Hutton Inquiry

sovtek

Anybody else out there think it's just a whitewash?
I find it hard to believe that Andrew Giligan's claims were said to be "unfounded" (45 minutes claim) when so much evidence points to the contrary.

DMC

The BBC have been shafted, in my opinon.

Yes the BBC had failings, they were open and honest in the Inquiry, and have made editorial changes since then, but why so little critisism of Geoff Hoon and the rest of the MoD??

I particularily dont like the line Mr Blair said that all the issues covered by the Hutton report "should be considered" in the review of the BBC charter.

shotamoose

Originally posted by sovtek
Anybody else out there think it's just a whitewash?
I find it hard to believe that Andrew Giligan's claims were said to be "unfounded" (45 minutes claim) when so much evidence points to the contrary.

He's saying that what Gilligan said about the claim - that the government knew it to be wrong when they published it - was unfounded. Hutton seemed to leave the truth of the claim itself to one side.

I find it very strange indeed that Hutton concludes there was no strategy to get Kelly's name out when that seemed to be exactly what Alistair Campbell was trying to do. From what I've seen so far, Campbell's name has hardly come up. Considering that he was head of government communications strategy at the time that's just baffling.

shotamoose

Hutton: "There was no underhand government strategy to name Dr Kelly"

Campbell's diary, 9 July: "the biggest thing needed was the source out".

Oh well. The BBC certainly get it in the neck, and deservedly so on a number of counts. The least they can do is sack Gilligan.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by DMC
The BBC have been shafted, in my opinon.

Yes the BBC had failings, they were open and honest in the Inquiry, and have made editorial changes since then, but why so little critisism of Geoff Hoon and the rest of the MoD??

I particularily dont like the line Mr Blair said that all the issues covered by the Hutton report "should be considered" in the review of the BBC charter.

Definitely seems all a bit suspect.

And I was just waiting for Blair to mention the BBC charter review!

monument

If any one wants to see the report click here (2Mb in PDF)

ishmael whale

45 minutes was what was decided to be the most hypeable element of the dossier, but if it wasn’t there presumably some other tasty morsel would have been made the focus. The question of who said what about how long it takes to deploy weapons that don’t exist seems terribly academic placed against the larger issue of how the intelligence was so fundementally wrong.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by shotamoose
Hutton: "There was no underhand government strategy to name Dr Kelly"

Campbell's diary, 9 July: "the biggest thing needed was the source out".

Oh well. The BBC certainly get it in the neck, and deservedly so on a number of counts. The least they can do is sack Gilligan.

Hutton also said that the press were in such a frenzy to get the name of gilligans source, that it was inevitable that it would eventually come out.
`
If Dr kelly was speaking to journalists on his own bat, then surely it was at his own risk.
The very nature of what he was talking about, given the gravity of the topic left himself open to the exposure he got.

As they say when you play with fire etc.

Having said that, the poor man must have been under several other personal pressures besides this, given that it drove him to suicide.
His judgement would have been under pressure too

Regarding the BBC, they backed themselves into a cul de sac with their support of Gilligan so were bound to come out of this report smelling badder than Blair.

tricky D

Gotta remember that the then Mr Brian Hutton, QC, represented the Ministry of Defence during the Widgery Bloody Sunday Whitewash and 8 more years as Chief Justice in NI so plenty of experience there.

B-liar and Hoon meetings had as few minutes as possible. Why the lack of minutes? Bertie is prolly taking note of that trick.

The whole dossier was about spinning the war, anybody ever previously heard of a war being argued on the strength of this type of information and in this kind of format.

45 minutes was classic fear by association - ppl connected that with themselves being attacked in 45 mins (basic button pushing spin).

Nothing was mentioned of the role of the group producing anti-Saddam propaganda out of the depths of MI6 for the last 10+ years (most of the dark stuff was/is complete crap). A bad sign when you start believing so much of your own propaganda.

Kelly, as a propaganda asset may have been invovled with the above, but was certainly permitted to do interviews within certain bounds and briefings.

And of course all the bbc are going to get it sooner or later.

\r

mike65

Sounds like Gavin Davies of the BBC board of Governors is about to resign.

Mike.

DMC

Gavyn Davies is off alright.

As long as Greg Dyke, the DG doesnt go, I'll be happy. Dyke is a good TV man, great pedigree. It would be a massive loss to the BBC for his career to end now like this.

sovtek

Originally posted by shotamoose
He's saying that what Gilligan said about the claim - that the government knew it to be wrong when they published it - was unfounded. Hutton seemed to leave the truth of the claim itself to one side.

