’t we been warned before?

“So I would think that you would back off and let more qualified people assess the legality of an action under international law”.

I think that was rather the point Craig was making – in respect of FCO Legal Advisers and Goldsmith.

@Larry – don’t you think that Wilmshurst’s legal opinion, and that of a phalanx of other legal opinions, counts for something? I mentioned the Matrix Chambers opinion in another thread (the view that Blair could have been impeached whilst in office), and it was dismissed as meaningless by our resident Blairite. But I maintain that also is still worthy of note.

I am not sure why you point out that you were paid more than Craig. Visitors to this board, whether their politics are left or right, don’t generally assume that people who are well paid are necessarily right. Blair is a well paid lawyer, after all, just (at best) a misguided one. He comes from a nice Law School too, I should think – and a fat lot of good it did his reasoning!

Jon, Craig brought up the issue of salary. I have no idea why – it proves nothing.

Mark, it’s strange, because I can’t see Blair needing to be shown the fist in the glove.

But yes, intelligence sharing – though the loss of US intelligence might be bearable, judging by recent events.

Air Commodore Alastair Mackie argued at the time of the Iraq invasion that the issue was Trident. He said that the missiles are targeted by agreement with the US, and that the US has a veto over their use. Unlike France, with its own nuclear weapons, or the rest of nuclear free Europe, Britain has become militarily dependent on the US, and its automatic ally as a result.

?

Larry,

‘I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.’

I thought I was pompous! your language here and your obsession with character assassination and your attempts to keep the truth finder in eternal subjection while arguing that Saddam’s torture chambers might some how mitigate the pain and suffering in Iraq just shows to me your insipid character, ruthless twists and turns and belligerence to extreme I associate with your kind of two bit money for anguish New York lawyer.

Larry,

‘I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.’

I thought I was pompous! your language here and your obsession with character assassination and your attempts to keep the truth finder in eternal subjection while arguing that Saddam’s torture chambers might some how mitigate the pain and suffering in Iraq just shows to me your insipid character, ruthless twists and turns and belligerence to extreme I associate with your kind of two bit money for anguish New York lawyer.

“An Open Letter to Sir John Chilcot”…

http://tinyurl.com/ycwgsua

George,

Thanks and to Brian for his resilience and Lynda for her bravery.

Regarding the “dignity and conviction” shown by Blair, before New “Labour” was elected, there was a documentary made about the NL project. Unfortunately, I can’t remember which channel it was broadcast on now, but it contained a telling section which I would like to see repeated every time Blair puts on his “sincere” act. Discussing Thatcher with his now notorious spin doctors, he made the point that what people said of Thatcher was, “I may not always agree with what she says, but I admire her conviction.” He went on to say that it was essential for New “Labour” to replicate that. Time and again we have seen the tawdry little actor doing his utmost to do precisely that, right up to his valedictory “Whatever you think about me, I believed what I was doing was right.” It’s a shame that so few people seem to have seen this crucial documentary, or remember it, and that to a large extent the ruse seems to have worked for him, just as it did for Thatcher. You may not be able to fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them for enough of the time to do pretty much anything you want.

Mark, in a previous thread you plagiarized Neal Boortz, an American conservative silly goose, and then tried to pass the text off as the work of your “American friends”.

Has anyone read Leo Abse’s ‘The Man behind the Smile’? I read it far too quickly (staying over night somewhere). Must get it again, it was superb, as I remember.

and presumably, Larry, you courteously pointed where the information in the text was wrong, and provided your own interpretation of events, with sources?

Even if something is in the Daily Mail doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, you know.

Do people get more right-wing as they get older? I found myself agreeing with the Daily Mail on this headline about Alastair Campbell -

“Shameless, swaggering and STILL lying!”

“and presumably, Larry, you courteously pointed where the information in the text was wrong, and provided your own interpretation of events, with sources?”

Are you able to read?

Technicolor,

Interestingly

Rearranging the letters of ”Tony Blair – The Man Behind the Smile’ Leo Abse’

We get:

Bemoaned in shame, one shabby little Hitler.

(by David Bourke using Anagram Genius) (2007)

Times newspaper is saying the police are considering a ring of steel and an exclusion zone round the QEII Conference Centre in Westminster.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7000698.ece

Chaps, Larry (and his para-ego, Eddie) doesn’t give a flying phuque about genuine enquiry or the case for the open society; indeed, he may or may not be a lawyer, but he is most certainly a knocking spoiler doing the Yankee elite’s work on this and who knows what other boards. I wouldn’t go so far to call him an agent provocateur, but by Jove he’s got a bee in his bonnet about Craig’s blog.

There ya go, Larry – ye want fries with that, big man?

“Craig, I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.”

@Larry: you continue to intrigue me.

@Larry

“…So I would think that you would back off and let more qualified people assess the legality of an action under international law”

I don’t see Murray saying anywhere that he was qualified to ‘assess the legality of an action under international law’.

It’s not unreasonable at all to observe a huge disparity in qualifications, as listed, between Goldsmith and Wood in terms of documented ability to interpret international law. One has a history of it…the other doesn’t

Suggesting there’s no difference between Wood and Goldsmith is like saying there’s no difference between Carpenters and Cabinet makers because they both use wood!

Going further with this…is it only cabinet makers and carpenters that can have a legitimate opinion on woodwork…even when they’re installing a kitchen in your home?

Surely you’d be interested in HOW they get the kitchen done only in so far as the end result is solid and reflects something of your taste as an employer?

When was the last time you handed over the house keys…paid the woodworkers and said “Surprise me! Fit a kitchen anyway you like! Whatever you do is entirely up to you as I’m not qualified to have a legitimate opinion on the end result for I’m not a woodworker, carpenter or cabinet maker.”?

Another that will never tell the truth about what went on about many things…

http://tinyurl.com/ye3438w

Larry,

Do you specialize in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and business restructuring?

“Are you able to read?”

Oh go on, say “No”.

What seems to characterize Blair is his narcissism and over-inflated ego. His justification, the sincerity justification, is all well and good, but does it stand up to scrutiny?

Just because one believes something, and acts on that sincere belief, it doesn’t automatically follow that one is magically absolved from the consequences or responsibility of ones actions. This must surely apply when the action is taking part in a war. Surely one has to weigh, on the scales of justice, the terrible consequences for the people of Iraq, of Blair’s “honest” mistake?

