So Jack Straw has vetoed the release of the Cabinet minutes, requested under the Freedom of Information act, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq?
The dual justifications that have been offered for this unprecedented move are as spurious as they are contradictory.
First off, we are told, to release Cabinet minutes would be to severely impinge on the functioning of our democracy. In the wake of public exposure, future Cabinet discussions would see ministers afraid to talk frankly, in case those minutes were also one day thrown into the public eye. The openness of debate would be stifled and unpopular opinions would be muted: no one would want to look like a villain should the minutes, once again, fall into the ‘wrong’ hands of the blame-hungry public.
Then we are told that Cabinet minutes aren’t all that useful anyway. They are not complete records of the discussions held, merely generalized accounts made vague and superficial. They wouldn’t be much help for investigators trying get to the bottom of the questions they have about Iraq anyway, and to release them would therefore be an unwarranted violation of Cabinet privacy.
So to recap: the minutes can’t be released because they will expose the views and arguments of the participants to a public scrutiny so severe that it will inhibit future Cabinets from being able to speak freely again. And yet there would be absolutely no information worth hearing in them anyway because the views and arguments of individual participants are not recorded in these generalized and vague bureaucratic accounts.
Hmmm?
Beside the overt case of logical incoherency in the position, there are other flaws to be found. Not least of all in the huge conflict of interests shown in the fact that the man making the decision to place the veto – Justice Secretary Jack Straw – is himself a member of the Cabinet in question – as former Foreign Secretary – and thus stands to be damaged should the minutes get out and prove unflattering. In other words: a man who knows exactly what was said and would, himself, be on the revealed record, has decided that it would better if we didn’t know what went on that fateful day.
And, of course, current Prime Minister Gordon Brown would also have been in Blair’s cabinet at the time. Would he, perhaps, be worried too at letting the public hear his views in the build-up to the invasion, now he has spent so much time trying to distance himself from his predecessor’s war?
Apart from this seemingly criminal conspiracy to cover up the deliberations that led to an unjustified war with no basis in international law and in which – at the very least – over ninety thousand people have died, the argument that such confidentiality is needed to protect the functioning of the Cabinet, and of our democracy, is merely a smoke and mirrors appeal to Parliamentary procedure that obfuscates reality and turns truth onto its head.
Yes, in some cases, the privacy of certain meetings arguably is a crucial factor in their ability to work successfully. People want to know that when discussing important life and death issues, they can ‘think out loud’ without risk of censure or reproach, exploring all the options available regardless of their public popularity or political expediency.
But at the end of the day, truly democratic government is – above all else – meant to be accountable to the people, and in the case of our democratically elected government’s decision to go into Iraq in 2003, the people want to know why such a catastrophic decision was made when there was no evidence for Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, no basis for the invasion in international law, massive opposition to war coming from the citizenry, legal council from the Attorney General at the time advising the government that the war would be illegal, and the vehement disavowal of the attacks from a former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, which led to his resignation.
This is not a case of invasion of privacy, or of impeding the function of democracy. This is a demand to our elected government that they take account for their decision to send our citizens off to die in a war that did not need to happen. This is a call for an explanation as to why we have the blood on our hands of nearly a hundred thousand innocent Iraqis after an invasion took place on a tissue of lies.
As there was enough intelligence at the time of the invasion for people like me, a university undergraduate with a library card and a laptop, to know that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United Kingdom or America, and as the subsequent war which these Cabinet discussions put into action has been a prolonged and murderous affair, to see the minutes of that meeting is to try to understand, in the shadow of our suspicions, the basis by which such a deadly decision was made.
On Iraq, the facts are quite simple: we were either taken to war through blind idiocy, or we were taken to war on an intentional lie. If anything, the strength of our democracy is more threatened by the idea that our government could have absolute immunity when it comes to committing such war-crimes, than it ever could be by our simply finding out that our government is merely stacked with idiots.
The demand to see these minutes was not a demand to set a legal precedent denying Cabinet members the privacy of free and open discussion. It was a demand to set a legal precedent for accountability when demonstrably flawed decisions lead to deadly and destructive results. Jack Straw’s self-serving decision to veto this request, therefore, should be seen only for what it is: yet another duplicitous move in this ongoing democratic tragedy.