I dont see how he (Hutton) can comment on the claim being unfounded when he isn't investigating the claim in the first place. That's besides the overwhelming evidence that it is founded.

mike65

Tony Benn speaking on The Last Word (today FM)
has just spoken two lies in one sentence! That Kelly was against the war and that he died because of the war!!!! :mad:

Kelly was in favour of military action against Saddam and he killed himself becuase, well becuase he was unable to deal with sudden pressure in public (the House of Commons commitee). That is not the governments fault.

Mike.

Originally posted by sovtek
That's besides the overwhelming evidence that it is founded.

Hutton was referring to the claim that the dossier was sexed up by campbell as being unfounded.
The 45 minute claim was at the core of the evidence he was looking at but it wasn't what he was being asked to make a conclusion on.

shotamoose

Originally posted by sovtek
I dont see how he (Hutton) can comment on the claim being unfounded when he isn't investigating the claim in the first place. That's besides the overwhelming evidence that it is founded.

There is no overwhelming evidence that Gilligan's claim that the Government knew the claim was wrong when they published it was well-founded. Put another way, there is no evidence that he (Gilligan) knew that his claim was right, but he went ahead and said it anyway.

We now know that the 45-minute claim is unfounded. But we don't know that Tony Blair and his government knew it was wrong when they published it (Jesus, this is starting to sound like an episode of Yes Minister).

Still, in my view this lets them off the hook too easily. The 45-minute claim sounded fishy when they came out with it, and if they didn't know it was wrong they should have been a lot more reluctant to give so much prominence to such an inexact claim from one unsupported source.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
Tony Benn speaking on The Last Word (today FM)
has just spoken two lies in one sentence!

In fairness, that does imply he was aware of the truth himself when he said that.

As for the reviewing the BBCs charter...that sounds like empty noise to me. The last thing any government wants to do - especially one which is on shaky territory like Labour at the present - is start taking actions which could be construed as gagging the press, or requiring them to be....how shall I put it...explicitly partial as opposed to nominally impartial.

jc

DMC

The words of Andrew MacKinley, the Labour MP on the Foreign Affairs Committee to Dr. David Kelly a couple of days before he died seem apt in the way that the BBC has borne the brunt of the fallout of the Hutton Report

"I reckon you are chaff. You have been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up."

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
Hutton was referring to the claim that the dossier was sexed up by campbell as being unfounded.
The 45 minute claim was at the core of the evidence he was looking at but it wasn't what he was being asked to make a conclusion on.

But that's what he stated...

"(2) The 45 minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from
a source which that Service regarded as reliable. Therefore, whether or not at some
time in the future the report on which the 45 minutes claim was based is shown to be
unreliable, the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the
Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the
Government decided to put it in the dossier was an allegation which was unfounded."

BuffyBot

Originally posted by bonkey
In fairness, that does imply he was aware of the truth himself when he said that.

As for the reviewing the BBCs charter...that sounds like empty noise to me. The last thing any government wants to do - especially one which is on shaky territory like Labour at the present - is start taking actions which could be construed as gagging the press, or requiring them to be....how shall I put it...explicitly partial as opposed to nominally impartial.

jc

Well, it's widely beleived that Thames Television lost their ITV franchise after Death On The Rock was broadcast, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

yes Sovtek but...

"(2) The 45 minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from a source which that Service regarded as reliable. Therefore, whether or not at some
time in the future the report on which the 45 minutes claim was based is shown to be
unreliable, the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the
Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the
Government decided to put it in the dossier was an allegation which was unfounded."

the point made there is with hindsight.
Unless Gilligan could have shown that Blair or campbell were lying then the report as put out by Gilligan was unfounded in the form he put it out.
It was unfounded as it had no foundation at that particular time .
The BBC defended the reporter and his allegations of sexing up the dossier and on that particular issue they have egg on their faces.

Now do we want to diss the Judge next so as to diss his conclusions... Campell thinks thats already happening.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Unless Gilligan could have shown that Blair or campbell were lying then the report as put out by Gilligan was unfounded in the form he put it out.

But wasn't the entire foundation of the report the no-longer-unnamed source, who unfortunately is no longer around to be able to prove whether or not he had proof at the time that they were lying.