I wonder how Blair has the audacity to use the “conviction” argument when it’s so primative and can be refuted so easily? He seems consumed by his own ego at times.

I think he exhibits many of the classic traits of the sociopath, and if one adds the disregard for human life, then he’s arguably a borderline psychopath.

His current excuse, that even though there were no weapons of mass destruction; Saddam was a bad man, a threat to his own people and the region, and the world is better off without him; shows how Blair lacks both empathy, conscience, morals, and how unbalanced he is. It’s like he has a one-track mind and focuses on what’s good for him personally, what advances his personal agenda, and then he finds the ways and means to fulfill and justify his agenda with scarcely a thought of the consequences for others.

One can argue that getting rid of Saddam was a “good thing”, even though it blatantly broke accepted international norms, and was a clear act of military agression; but what about the price of doing the “good thing”? The price paid by the Iraqi people?

Blair, in his recent TV interview, seemed to think that he’d just have had to conjure some other arguments for attacking Iraq, if the WMD line wasn’t available to him. It’s the use of the word “just” that concerns me. We are talking about War here, not some grubby little Westminster tiff over taxes!

One has to weigh in the balance the gain, getting rid of Saddam, with the collosal cost to Iraq. Blair is aware of this because he even had the cold, frightening, audacity to imagine that at some future point in time an Iraqi mother, who might have lost her child, would, when she’d calmed down, thank him for liberating Iraq! The sheer bravdo of the man is amazing.

Blair seems to believe, and he’s not alone in this, that when our actions lead to, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of extra deaths, that our killing in good cause, is somehow better than Saddam’s killing in a bad cause. Do the dead give a damn about whether they were killed for a good or bad reason?

What also characterizes Blair is his chronic shallownes. He really doesn’t seem to understand very much at all, about anything of importance, apart from his own advancment, which is his prime motivation in life. Me, me, me. I, I, I.

MI5/MI6 agents are taught to smear, denigrate, belittle, abuse, destroy. But then it can be quite positive knowing that there are so many of them festering around the blog. The blog must not only be very influential but feared.

Ruth. That is one of the funniest things I’ve read on here. Well done.

On the subject of Blair, here’s an article with a critical assessment by Jimmy Carter:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527344/Compliant-and-subservient-Jimmy-Carters-explosive-critique-of-Tony-Blair.html

I believe that Tony Blair was seduced by the wish to gain kudos with the Americans. Seduction by the glamour and power of the White House is understandable enough for Americans, but a British PM should have the UK’s national interest uppermost in his mind. Harold Wilson was smart enough to make sympathetic noises to the Americans, but stay out of Viet Nam.

Anyone read ‘Snakes In Suits’? – an interesting commentary on the aspects of the psychopath personality and its prevalence in corporate hierarchies. The writers – Babiak and Hare – estimated that just 1% of the general population satisfy the clinical definition of psychopathy, whereas in the upper echelons of corporate entities that rises to 3.5%. They had no available data on the percentage among politicians, but when you look at Blair … you have to wonder.

Heads up, folks, Eddie is back in the groove! Let’s see what wacky monkeyshines he gets up to tonight!

“Craig, ah’s a graduate of one of th’ bess law skoos in th’ States, mah legal studies” etc. etc.

this from someone who self-identifies as a merkin

@Ruth: “The blog must not only be very influential but feared.”

Hah!

Once again, folks – Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Writerman,

Blair, a man damned by his own failings – with the mothers of dead soldiers soon to be looking into his eyes, with the souls of dead Iraqi children looking at him from the floor as they lay when the ‘fire came’ I will record every word, every syllable, every mutter. You Blair fought hard for a ‘closed’ ‘secret’ inquiry in July 2009 – but we won – now face the people, face the world, face your own demons.

Writerman: Excellent points. Do you recall that even before “Shock & Awe” we (the UK/US) were sending smart bombs to destroy this house, or that restaurant, on the grounds that “intelligence” told us Saddam was dining there. He wasn’t, of course, but that elicited no more than “Ah, shucks… we’ll try somewhere else.” It was the “cut the head off the snake” strategy, apparently. A cute euphemism for every criminal act.

What would we usually call someone who lobs a bomb into a crowded restaurant, in the hope that someone they consider a Bad Guy would be killed? And this is standard procedure now, with killer drones operated from a far away country. Back in the day, a fictional character by the name of James Bond was particularly special, because he had a licence to kill. And that was unnerving, back in those more innocent times. Now, people do their day’s work, never knowing who they might have killed (or what “collateral damage” occurred) from offices in Langley or Houston. “Intelligence” has it that this house or that vehicle is to be destroyed, so off they go. Did they get a special licence to kill from the government, or has that just eased its way into their standard working practices?

Then we might watch some foreign looking people on TV protesting these killer drones, and give a collective shrug of our shoulders. Gad, those people are always mad about something, aren’t they?

It’s not just about Blair and Bush. It’s not even just about the leaders and their stooges. What about all the Rentouls, Cohens and so on and so on who cheered on this war and congratulated themselves for it ever since, the press that just passed along statements without troubling to ask serious questions. And a public far more interested in “Britain’s got talent” and soap operas and other petty concerns than the fact we are destroying another country, populated with individuals who have every bit as much right to live and determine their own lives as we do ourselves.

“The disclosure came as it emerged Mr Blair had told President George Bush he was “solidly with the president” after being told that 1,500 bombing targets had been chosen in Iraq and “the start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March.”

“The comments were made during a meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr Bush on 31 Jan, 2003, and recorded in a leaked memo by Sir David Manning, Mr Blair’s foreign policy adviser, just three days before Mr Blair told the House of Commons: “Even now I hope that conflict with Iraq can be avoided.”

“The memo also talks of a US plan to “fly a U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover” in order to draw Iraqi fire and prompt a breach of UN resolutions.

Downing Street failed to deny the rumours of Mr Blair’s intervention over the Iraq inquiry, saying: “We have always been clear that we consulted a number of people before announcing the commencement of the inquiry, including former government figures. We are not going to get into the nature of those discussions.”