Jack Straw
Iraq War Minutes
Freedom of Information
Democracy
Politics
War on Terror
Gordon Brown
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Saturday, 24 January 2009
BBC Allows Suffering in Gaza: no old men were embarrassed.
Another one of these strange parallels occurred again yesterday.
If you recall, a while back, the BBC fired comedian Russell Brand and suspended presenter Jonathon Ross after a few thousand knee-jerkers complained to the company about a prank phone-call that none of them had actually heard.
An old man had been embarrassed by being told true facts about his grand-daughter, and for that two careers were put on hold and there were calls for scrapping the entire BBC as a morally bankrupt institution.
Well, yesterday, Jonathon Ross returned to work at the BBC, and almost immediatly the corporation was involved in a much more serious scandal, but one I don't see Middle England angrily rallying against, and one I don't see ending any careers in shame and resignation.
But the crime was much more severe.
Instead of an old man embarrassed, possibly thousands will be denied essential aid, food and medical supplies, as the BBC decided not to allow the Disasters Eamergency Committee have any airtime in which to ask for humanitarian support to help Palestinians currently suffering in the war-torn Gaza region.
The DEC is an umbrella group for charity organizations such as the Red Cross, Save the Children, and Oxfam. They have been given such airtime by the BBC countless times in the past, and through it have helped raised millions of pounds for aid-work in areas stricken by war, such as the Congo or Darfur; and for victims of natural disasters such as the South Asian tsunami in 2004, and recent devastating cyclones in Burma and Bangledesh.
On Gaza, however, the organization has been denied such airtime by the BBC under the spurious and questionable argument that by helping them to ask for aid for dying Gazans in an ongoing conflict, it might hurt perceptions of the corporation's impartiality over the Palestinian issue. They have also questioned whether aid will be able to get through to the people of Gaza, or if it might get co-opted by Hamas.
The position is ridiculous, and has not seemed to be an issue when asking for money for humanitarian crises in the Congo or Darfur. Both of which are ongoing crises in which there are obstacles in place that might prevent the aid from getting through.
The only plausible reason for their move therefore, is their support of the actions of Israel - a dent in any perception of impartiality if ever I have seen one.
Giving money to the Red Cross or Oxfam has never been about picking a side, it has been about helping get necessary aid to people who are dying or in distress. If Israel had been attacked on the scale that Gaza was, those same organizations would be just as quick to seek financial support to send aid there. By denying them the opportunity to effectively raise donations for the people of Gaza, therefore, the BBC are not being impartial, but are helping Israeli terrorism achieve its cruel objectives. Indeed, since the Israel attacks that started in December, the only people denying aid and supplies to Gaza have been the Israeli army itself, not Hamas, as the BBC seems to fear.
This ban on the DEC's appeal is an entirely partisan move. It gives credit to the fallacious Israeli narrative of events, denies essential aid to a dying and devastated people, and helps further the aims of a military strategy that has been called by the UN a 'war crime' and has no basis in international law.
Luckily, Tony Benn gave me some reason for good cheer as I woke up to his familiar voice this morning.
A protest has been called for later today, outside the BBC Broadcasting House, and Benn was on Radio Four's Today show to talk about the issue. Instead of doing so, however, he simply used his airtime to call for donations for the appeal, reminding listeners that they could send gifts to PO Box 999 London EC3A 3AA or donate via freepay account 1210 at the Post Office.
He called the organization a disgrace, and was promptly told that the interview had 'run out of time', but I must give credit to the Today show host Ed Stourton who let him speak his piece without cutting him off when he was giving out the forbidden details. As Benn said 'Look Edward, you agree with me, you know you agree with me...there's been an absolute crisis in Gaza. You can't allow the BBC to say that if we help people who are dying, we are going to be engaged in controversy.'
Indeed, whilst even the government denounce the BBC for what they have done, one can't help but still respect the corporation a little, for allowing the controversy over the ban such coverage, thus managing to still publicize the appeal in a way which undermines to orders from on high to silence it.
Still, if you're interested in giving, here's the web address for the DEC appeal, and the DEC website itself.
I also highly reccomend reading this excellent recent article by Noam Chomsky, which might put these recent events into some perspective.
There are so many more scandals in the world than Jonathon Ross saying inappropriate things to an old Fawlty Towers actor, and for their actions over the DEC appeal, the BBC should be disgraced.