What is interesting, however, is to see that Blair, Straw, et al are already off and running to portray this as proof that they weren't lying....which it isn't. Its a judicial decision - proof if you prefer - that no-one could prove they were lying.

And it is also, unfortunately, being presented as something which should be accepted as closure on the whole issue of what the government did and did not know.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
But wasn't the entire foundation of the report the no-longer-unnamed source, who unfortunately is no longer around to be able to prove whether or not he had proof at the time that they were lying.
jc

And the plot gets thicker still.
Tom Mangold a journalist and close friend of Dr Kelly was speaking on 5-7 live on radio one this evening ( the link will be on their site tomorrow, for some reason , they run a day late on their links).
He said that it is widely believed and an open secret within Dr Kelly's family that Dr Kelly received a phone call from somebody to tell him that the BBC newsnight journalist susan Watts had taped her interview with Dr Kelly which had formed the basis of her newsnight report.

Dr Kelly had subsequently appeared in front of the commons select committee denying that he had ever said some of the things Susan Watts had reported him( at the time of her report he was just an "un named" source) as saying.
Mr Mangold believed that when Dr Kelly discovered via the phone call on the morning of his death ,that this tape existed, it was the final straw that drove him to suicide.

If he didnt know it's conceivable that his reputation would have been damaged when it was shown that he had lied to a commons committee.

Considering that, a way out for Blair was shaping up had Dr Kelly lived.
He would have been able to question his inteligence services integrety ironically and this would have been a handy scapegoat.

davelerave

it seems incredible ,"dr kelly didn't tell gilligan that the iraq dossier had been sexed up" maybe the judge is working for m16 or something.and what lucky timing for tony blair ,there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq but 'hey we didn't say there were any ,they did!'

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey

What is interesting, however, is to see that Blair, Straw, et al are already off and running to portray this as proof that they weren't lying....which it isn't. Its a judicial decision - proof if you prefer - that no-one could prove they were lying.

jc

I think its a little more than that . . . Hutton concluded that the government did not covertly attempt to alter the dossier . . . that what Blair said in the House of Commons was a fair reflection of the evidence as presented by the JIC. . . ergo, he did not lie in the House of Commons. . .

The question this whole thing raises, more than anything else, in light of whats currently going on in Iraq is How could the Intelligence officials, including David Kelly get it so wrong ? ? ? That is where the next inquiry should be focused . .

bonkey

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
I think its a little more than that . . . Hutton concluded that the government did not covertly attempt to alter the dossier . . . that what Blair said in the House of Commons was a fair reflection of the evidence as presented by the JIC. . . ergo, he did not lie in the House of Commons. . .

Actually, from what I've been reading and hearing his conclusion was that there is no evidence that Blair knew what he was saying was not true, and therefore it cannot be concluded that he was lying.

There is no question but that the information presented was not accurate, nor - I believe - that the document was edited. However, editing a report to include information which you believe to be correct is a perfectly legitimate action for a government to take.

I think, at the end of the day, the biggest mistake Hutton made was by slamming the BBC for not examining its evidence sufficiently, whilst saying nothing to a government who's official line now is that they brought the nation to war "partly" on bad information which simply "duped" them all.

jc

davej

The Hutton investigation and it's findings really have managed to detract from the the fact that the central "public" reasons for going to war were unfounded. It seems to me that the BBC and Dr. Kelly have provided a very effective smoke screen for the government to hide behind.

All attempts to question the government on the issue of how the intelligence community could have gotten it so wrong about WMD (when so many non-intelligence people seemed to be able to work it out easily) were met with the mantra "that's a question for another day".

davej

Piliger

I find it interesting but unsurprising when people jump to trash a report that they dont' approve of. I 'wonder' what their reaction would have been if Blair and MOD has been completely blamed by Hutton and the BBC vindicated ?
I am sure no one here would have called it a whitewash and would have demanded Blair's resignation immediately. There would have been no question of doubting Hutton - a completely trusted judge who was approved of and admired by all sides, until he disagreed with them.

Thankfully this is not the case and Blair has been found to be totally vindicated and truthful over the last six months.

The BBC has been found to be unreliable and incompetent in their bias reporting of the war. Their indignation at being 'judged' like every other profession is pathetic.

Akrasia

Hutton wasnt a trusted respectable Judge..