Daily Telegraph 22nd June 2009

“Iraq Chilcot Inquiry debate, June 24 09, Clair Short speech (part 1)”…

http://tinyurl.com/yeg373l

Part 2…

tinyurl.com/y9ezf7y

Glenn,

I sometimes try to understand the thinking behind firing missiles at crowds of civilians which contain a ‘suspected terrorist’.

I’m still trying to work it out morally.

Larry,

“fly a U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours(DELIBERATE DISGUISE) over Iraq with fighter cover”

Yeehaa – ‘Gulf of Tonkin II, and George W Bush’s (and friends) idea; but Saddam didn’t take the bait did he?

Perhaps Blair might tell us the plane was to be flown remotely and stuffed with H.E.?

Another ‘truther’ fact eh Larry, perhaps one to be put back under the looky glass?

George,

Brilliant – I ceased to be amazed at your links and near forensic analysis of the web to dig up relevant facts – What a brilliant board this is – despite the interruptions!

Am I albe to eard? What kind of a question is that?

George,

My god, Claire Short is brilliant in those clips.

It’s shamefull that the benches were nearly empty while she spoke and her time to speak was so limited.

Eddie:

‘Ruth. That is one of the funniest things I’ve read on here. Well done.’

You are a vile, disgusting, little weasel. Get a life. MI5/MI6 are completely corporate now. They have no interest in ‘Defence Of The Realm’. Any agents that think otherwise are grossly deluded. They just represent psychopathic crooks. Do you really not see that or are you accepting of it? Or are you even gladly one of them? Which is it you pile of stinking trash???

Mark Golding: “I thought I was pompous!”

You thought right!

“your language here and your obsession with character assassination”

There’s not much need to character assassinate round here. Characters are committing suicide left, right and centre.

Ruth: “MI5/MI6 agents are taught to smear, denigrate, belittle, abuse, destroy. But then it can be quite positive knowing that there are so many of them festering around the blog. The blog must not only be very influential but feared.”

See what I mean?

Angry,

your views on Craig’s comments ?

your views on Claire Short’s speech (via george’s links)

“There’s not much need to character assassinate round here. Characters are committing suicide left, right and centre.”

Pay heed to the great researcher, he knows these things.

Was all this just a lead up to some ad-hominem abuse, angrysoba? Because Mark was addressing Larry.

Suddenly attacking Ruth also seems like a strange thing to do. Have you any evidence to the contrary?

Mark/Chris

Thank you.

“What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite”

Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) …

http://bigeye.com/foolisholdman.htm

So “chemical Ali” bites it today. I imagine they would have wanted to do the same to others who enjoyed gassing Kurds, such as Winston Churchill.

http://www.againstbombing.org/chemical.htm

Oh, I can hear it now. Ag-ag-ag-againstboming.org! snark/splutter/snicker/fart/snort… Don’t you know they’ve got [fill in the blank] on their website? Whoopie! Loons! Conspiracy-loons! Ho ho, you must believe in ghosts/snake-people/UFOs! Look everyone, point and laugh – it’s the middle ages again – cackle away all you peasants! “We’ve-found-something-to-associate-you-with” (chant along, now!)

As ever, the fact stands. Churchill thoroughly approved the expediency of gassing unruly Arabs, and the euphemism “collateral damage” hadn’t even been invented at that time.

Of course, times and standards change. Saddam was gassing Kurds in the 1980s to great Official Approval (not to mention enabling – we sold the chemical precursors, after all), but of course Saddam deserves to hang for it in the 21st century. If Churchill were by some strange circumstance still alive now, would he have to hang for the same crime?

“Suddenly attacking Ruth also seems like a strange thing to do. Have you any evidence to the contrary?”

Evidence to the contrary? Are you mad? Ruth was saying that MI5 and MI6 are festering around this blog. Where’s her evidence for stating that?

“”What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite”

Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970)”

Bertie Russell was a great philosopher and he’s quite right about the will to find out being more important than the will to believe. Yet when I come here I see an awful lot of “I wanna believe!”

Of course, in his old age Russell did get a bit tinfoily round the edges with his 16 questions for the Warren Commission that he penned after genuine Kool-aid man Mark Lane misinformed him.

soba: I believe you may have inadvertently replied here instead of the “David Kelly’s Murder” thread. Should you find the time to check there, perhaps you could clarify if everyone who disagrees with you is either a Nazi or a “loon”, as you appear to assert.

“16 questions for the Warren Commission”

16 words for the Chilcott Inquiry…

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

“16 words for the Chilcott Inquiry…”

Quite good!

You see, THIS is the type of thing I’d like to see more of and a bit less of the “Tony Blair gave Mo Mowlam cancer!” sensationalism (Okay, no one here has said THAT ONE yet…but I have seen it).

Angrytwat:

‘Quite good!

You see, THIS is the type of thing I’d like to see more of.’

You conspiracy loon, you. But still, just the sort of thing i’d expect from a BNP, Nazi, Holocaust Denying, anti-semite like yourself.

Craig,

You write:

“Sir Michael Wood has perhaps been best known to a wider public as the man that the FCO wheeled in to tell me that it was perfectly legal to obtain intelligence from torture, as long as somebody else did the torture.”

It may indeed be the case that Michael has become known to ‘a wider public’ through your book. What is more than unfortunate is that in the book and here on this website you shamlessly and repeatedly misrepresent what he actually said to you.

In MiS (pp 160-164 in my copy) you described the events leading up to your meeting with Michael and Linda Duffield. You argued the case to them that, based on your research, it was illegal under the Convention to use or even possess material based on torture.

Michael told you that this was not the legal position, a view he subsequenly put in writing. And, since as you say he is a masterful international lawyer, he was right. His view was later upheld by the House of Lords in a key decision you praise in the book (p. 367).

In the book you charaterised what Michael said to you as “So there we had it. Torture by proxy for intelligence purposes was legal”. This is a trivial misreading of Michael’s minute and position, based on your complete misunderstanding of the law.

Now you repeat this nonsense again in the posting above:

“…it was perfectly legal to obtain intelligence from torture, as long as somebody else did the torture.”

You time and again make great play of Michael’s minute of 13 March 2003 as if it supports your position. It doesn’t. Try reading it.

