Attempts to Deflect Michael Wood Evidence 57


STOP PRESS

RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MICHAEL WOOD’S TESTIMONY, THE GOVERNMENT – NOT CHILCOTT, THE GOVERNMENT – HAS RELEASED MINUTES FROM JACK STRAW ATTACKING SIR MICHAEL WOOD AND HIS LEGAL ADVISERS FOR NOT OFFERING “A FULL RANGE OF VIEWS”.

WOOD’S DAMNING EVIDENCE WAS INTERRUPTED FOR TEN MINUTES, AND NOW THE COMMITTEE ARE ATTACKING MICHAEL ON THE BASIS OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT JUST RELEASED, FOR FAILING TO OFFER A VIEW THAT THE WAR WAS LEGAL.

INCREDIBLE BIT OF NEWS MANAGEMENT IN WHICH THE COMMITTEE IS COMPLICIT. SKY NEWS THEN IMMEDIATELY CUT TO A VERY LONG AND DULL STATEMENT ON THE NORTHERN IRELAND TALKS – NOT CONNECTED TO A CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT THERE.

Further – Sky has now cut to a very dull pre-recorded interview with Alistair Darling. Having given us wall to wall testimony from the New Labour liars, there is no live broadcast of the most important evidence to date.

I have cut this thread to stop discussion of whether Sky acted deliberately from detracting from the main point that the war was deemed illegal.


57 thoughts on “Attempts to Deflect Michael Wood Evidence

1 2
  • paul

    You seem surprised, Im not.

    They can weasel word all they like, invading a country that posed no threat to us was, is, and always will be the supreme international crime …

  • Jon

    Craig, is the live feed available anywhere else, such as from Parliament TV or on the web, do you know? It would be most interesting to see the bits that Sky did not want to screen.

    And I do wonder, given that in a busy newsroom there is probably not enough time for the necessary intellectual focus for deliberate bias, whether a particular proprietor may have had a hand in chopping the feed. Tongue in cheek apologies to our usual disrupters, of course, lest they regard that suggestion as too conspiratorial to mention ;o)

    Keep going Craig. We’re onto something.

  • Anonymous

    all, i can say is ‘come to pappa’

    let the games begin.

    Craig…..game, set, match….

    JS you got some explaining to do…..

  • Craig

    Sadly yhe red button option is not available outside the UK.

    Jon, I have watched hours of much less important testimony uninterrupted, and they cut away for pre-recorded stuff, not breaking news. I still might not think much of it were it not for the coincidence of the release of material attacking Wood, literally during his testimony.

  • Jon

    Thanks, angrysoba. Looks like all the previous videos are available too, will download today’s one tonight.

    @Adam: thanks, but would imagine the Sky one contains the same cutaway at a key moment that Craig refers to?

  • angrysoba

    “Jon, I have watched hours of much less important testimony uninterrupted, and they cut away for pre-recorded stuff, not breaking news.”

    The link I posted appears to be showing this testimony live.

    Am I missing something?

    I don’t know what Sir Michael Wood looks like so I Googled him and his picture came up with him wearing the same tie as he is now.

  • Jon

    @alan-campbell: well, Murdoch is on record as wanting his papers to reflect his views, though it is said of him that he doesn’t necessarily like yes-men in editoral positions either. He’ll defer to an opposing political view in the interests of commercial interest, but in general he favours right-wing, pro-American-policy coverage. I don’t think that bit is contentious.

    Mossad agent though? – not heard that one :oD

  • eddie

    But Craig, the Attorney General is the government’s ultimate law adviser, not the FCO, as you well know. Goldsmith’s advice was that war was legal under the COMBINED force of 1441, 687 and 678 – not just 1441 alone.

  • Abe Rene

    Since the BBC and internet are bound to splash Wood’s testimony all over the place this sounds like a desperate tactic.

  • Leo

    Someone trying to tell the truth about the Iraq war being smeared by the government?

    Inconceivable!

  • Leo

    Eddie, Here’s a concept you may find hard to grasp:

    PERHAPS GOLDSMITH WAS WRONG.

    Being the ultimate legal *adviser* doesn’t make all of his legal advice automatically right.

    If other, more experienced and qualified (and less politicised) advisers disagreed with Goldsmith’s opinion then that is quite an important fact.

    I’ve never heard any basis for Goldsmith’s opinion, nor the way he changed his mind when required to greenlight the war. It stinks of his conclusion being predetermined and the justification for it being thought-up afterwards, which isn’t how things should work.

    That wasn’t legal advice, it was an on-demand excuse for Blair & co. to go do whatever they wanted, law be damned.