Politics
BBC
Gaza
Israel
Tony Benn
DEC
DEC Gaza Appeal
Noam Chomsky
Jonathon Ross
If you recall, a while back, the BBC fired comedian Russell Brand and suspended presenter Jonathon Ross after a few thousand knee-jerkers complained to the company about a prank phone-call that none of them had actually heard.
An old man had been embarrassed by being told true facts about his grand-daughter, and for that two careers were put on hold and there were calls for scrapping the entire BBC as a morally bankrupt institution.
Well, yesterday, Jonathon Ross returned to work at the BBC, and almost immediatly the corporation was involved in a much more serious scandal, but one I don't see Middle England angrily rallying against, and one I don't see ending any careers in shame and resignation.
But the crime was much more severe.
Instead of an old man embarrassed, possibly thousands will be denied essential aid, food and medical supplies, as the BBC decided not to allow the Disasters Eamergency Committee have any airtime in which to ask for humanitarian support to help Palestinians currently suffering in the war-torn Gaza region.
The DEC is an umbrella group for charity organizations such as the Red Cross, Save the Children, and Oxfam. They have been given such airtime by the BBC countless times in the past, and through it have helped raised millions of pounds for aid-work in areas stricken by war, such as the Congo or Darfur; and for victims of natural disasters such as the South Asian tsunami in 2004, and recent devastating cyclones in Burma and Bangledesh.
On Gaza, however, the organization has been denied such airtime by the BBC under the spurious and questionable argument that by helping them to ask for aid for dying Gazans in an ongoing conflict, it might hurt perceptions of the corporation's impartiality over the Palestinian issue. They have also questioned whether aid will be able to get through to the people of Gaza, or if it might get co-opted by Hamas.
The position is ridiculous, and has not seemed to be an issue when asking for money for humanitarian crises in the Congo or Darfur. Both of which are ongoing crises in which there are obstacles in place that might prevent the aid from getting through.
The only plausible reason for their move therefore, is their support of the actions of Israel - a dent in any perception of impartiality if ever I have seen one.
Giving money to the Red Cross or Oxfam has never been about picking a side, it has been about helping get necessary aid to people who are dying or in distress. If Israel had been attacked on the scale that Gaza was, those same organizations would be just as quick to seek financial support to send aid there. By denying them the opportunity to effectively raise donations for the people of Gaza, therefore, the BBC are not being impartial, but are helping Israeli terrorism achieve its cruel objectives. Indeed, since the Israel attacks that started in December, the only people denying aid and supplies to Gaza have been the Israeli army itself, not Hamas, as the BBC seems to fear.
This ban on the DEC's appeal is an entirely partisan move. It gives credit to the fallacious Israeli narrative of events, denies essential aid to a dying and devastated people, and helps further the aims of a military strategy that has been called by the UN a 'war crime' and has no basis in international law.
Luckily, Tony Benn gave me some reason for good cheer as I woke up to his familiar voice this morning.
A protest has been called for later today, outside the BBC Broadcasting House, and Benn was on Radio Four's Today show to talk about the issue. Instead of doing so, however, he simply used his airtime to call for donations for the appeal, reminding listeners that they could send gifts to PO Box 999 London EC3A 3AA or donate via freepay account 1210 at the Post Office.
He called the organization a disgrace, and was promptly told that the interview had 'run out of time', but I must give credit to the Today show host Ed Stourton who let him speak his piece without cutting him off when he was giving out the forbidden details. As Benn said 'Look Edward, you agree with me, you know you agree with me...there's been an absolute crisis in Gaza. You can't allow the BBC to say that if we help people who are dying, we are going to be engaged in controversy.'
Indeed, whilst even the government denounce the BBC for what they have done, one can't help but still respect the corporation a little, for allowing the controversy over the ban such coverage, thus managing to still publicize the appeal in a way which undermines to orders from on high to silence it.
Still, if you're interested in giving, here's the web address for the DEC appeal, and the DEC website itself.
I also highly reccomend reading this excellent recent article by Noam Chomsky, which might put these recent events into some perspective.
There are so many more scandals in the world than Jonathon Ross saying inappropriate things to an old Fawlty Towers actor, and for their actions over the DEC appeal, the BBC should be disgraced.
Politics
BBC
Gaza
Israel
Tony Benn
DEC
DEC Gaza Appeal
Noam Chomsky
Jonathon Ross
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