As for your wider point, you don’t understand the way the AG’s office works, as Jane18 patiently pointed out. It is reasonable for the government to have a central pool of top legal advice rather than rely solely on the legal advice from one department of state.

When it has been said that they are ‘knocking spoilers’, ‘trolls’, etc why are Eddie, Angrysoba and LarryFStL being engaged with? They are successfully diverting you.

test

Charles Crawford,

On torture as revealed below, I have a fundamental problem. I happen to put enormous faith in British justice – I believe it is the best in the world. Again as mentioned by me many times here and elsewhere, why put ‘friendship’ and collaboration with the United States before British justice? It is wrong, it devalues Britain and I believe is against the wishes of the majority. Our honour has been fractured by the Iraq war, so why make the gap wider by this incessant need to bend to US pressure under threat of a break in intelligence sharing?

Alan Johnson and David Miliband admitted the Government could not guarantee that information used by the security services was not obtained through torture.

Telegraph 10th August 2009

..the British government and intelligence services knew about his torture and provided personal information about him ?” unrelated to terrorism ?” that was used by the Americans? proxy torturers in Morocco.

Binyam Mohamed 10.5.08

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones, bowed to pressure from the foreign secretary, David Miliband, not to make public a summary of the evidence because the US government had threatened to re-evaluate its intelligence sharing relationship with the UK, which ?could inflict on the citizens of the United Kingdom a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time when a serious terrorist threat still pertains.?

judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mohamed-judgment4-04022009.pdf

LONDON ?” A lawyer for the British government argued Monday that two judges acted irresponsibly when they ordered officials to disclose confidential documents relating to the alleged torture of a former Guantanamo detainee.

Britain?s Foreign Office is fighting a case brought by Ethiopian-born Binyan Mohamed. Mohamed, a British resident, claims he was tortured in Pakistan and Morocco and he wants Britain to release U.S. intelligence material about his detention ?” documents he claims proves Britain?s complicity in his alleged torture.

Foreign Secretary David Miliband has argued that the seven-paragraph summary of U.S intelligence files should not be released.

blog.taragana.com/law/2009/12/14/british-government-appeals-court-decision-over-alleged-torture-of-guantanamo-detainee-18635/

David Miliband commented on the High Court judgment in the Binyam Mohamed case during a statement to the House of Commons on Monday 19 October, stating that the UK will appeal against the judgment in the ‘strongest possible terms.’

Read the statement

On Friday 16 October, the High Court handed down its fifth judgment in the Binyam Mohamed case. We are deeply disappointed by the judgment, which concludes that a summary of US intelligence material, prepared by the Judges, should be put into the public domain against the clear and express wishes of the United States. We will be appealing in the strongest possible terms.

Since we secured the release of the material at issue to Mr Mohamed?s lawyers by the US Government last October, for use in his defence before the US military commission, the only remaining issue for the Court was whether they should order public disclosure of seven summary paragraphs of intelligence material received from the US about his treatment whilst in Pakistan in 2002.

ukinusa.fco.gov.uk/en/newsroom/?view=PressS&id=21048812

“Microsoft Word bytes Tony Blair in the butt”…

http://www.computerbytesman.com/privacy/blair.htm

Craig, I know you believe passionately in free speech, but I don’t know if you read some of the abuse that passes for comment on these boards, and if you do are you happy to host it? Here are just some of the ad-hominem attacks on me in the last day from Jaded and Sam (who are probably the same person).

“You are a vile, disgusting, little weasel.”

“Not jumped ship yet you disgusting little weasel? Won’t be long now, won’t be long… You will undoubtedly be one of the first turncoats once the leaks become unpluggable. You aren’t worthy of licking turd from my boots. Go and crawl back in your dirty little hole you foul specimen. The forum air has a rank odour to it!”

“Q. What do you call Tony’s stools?

A. Eddie”

If you want people to engage on these boards (and I assume that you do) then I suggest that you deal with this problem.

MI5/MI6 agents are taught to smear, denigrate, belittle, abuse, destroy. But then it can be quite positive knowing that there are so many of them festering around the blog. The blog must not only be very influential but feared.

Posted by: Ruth at January 25, 2010 9:33 PM

Ruth. That is one of the funniest things I’ve read on here. Well done.

Posted by: eddie at January 25, 2010 9:41 PM

Isn’t it amazing eddie what one can transmit with a little humour, you should take heed of that, something they have not taught you, or it has somehwat escaped on your last visit to the shooting range.

Charles crawford. If I understand you rightly, you say it is perfectly fine/possible to have two conclusive but directly opposing views from legal advisers, because they are assigned to different departments?

Well, that might be so, but when taking such important decisions, where was the coordinating aspect, why was there none?

All this isolation between departments and their legal beagles has to stop, not only is such behaviour wastefull and disorganised, it smacks of bigger boys importing their public school habits into their professional life.

How would you think such bad relations could be reformed? We cannot possibly have two or three differing legal views advising the general public and their representatives when it comes to assessing reasoning and responses to a possible war situation. Do you think the legal confusions should be tackled with a bill of rights and responsibilities?

Ingo

If you feel that there is any kind of moral equivalence between my ribbing of Ruth and the examples of abuse that I have posted above then I fear that your moral compass is seriously askew.

George,

Rewarding to me – Thank-you

Looks like Larry shot himself in the foot!

Perhaps somebody here will transmit that information to the inquiry as a stark reminder?

George, you have extraordinary powers.

January 25, 2010

“ACLU Sues Justice Department On Torture Report”…

http://tinyurl.com/yzqt5e4

Watching a British fire-department search & rescue dig out a young girl from the rubble of a collapsed kinder-garten in Haiti reminds me of Iraq.

Many children in Baghdad, Iraq died in buildings bought down by cruise and cluster bombs. They could not saved because of ‘war’ conditions and probably suffocated after screaming for their mothers.

The link given by George Dutton above notes ways of avoiding the trap with MS Word, basically by not using a Word document. But if you absolutely *must* have a Word document (e.g. submitting a CV where the employer so specifies) you can strip revision history by importing to OpenOffice, the open source (i.e. free) competitor to MS Office, then saving from there in MS Word format.

“you can strip revision history by importing to OpenOffice”

Alternatively, when you’ve you’ve finished composing and revising, you can simply copy and paste all the text into a new Word document and send that instead.