  • Jon

    @angrysoba – the internet version may be uninterrupted live feed, while the cable broadcast in the UK may have the cutaway.

  • Ed

    In the unlikely event anyone is being confused by Eddie, the resident nuLab ball-cupper, here is Sir Michael’s written testimony to the inquiry: “In my opinion that use of force had not been authorized by the Security Council and had no other legal basis in international law.”

  • Jon

    Leo/Eddie – yes, the issue of Goldsmith changing his mind on the legality of the war is central. Indeed, even if the Blairite/pro-war consensus is that Goldsmith was not swayed politically, Blair could have taken a more nuanced view, and listened to opposing views too, which were fully espoused at the time.

    After all, in a fair world where a legal framework exists for war crimes, and where that can apply to any country that signs up to it, one cannot be too careful, surely?

  • ediot

    Sir Michael said Mr Straw held a meeting with him after this but did not accept his advice.

    He told the inquiry: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.

    Sir Michael said this was “probably the first and only occasion” that a minister rejected his legal advice in this way.

    Sir Michael said he did not agree with Lord Goldsmith’s statement on the eve of the invasion that Security Resolution 1441 – passed in November 2002 requiring Iraq to give up its supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – together with earlier resolutions dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, provided sufficient authorisation.

  • glow-in-the-dark

    Explain to me why you’re not watching it on the BBC news website? They have a direct feed, not interrupted by anything.

    Don’t confuse Sky News management with control – they’re a mess anyway.

  • ediot

    “Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Sir Michael’s deputy at the time, is also reportedly planning to tell the inquiry that the conflict was not lawful without a second United Nations resolution.

    Miss Wilmshurst became the only British civil servant to quit over the war when she resigned days before the first attacks on Iraq, telling her superiors that an invasion without UN sanction would be a ”crime of aggression”. ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7078079/Chilcot-inquiry-Iraq-invasion-had-no-legal-basis-in-international-law.html

  • eddie

    I repeat. The Attorney General is the government’s ultimate law adviser, not the FCO, as you well know. Goldsmith’s advice was that war was legal under the COMBINED force of 1441, 687 and 678 – not just 1441 alone. The government took the advice of the chief law officer, as they were legally obliged to do. What if it had been reversed, and the FCO said war was legal and Goldsmith said the opposite? You seem to want it all ways. All this blather about what the FCO did or dd not say is irrelevant. The FCO is a notoriously wet department that allowed genocide to take place in Serbia.

  • ediot

    Blair rejected advice that Iraq war was illegal

    By Alex Barker, Political Correspondent

    The UK invasion of Iraq was illegal

    In a heavy blow to Mr Blair?s case for war, Sir Michael Wood, the FCO head of legal advice, told the Iraq inquiry on Tuesday that he repeatedly warned ministers that the conflict breached international law.

    Sir Michael, in his first public statements on the subject, said: ?I considered the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law. In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the Security Council, and had no other basis in international law.?

    He added that he disagreed with Lord Goldsmith, then attorney-general, who argued on the eve of war that the existing UN resolutions on Iraq, read together, amounted to such authorisation.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c397992e-0a6f-11df-ab4a-00144feabdc0.html

  • Anonymous

    guess someone needs to beef up our legal process before going to war…probably one for the lessons learned log (Prince2). Would expect their to be a work package as welll on implementing chages, and a proprer project pan as well…

    me ‘white man’ always speaks with forked tongue seems to express my view of JS, TB and GB.

    I just looking into the NHS on how much full spinal removal costs to the taxpayer..would seem this would be a pre-requisitie for at leats some of those posts

  • ediot

    Iraq war illegal!!

    Well that’s that then.

    The whole Blair regime was nothing short of a gangster criminal conspiracy to use political power for criminal purposes.

    And Blair has done mighty handsomely out of it all.

    Just follow the money…

    And let’s hope the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency are taking a close look at all the gangsters who’ve profited from their crimes.

  • sahar

    I think these discussions are a little pointless. Lets for arguments sake all agree the Iraq invasion(not war, war needs 2 parties) was LEGAL. That does not mean it was RIGHT to invade a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the UK or US. Remember who makes the laws that dictate what is legal or illegal. This all seems to be focusing on the legal technicalities. The most important thing is that this was an invasion purely for Economic gains. It has left a country in ruins, millions dead and homeless, maimed etc…this inquiry is a pile of shit…everyone should just ignore it. That includes you Craig. Please stop blogging on it. The inquiry won’t change anyhting. It’s simple we all know it was wrong to invade Iraq. Who needs an inquiry. It’s boring.

1 2

Comments are closed.