Update 24/11/2008: Blair: Here we go, here we go, here we go! I bloody well hope so at last!

24/11/2008

IF OUR BOYS ARE DYING THERE WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHY--THE FULL STORY AND NOTHING ELSE------ please No10

From The TimesNovember 24, 2008
Top civil servant to fight release of Iraq war recordsSam Coates, Chief Political Correspondent Sir Gus O’Donnell, the head of the Civil Service, will lead the Government’s last-ditch attempt to block the release of minutes of Cabinet meetings in the run-up to the war in Iraq, The Times has learnt.

No 10 has been ordered by Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, to release copies of Cabinet minutes and records relating to meetings held between March 7 and 17, 2003.

Details of the meetings, during which the Attorney-General’s legal advice on the war was discussed, could reveal the positions of individual Cabinet ministers and the strength of internal opposition before the March 20 invasion.

The Cabinet Office is fighting the decision because it believes that a vital principle of government is at stake – the right to have private discussions. Ministers argue that releasing the documents could end hundreds of years of confidential Cabinet discussions and undermine collective Cabinet responsibility, where ministers must defend policies in public that they may not agree with in private.

Related LinksTony Blair’s former Iraq aide joins defence giant
Military chief warns against troop move

The Cabinet Office says: “If ministers and officials knew or thought that once a decision was reached, information pertaining to the process by which they reached that point was to be revealed, they might be less willing to engage in full and frank discussions of the issues. Their candour in these discussions could be affected by their assessment of whether the content of these discussions will be disclosed.”

Downing Street is taking Mr Thomas’s ruling to the Information Tribunal, the final court of appeal for freedom of information cases, and three days of hearings are due to begin tomorrow. In an unusual move, Sir Gus, who is also the Cabinet Secretary, will make the case personally to underline the concern over the issue inside government.

If the Government loses, one of the Cabinet Office ministers could issue a decree under Section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act unilaterally blocking the release of the document. This would be a highly controversial move – the first time the Government has used this power since the FoI Act came into force in 2005. Furthermore, the judgment could still create a precedent, potentially making it easier for others to request Cabinet minutes.

Two sets of notes are made during each Cabinet meeting. The first is a general printed account of what happened, circulated to Cabinet members afterwards. The second is a handwritten account by the Cabinet Secretary, which contains full details of the individual positions of participants. It is not known whether the handwritten records could be subject to release.

To prevent the disclosure, the Government is relying on two provisions in the freedom of information legislation that should block the release of documents relating to “formulation of government policy” or “ministerial communications”.

However, when the legislation was drawn up by Jack Straw in 2000, he decided that this ban could be overridden if the public interest arguments were strong enough .

The Information Tribunal will have to decide this week whether it agreed with Mr Thomas that “a decision on whether to take military action against another country is so important that accountability for such decision-making is paramount”. It could argue that such a decision would not undermine collective Cabinet responsibility because these were “two specific and unusual sets of Cabinet minutes”.

Only 13 FoI requests to Downing Street have been granted and made public on the Cabinet Office websit

18/11/2008.
The invasion of Iraq will be a blight on the conscience of all British people and I have no doubt that certain Islamic groups are still seething over the murder we committed there, and still are.

Furthermore, I have no doubt no whatsoever that Britain will face more terrorist attacks as a direct result of our illegal invasion of Iraq.

I trust with hand on heart that our security services are reading here, and that they now seriously think about arresting Blair, and his former cabinet members who sanctioned this terribly evil bloodbath of 1000s of innocent Iraqi civilians.

This was not our war, this was Bush's war, and Blair had his head so far up Bush's arse, it was impossible for him to see sense, only the promises of the future rewards (which he is now enjoying) for supporting Bush.

I probably know more than most about background these two invasion of Iraq, illegally carried out by both Bush Snr and Jnr. This is why I can say with total confidence that this was never our business or our war, and this is why I have always been an open opponent of the war, the government and especially Blair.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal!

Blair and his former cabinet members who supported this illegal war, which transgressed all boundaries International Law, are unquestionably war criminals and should be arrested and tried in the Hague.

For if they are not, then the International War Crimes Tribunal becomes a mockery. A just another great big farce perpetrated against true justice.

What we certainly don't need now is the belated questioning of events by one of our senior judges. Where where was he at the time?

Again I find myself using this analogy, so please forgive for harping on, but I must!

Look my people, if this boy from the Rhondda was able to asses that the invasion of Iraq was against international law, and to say so in open protest to government at the time, where the hell was Lord Bingham(and other judges still silent today) then?

Lord Bingham must realise that Justice does not wear a cloak for so many years, or turn blind eyes, and he, and others, whom we the people appoint to administer our justice ensure that they do so forthrightly at all times.

Remember our Glorious Magna Carta 1215, Article 45. requires that--- We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.

My interpretation of Article 45 would have had Lord Bingham as a major opponent of the illegal invasion before the invasion started, and not after.

Events may have changed by the law has not!

The war was manufactured, just as the occupation is right now as clearly its not working.

Iraq does not want us there.

Tragically all that is happening, I fear is that revenge is being plotted against our beloved nation and Her innocent citizens for the murderous folly of the few.

And while Blair and his warmongering chums are allowed to roam free the danger for you and your loved ones is increasing.

You have a look and judge for yourselves:-

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081118/tuk-judge-says-iraq-advice-was-flawe...

A former top judge says legal advice given to Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq was "flawed".

Lord Bingham, who stepped down in July, has questioned the actions of the US and UK.

He said there was a lack of hard evidence to justify the conflict.

In a speech on the rule of law at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Lord Bingham referred to a statement made by the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith in March 2003 as Britain prepared for the invasion.

"This statement was flawed in two fundamental respects," he said.

"It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had.

"Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months."

Lord Bingham added that Lord Goldsmith's advice passed on the belief that a decision over whether Iraq had not complied with UN resolutions could be made by anyone other than the UN Security Council.

He said: "If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK and some other states was unauthorised by the Security Council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law."

Responding to the criticism, Lord Goldsmith said: "I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq.

"I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view. Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully."

He added that the UN resolution that Iraq was deemed to have failed to comply with, and which ultimately led to the invasion, did not need further determination by the Security Council.

So this is the quality of a top British Judge not very impressive, at least no to me.

Anyway my people take a look at what Mr Bingham had to say here---

There has been much debate whether the rule of law can exist without democracy. Some have argued that it can. But it seems to me that the rule of law does depend on an unspoken but fundamental bargain between the individual and the state, the governed and the governor, by which both sacrifice a measure of the freedom and power which they would otherwise enjoy. The individual living in society implicitly accepts that he or she cannot exercise the unbridled freedom enjoyed by Adam in the Garden of Eden, before the creation of Eve, and accepts the constraints imposed by laws properly made because of the benefits which, on balance, they confer.

The state for its part accepts that it may not do, at home or abroad, all that it has the power to do but only that which laws binding upon it authorise it to do. If correct, this conclusion is reassuring to all of us who, in any capacity, devote our professional lives to the service of the law.

For it means that we are not, as we are sometimes seen, mere custodians of a body of arid prescriptive rules but are, with others, the guardians of an all but sacred flame which animates and enlightens the society in which we live.-------The Rt. Hon Lord Bingham of Cornhill KG, House of Lords, 16th November 2006

Sacred flame, enlightens society, binding laws eh?

All impressive stuff, but none of which gave us the right to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq and butcher 1000s and cause untold suffering to many 1000s more!

Ever get the feeling that we pay these people far too much simply for shovelling BULLSHIT AT US?