The more attacks you get the nearer the truth you are.

“…but to actually say that Iraqis will thank him eventually, after the death-toll that has transpired, is really quite breathtaking in its audacity.”

Jon, that is for Iraqis to judge, not you. The polls are less clearcut than you imagine. But for Blair, Chemical Ali and his ilk would still be committing genocide on Iraqis.

“Tainted touch of america – Depleted uranium weaponry, etc., though no WMD’s, Iraq is now one Willful Mass Destruction Iraq war was illegal, top lawyer will tell Chilcot inquiry

Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds More than 40 sites across Iraq are contaminated with high levels or radiation and dioxins. Iraq war was illegal, top lawyer will tell Chilcot inquiry Tony Blair?s decision to take Britain to war in Iraq was illegal, the Foreign Office?s former chief legal adviser will tell the Chilcot inquiry this week.

China?s Internet Controls Here to Stay: Beijing Official China has every right to punish citizens using the Internet to challenge Communist Party power and ethnic policies just as Stalin, Hitler, and Mau had done, a senior official said on Monday, pressing Beijing?s counter-offensive against Google.

China accuses USA of using cyberwarfare; PEOPLE’S DAILY issues vitriolic editorial…

70-year gag on Kelly death/murder evidence London Evening Standard | A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly?s death/murder, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead. Scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

China paper slams U.S. for cyber role in Iran unrest (Reuters)

Pentagon backtracks after Gates ?admits? Blackwater operating in Pakistan Raw Story | The Pentagon has gone into damage control mode after Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared to confirm that security contractor Blackwater is operating in Pakistan.

Latin American leaders say US occupying Haiti Press TV | Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua say the US is using the international relief operation in Haiti as a cover-up for a military takeover.

netanayahu: israel to occupy parts of West Bank for eternity ? in effort to keep bloodshed and conflict going ignoring international law and un resolutions?y

Go to following pages for above links:

albertpeia.com/currentopics2ndqtr10108.htm albertpeia.com/wallstreetlunacy2ndqtr10108.htm

albertpeia.com/alresume65393.htm

(w+w+w.albertpeia.com)

Taken verbatim from a post by alpeia – Washingtonpost.com

Quoth the Edster:

“But for Blair, Chemical Ali and his ilk would still be committing genocide on Iraqis.”

Well, how the hell would you know? Isn’t it remotely conceivable that amongst the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered during the invasion of Iraq and since there might have been a few people able to organise a revolt or a coup of some kind? Y’see, that’s what you do when you deploy the full panoply of military might against a largely defenseless nation – people die in their thousands, indiscriminately and in horrible agony. And the death of all those human beings equates to the death of possible futures. No, Eddie, I think it would have been entirely possible that Saddam could have been brought down by the Iraqis themselves, if Bush and Blair had not done such diabolical work. The weight of possibility is on this argument, not yours.

@jon

Blair’s behaviour is so difficult to reconcile with any sort of reason that I have heard it suggested that he acted under duress of some kind – or is that too charitable? There’s an interesting (and relevant?) book review here: tinyurl.com/yg3uxrk

@Ruth:

“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.” – Jonathan Swift

Craig/All,

Apologies for a couple of typos which crept in to my earlier comment.

Ingo asks:

“Charles crawford. If I understand you rightly, you say it is perfectly fine/possible to have two conclusive but directly opposing views from legal advisers, because they are assigned to different departments?

Well, that might be so, but when taking such important decisions, where was the coordinating aspect, why was there none?

All this isolation between departments and their legal beagles has to stop, not only is such behaviour wastefull and disorganised, it smacks of bigger boys importing their public school habits into their professional life.

How would you think such bad relations could be reformed? … Do you think the legal confusions should be tackled with a bill of rights and responsibilities?”

I did not give a view on whether the position was fine, perfectly or otherwise. I simply described the position as I see it. Nor do I see what this has to do with public schools.

There is nothing wrong with the government getting different legal advice from within the system. There are plenty of ways in which that advice can be harmonised as and when necessary, by using formal and informal means (ie a chat on the phone) as necessary. These folk all know each other.

The key thing is that in the end a definitive view emerges (NB it may not be the ‘correct’ one, ie if the issue ends up in court the government might lose) and is put fairly to the politicians, who then have to decide how to act on it.

My objection to Craig’s account of Michael Wood’s view is that Michael gave him a measured view on the particular legal point Craig raised, which later was indeed shown to be ‘correct’ by the landmark House of Lords ruling. Craig keeps misrepresenting what was going on here – to cover the fact that he simply lost that argument?

Most legal views will be less than ‘definite’ on all points – that’s the nature of law and life. So there is invariably an area of discretion, legal and political and presentational. A Bill of Rights won’t affect all this much if at all. It’s just that law is not a closed system, and is invariably open to interpretation.

The Chilcot exercise is an unprecedented attempt to drill down into a lot of this – this week’s evidence is fraught with policy and operational and moral interest on many levels.

“But for Blair, Chemical Ali and his ilk would still be committing genocide on Iraqis.”

So you think the UK and US would have continued to supply him with the weapons and the means of delivery? Actually, you’re probably right.

tinyurl.com/ygrdhcb

Just to add that it is well worth reading Michael Wood’s statement to the Chilcot Inquiry as now available on the Web:

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/43477/wood-statement.pdf

Full of strong good sense and tight legal argument, plus a lot about how it all works in professional practice which demolishes Craig’s febrile posting above.

Michael makes this point:

“Another issue is the strength of the legal case that should be required before the Government goes to war. Is a ?reasonable? legal case sufficient? A ?respectable? case? An ?arguable? case? Or should there be a higher degree of legal certainty? This is ultimately a policy question, and one that perhaps cannot be answered in the abstract.”

Exactly. And maybe Tony Blair will insist that he was using his own professional discretion as given to him by voters before (and indeed again after) the Iraq invasion in what he saw as the national interest…

Charles: 22 percent of the electorate voted Labour after the Iraq war; hardly a ringing endorsement.

Michael Wood may raise these questions in the abstract, but in reality, what kind of legal case do you think it requires to mount an invasion?

“as given to him by voters before (and indeed again after) the Iraq invasion in what he saw as the national interest…”

Forced home of course by another helping of ‘fear’ and the the ubiquitous ‘war on terror’ but perhaps don’t go there Mark – for now..

That ‘national interest’ was an illusion – fostered by the main media and poked down the mouths of the British public, who thankfully have seen, absorbed, thoroughly digested and excreted as lies, spin, sinister and bad smelling garbage.

By the way, Charles, what’s your view about why the UK had to support the US in this? What would we have lost by refusing to act as its second lieutenant? Could we have refused?

Otherwise all of this is axiomatic.

@eddie, I agree that Iraqis should be listened to, though as moral agents, the British people can hardly be asked to keep quiet on the basis that the bombs are not being dropped on their heads. (That reminds me of the primarily American canard of suppressing “doubts” about the war once it has started, in an effort to “support the troops”. Even a patriot is expected to quell his dissent .

You and I are in a state of permanent disagreement about the numbers of excess deaths caused by the war, though I think the UN estimates of the deaths caused by the sanctions are not signficantly contended (1 million, half of them children). I should be interested in genuine research, if you know of any, regarding the numbers of deaths that occured under Saddam’s regime. Its trend line might indicate how many could have died if we’d not invaded, and not taken any other action either. Indeed, I don’t mean that as a challenge to be met by your customary abuse – I think it would be an interesting read for both of us.

I would be surprised if that figure was able to approach the 1 or 2.x million that have died as a result of our humanitarian intervention.

Jon

I don’t accept the figure in your last paragraph obviously. The question is an interesting one. If I had the time to research it I would. The sanctions were not one-sided you know. Saddam merely had to comply with international requirements and they woud have been lifted but he chose to see his people suffer. Would you support or oppose sanctions on a country like Zimbabwe, or say Chile under Pinochet? They are sometimes the only way to make a country see sense short of war, but it is not the dictators who suffer, I agree.

I don’t accept “customary abuse” either. Look at some of the stuff thathas been slung in my direction and it is pretty vile.

Jon,

“doubts” about the war once it has started, in an effort to “support the troops”. Even a patriot is expected to quell his dissent .

A very powerful and important point which I’m very glad you mentioned.

You see we all understand, and I certainly do, that our troops, our young people, are told, that are given an order to deploy and fight (sometimes with insufficient protection). Even in a perceived illegal war, our conscious guides us into support mode for ‘our boys’ as ‘The Sun’ proclaims. Thus no inquiry would ever be considered while ‘at war’ with any state, enclave or country.

It seems to me therefore that it is important for those of us, with the talents and vision (time?), to ensure that this inquiry accurately and honestly stimulates the public conscious with the failures that lead to the illegal Iraq war, while also stubbornly and consistently dredging the ether as a sort of Tsunami warning system to try and tick the boxes in the hope that awareness can prevent another ‘Iraq’ massacre. Examples: (Iran?) (Pakistan?)(Yemen?).

Mr Crawford seems to have left the board? I hope not.

Eddie. If you did ‘accept the figures’; would your point of view alter?

actually, eddie, forget that question.

Technicolour,

I hope Charles is still here as well – your question was indeed ‘food for thought’ and I was looking fwd to his reply. If you think I scared him off please tell me.

@eddie – in terms of the last figure, do you not accept the UN estimates for the numbers of deaths that occured during the sanctions? I’ve not heard these contended before. Still, I guess you can accept what you want: I don’t think the *experts* have overstated the figures, and they’re saying one million.

I mentioned the humanitarian coordinators who resigned and condemned the sanctions as genocide in another thread, so the point about non-compliance is not the whole question. Surely if our own people resign on principle with such strong condemnation of our own policy, your blaming Iraq for its own suffering is unfair. The issue about weapons compliance was much overstated in any case: don’t forget that the weapons inspectors +wanted+ more time, they were nearly there in terms of signing Iraq off as compliant, but Washington recalled them to make it look like Saddam was not meeting reasonable weapons demands.

Indeed, one has to be very careful about what exactly we want countries not in the Western orbit to be ‘compliant’ with. My contention on the wider picture is that “compliance with international demands” is a euphemism for “compliance with the Washington Consensus” i.e. neoliberal capitalism, and it is not at all fine to require compliance with that.

As an example of this, and as has been touched on in other threads, it has been suggested that Saddam’s anti-dollar redenomination of the Iraqi oil trading platform back in 2000 was the straw that broke the camel’s back, providing strong financial impetus for regime change by an America that cannot afford to have oil priced in anything but greenbacks. This was “corrected” in 2003, of course, by the invaders.

“Michael Wood may raise these questions in the abstract, but in reality, what kind of legal case do you think it requires to mount an invasion?”

Worryingly, that would seem to depend on how much legal examination it’s expected to need to stand up to ?

The ultimate test was always said to be a fair trial, what with the need for justice to be not only done, but seen to be done. Not very much of it has been required to meet any such test, yet ?

Wilmshurst admitted that she DID authorise force in the 1998 bombings. She is a hypocrite.

She makes me ashamed to be British. She was a civil servant whose only job was to give advice and then obey the attorney general?s final decision. She has disgraced the civil service.

Eddie Himmler:

‘Craig, I know you believe passionately in free speech, but I don’t know if you read some of the abuse that passes for comment on these boards, and if you do are you happy to host it? Here are just some of the ad-hominem attacks on me in the last day from Jaded and Sam (who are probably the same person).

“You are a vile, disgusting, little weasel.”

“Not jumped ship yet you disgusting little weasel? Won’t be long now, won’t be long… You will undoubtedly be one of the first turncoats once the leaks become unpluggable. You aren’t worthy of licking turd from my boots. Go and crawl back in your dirty little hole you foul specimen. The forum air has a rank odour to it!”

“Q. What do you call Tony’s stools?

A. Eddie”

If you want people to engage on these boards (and I assume that you do) then I suggest that you deal with this problem.’

The troll tries to order Craig around eh? Now that’s funny. I fully stand by every word. Now get back to reading your David Irving collection you deviant, anti-semitic fiend. Truth hurts does it??? Don’t fret though. It’s all ok my son…

Richard: I wonder if Charles wishes he could post the reply ” that would depend on how much legal examination it’s expected to need to stand up to”.

Mike, either Ms Wilmshurst can ‘authorise’ force (although it seems unlikely) or her ‘only job is to give advice’. Which? Personally I was not surprised to hear that principles survive in the civil service, sorry that you are.

Eddie: Later, if the chance comes up, and everyone’s furiously off topic anyway, I’d like to hear what your local MP is like? Is he/she Labour? If so, what kind?

Jon/technicolour

Thanks for your time. But that’s it for me I’m afraid. Unless someone sorts out Jaded and his cancerous friends I’m not spending any more time here. Free speech is one thing but racism and thuggery is another matter.

My local MP is a Lib Dem. He is also a lawyer.

“I’m not spending any more time here.”

Bye, eddie – see you tomorrow.

Jon/technicolour

‘Thanks for your time. But that’s it for me I’m afraid. Unless someone sorts out Jaded and his cancerous friends I’m not spending any more time here. Free speech is one thing but racism and thuggery is another matter.

My local MP is a Lib Dem. He is also a lawyer.’

Ah, the victim spiel. Cute, but feeble. ***Very ironic too considering some of the vile accusations you yourself have levelled at others.*** Complete lies, you are going nowhere. If you don’t post under ‘eddie’ you will post under another guise, as you probably already do. You are just sore at being identified for the nasty cancer that you are. Aww, diddums. Throw your toys out of your pram did you? Don’t like being amongst those much smarter than yourself? Tough i’m afraid. Live with it. No one believe this deceitful man. They are incredibly devious his sort. Now, if he really ‘was’ going to crawl back down his hole that would be something beneficial. It’s a shame that he isn’t…

P.S. As I said, get back to your Irving collection before I get cross with you little boy.

Hey eddie, just don’t take it personally. And bless that poor poster, because it must be awful having all that going on inside you.

Never far behind eh, never far behind…

@eddie – just ignore it. I don’t know Jaded and I agree that the abuse is unnecessary, although we’ve come to disagree on this before. I maintain that anyone who posts “Fuck off” as the considered total of a response to Craig must accept a bit of flak.

Anyway, feel free to come back to my substantive and civil points, and just ignore any abuse – it will go away in the end. But in turn (and I mean this nicely) you will have to stop ranting at people – even the 9/11 conspiracy theorists – if you want to be treated politely )

Jon, you need to ask yourself who started the abuse and why. All I have done is reflect it back to where it came from. I respect your posts, but if you think eddie is here to debate you are sorely mistaken and being very naive. He is here with an agenda. You don’t get anywhere debating people with a cynical agenda. You need to expose them for the cretins they are. Once everyone sees them in the light they have failed in their objectives, despite invariably continuing to fester for a while. I have a lot of online experience dealing with these sorts and know what i’m talking about. Think about it.

@Mike: I don’t know the detail of her actions in 1998, but see her 2003 resignation on a point of principle as honourable. She was under no obligation to agree with the AG – she could have either privately disagreed and stayed on, or disagreed publicly and resigned (clearly she did the latter). In fact she behaved with restrained decorum throughout – were it me, I would have been talking to the press immediately in case it halted the march to war. But she gave her first interview regarding her decision recently, in 2010.

Why do her actions make you feel ashamed to be British? I am not given to nationalism, and patriotism is a surely a refuge for scoundrels, but I would have thought sticking up for the underdog, and bravely speaking out when it is the right thing to do, are inately British.

If you have more substantive detail about her 1998 actions, btw, do please share it. More light on an interesting figure is always useful.

@Jaded, I accept that it is possible that Eddie is a shill paid to disrupt the board, but Craig has said he is welcome, and Eddie is occasionally able to post without being abusive. But it is not proven that he has an agenda, and I think on a number of points – in particular the psychological drivers to excusing political violence of ones own kind – we have had some interesting exchanges. You should not worry that I waste time I can ill afford, and I enjoy the discussion. I just let the abuse bounce off, or gently remind eddie/whoever that they are not doing themselves any favours.

There are a couple of contributers here who I think are timewasters, and I will rarely respond to them. But I feel no great need to mention this to them, since I cannot prove it anyway.

That all said, I am unimpressed with the “he started it” argument. I would offer the same advice to you: if you are abusive, the casual reader will just assume you lost the argument. Since you are opposed to the war, it doesn’t do the antiwar movement substantial favours to have you abusing people for that side. Personally I think there are a great deal of points that have gone against Eddie, and the weight of opinion here is against him – so you have even less reason to be rude. Debate should be won exclusively on the strength of your argument.

Anyway, if you are certain Eddie is here to waste people’s time, then don’t respond to him. Easy as that )

‘Debate should be won exclusively on the strength of your argument.’

Some fair points. I maintain that you can’t debate with those that aren’t here to debate though. We can just agree to disagree then, as we are debating. I know what he is.

I’d really hope that the weight of opinion here is not against Eddie, who has consistently engaged and also been open about his background, whatever you may think about his challenges to this board. Me, I can’t see how his ‘rudeness’ is much worse than Craig’s. I agree his constant refusal to take facts on board is baffling and sometimes feels like a waste of time, and his criticisms are often misdirected and baseless. But to suggest his posts are really comparable to the stream of anti-semitic bile, scatological personal abuse, and deliberate misdirection which make up the posts of the jaded/steelback/apostate persona (currently trying to invent itself as an anti-Nazi) is really stretching it.

PS Jon, have you read Eddie’s exchange with Rob Lewis?

But I’m sure Eddie is big enough to fight his own battles. Anyway, am still waiting for the person who ‘can’ rule on the legality of war, or rather, the invasion. Does it matter? Whatever, I think I’m going to commit a left-wing heresy here, and say I don’t want to see Mr Blair hung as a war criminal. The fact that ‘Chemical Ali’ has just been hung, and we helped that happen, and seem to approve of it, is a shame to the UK, in my view. We abolished capital punishment.

‘But to suggest his posts are really comparable to the stream of anti-semitic bile, scatological personal abuse, and deliberate misdirection which make up the posts of the jaded persona (currently trying to invent itself as an anti-Nazi) is really stretching it.’

Good to see not one quote backing up your accusations, as usual… And I am sure you are the same user as eddie. You are like an elephant in a china shop. Sorry my son. Don’t fret though. It’s all ok.

P.S. I told you I might get cross. You wnat to be sent to bed with no supper?

jaded – “I maintain that you can’t debate with those that aren’t here to debate though”

That looks like a good argument for leaving them alone as a waste of time. After all, screaming abuse at people doesn’t bear much resemblance to a willingness to debate, either.

Fair point Richard, but when I ‘know’ what he is I see it as bad that casual readers might think he is a genuine guy. As for abuse I haven’t sworn at him at all. You need to look at all the vile, baseless accusations that he has cynically levelled at others before you come to me questioning why I throw it back.

> technicolour: Jon, have you read Eddie’s exchange with

> Rob Lewis?

No, and I should be grateful if you would point me to it. Rob Lewis’ posts are often some of the most interesting and well-written comments on this blog.

> technicolour: Whatever, I think I’m going to commit a left-wing

> heresy here, and say I don’t want to see Mr Blair hung as a war

> criminal. The fact that ‘Chemical Ali’ has just been hung, and

> we helped that happen, and seem to approve of it, is a shame

> to the UK, in my view. We abolished capital punishment.

I couldn’t agree more; well said.

Rob Lewis & Eddie:

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/options_for_ton.html#comments

(particularly the end)

Think I might have fallen into a trap there: I don’t actually believe that the ‘left’ want Blair hung as a war criminal. The right wing trend, however, is in evidence in the hangings which now take place under our aegis.

“You need to look at all the vile, baseless accusations that he has cynically levelled at others before you come to me questioning why I throw it back.”

It’s very easy to understand. People get abused, they lose their tempers. But when they give way and reflect the same back, that increases the noise level, increases the likelihood that sother people will lose theirs, and it shed no light – because, indeed, there’s nothing to be gained from debating with people who aren’t here to debate.

This is Craig’s site. If Craig wished to be making decisions about what’s acceptable, or not, he has the power to enforce them, but he has several times made it clear that he doesn’t wish to open that can of worms. (Those last few words are my own comment, btw, not an ascription).

The rest of us, all of us commenters, we don’t have The permissions, and can enforce no decisions on anyone else. We come here as equals, and have no other way to deal with each other. We have no way of controlling anyone else’s behaviour, only our own.

In other words, sticking your fingers in your ears and going “La la la can’t see you” is a good move, if it keeps your fingers away from the keyboard for that fatal first moment when you see someone say something so infuriating that it makes you want to shout at them.

Don’t Feed The Trolls.

It’s a temptation. I know it is. But it doesn’t make the world a better place.

‘People get abused, they lose their tempers.’

I NEVER lose my temper. Neither does eddie, unless it’s me he is dealing with of course. You need to understand how cynical he is. I’m sorry if you don’t see that friend.

“I’m sorry if you don’t see that friend.”

You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment.

LOL.

Charles Crawford

You patronising, Victorian git. Is it ‘febrile’, Dictionary definition: feverish, to mind about the collective torture, terrorising and termination of a stable, civilised society, the Iraqi people, by porn-crazed persecutors specially released from US prisons, followed by purposeful igniting of Civil War, by US false flag operations?

I wish I could bulldoze you backward looking brainwashed British upyerasses ignoramuses into one of chemical ‘Ali’s death mounds. I’d be quite happy to hang for it, if it saw an end to the paralysing paraquatting posturing arrogance and pomposity of the British ruling classes.

Craig

Your “bollocks” comment re-tungsten’s references to B’nai B’rith show a deep ignorance of history.

May I suggest you start by doing some of your own research re-the history of the Lobby.Had you been more aware of the extent of its reach and influence I dare say you might still be in Samarkand or even the Lords today!

The generally vaccuous and ahistorical comments on your message board seem to be a reflection of a generalized knee-jerk phobia re-what elites progamme you to think of as “conspiracy theory”.

Unfortunately it seems you share this willed blindness to facts and reality.

Christopher Bollyn clearly shows the decisive influence of the Lobby and B’nai B’rith on US foreign policy here:

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_11522

If you don’t agree with the analysis at least allow the more open-minded and serious of your contributors the chance to make up their own minds.

Sounds like Craig has in mind to do the gamers’ bidding.

Like Sunstein,Obama’s Information Czar, he wants to stamp out all unofficial “conspiracy theory”.

Out goes 9/11 or any reference to the malign influence of the Israeli Lobby in world affairs.

With angri and the “gamers” given free rein the prospects for this site resemble that of most left-gatekeepers-Oblivion beckons…..

Unbeknown to the gatekeepers and the “gamers” running around like the little Dutch boy trying to plug the dykes the net is now awash with anti-Zionist blogs and thinktanks.All eyes are on the hand of the international synarchy’s role in the NWO agenda.

angri,Larry and co. may have won a pyrrhic victory on this blog but the game is up for them and their sponsors on the internet as a whole.

For those still keen to do their own independent research using the internet as a resource there is now a plethora of available alternatives.

Avail yourself of the expertise and resources now available or spend the rest of your life listening to the mind-numbingly tedious off-topic ramblings of imbeciles like angri and the “gamers”.

While it’s still available-the choice is yours.

Gilad Atzmon’s piece in response to Peter Oborne’s programme on the British Israeli Lobby is here:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/britain-must-de-zionise-itself-immediately-by-gilad-atzmon.html

Craig deleted it from my last contribution to this thread.Presumably he shares David Aaronovitch’s antipathy for Atzmon.Atzmon after all has written extensively on the Lobby from what angri and the disinformationists would call a “self-hating” Jew’s point of view.

A rather disingenuous,not to say warped,perspective on legitimate Jewish criticism of the malign worldwide machinations of the Lobby.Perhaps Craig has been convinced by the “gamers” that Jewish commentators critical of Israel and its elite Jewish sponsors belong to some pariah sect unworthy of inclusion in debate.

Had Craig read more widely he would have discovered that there is an extensive body of equally legitimate Zionist criticism of Israel and the Lobby coming from critics like Barry Chamish.

http://thebarrychamishwebsite.com/

Barry’s is a site the gamers certainly won’t want you to visit!

Do it anyway!

“If you don’t agree with the analysis at least allow the more open-minded and serious of your contributors the chance to make up their own minds.”

I have. Craig’s right, it’s bollocks.