From the position he came from a decision blaming blair would have had immense weight because it would have gone against his natural inclinations thereby suggesting overwhelming evidence that could not be covered up.. As is there is nothing more than a predictable whitewash carried out by a trusted government contract painter

The 72 year old Baron Hutton of Bresagh, County of Down, North Ireland, is a classic representative of the British ruling establishment. A member of the Anglo-Irish elite, he was educated at Shewsbury all boys boarding school, and then Balliol, Oxford, before entering the exclusive club of the British Judiciary. Whilst British
Judges are overwhelmingly conservative, upper class, white, male and biased, Hutton's background is even more compromised.

His name will be familiar to residents of the Six counties of Ulster. During the bloody thrity years war Hutton was an instrument of British state repression, starting in the late 1960's as junior counsel to the Northern Ireland attorney general, and by 1988 rising to the top job of Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.


Hutton spent his career as Judge and Jury in the notorious northern Ireland kangaroo 'Diplock Courts'. These were special non-Jury courts, condemned by human rights advocates for their miscarriages of justice. He was hated for this role by the families of the many innocent catholics wrongly convicted here.

Hutton distinguished himself after the Bloody Sunday massacre of civil rights protesters in 1972. He played a key role in the ensuing judicial cover-up called the Widgery Inquiry which absolved British troops of Murder. This miscarriage of justice is only now being investigated by the current Saville inquiry.

Then in 1978 he represnted the British Government before the European Court of Human Rights, defending it against a ruling that it abused and maltreated detainees from the conflict.

However, he will be remembered in the rest of the UK for his role in the 1999 Pinochet affair. Another senior Judge, Lord Hoffman had contributed to the decision to arrest and extradite the notorious former dicator of Chile and mass murderer General Pinochet during his visit to Britain.

As a law lord, Hutton led the rightwing attack on Lord Hoffman, on the excuse that Hoffman's links to the human rights group amnesty international invalidated Pinochets arrest! Lord Hutton said "public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice would be shaken" if Lord Hoffman's ruling was not overturned.

More recently, Hutton was also involved in the ruling that David Shayler, the former MI5 agent, could not argue he was acting in the public interest by revealing secrets.

This history of intimate links with, and knowledge of Britains secret military intelligence operations meant he could be a trusted pair of hands when it came to the Kelly affair.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284545.html

bonkey

Originally posted by Piliger
IThankfully this is not the case and Blair has been found to be totally vindicated and truthful over the last six months.

No, he hasn't. Thats what the Labour party are spinning the Hutton report to mean, but not what the report says.

Hutton found that the specific allegations made by the specific BBC report were unfounded. In other words, that the claims made in that specific report, knowing what was known at the time, were not supportable. It could have come out that Blair was lying through his teeth the next day, but at the time the allegations were made, they were unsupportable.

Hutton explicitly stated that it was not his place, and beyond the scope of his enquiry, to determine what the British government did and did not know, and whether or not they deliberately misled the public.

I find it interesting that someone who is criticising others for not accepting a report either clearly doesn't know what is actually in the report they are defending, or is clearly mis-representing that information.

Either interpretation of how you could have said the above makes your criticism of others highly suspect.

Indeed, yesterday, after the decision was made, and after Blair went mouthing off about how he expected full apologies and retractions, and all the rest of it, the leader of the opposition turned around and asked for a public enquiry, so that the question of what was actually known at the time could actually be answered.

This report does not answer that question, nor does it attempt to.

jc



jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Piliger
The BBC has been found to be unreliable and incompetent in their bias reporting of the war.

No, they haven't.

They have been shown to have had one article which was printed without sufficient background checking being done to verify the authenticity and veracity of the information being reported.

To infer that they were "unreliable and incompetent" from that is no different to inferring that the British government lied through its teeth, given that in hindsight we know the information they presented was false, and that they are continuously shifting the official reasons why they went to war.

In both cases, you are judging the actions of the time with the knowledge of today. However, while you defend the British Government for getting it wrong, you decide that the BBC were "unreliable and incompetent".

Hardly applying equal standards....and i know which body poses a greater threat through acting on unreliable and insufficiently researched information.....and its not the one you're criticising, but rather the one you defend.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
Actually, from what I've been reading and hearing his conclusion was that there is no evidence that Blair knew what he was saying was not true, and therefore it cannot be concluded that he was lying.

My reading of the sections covering the drafting of the dossier is that Hutton accepts John Scarlett's assertion that what was included in the published September dossier - even the bits that were 'strengthened' from earlier drafts which left room for ambiguity - were in line with available intelligence and therefore valid.

So I don't think Hutton is merely saying "there's no evidence either way". I think he's saying that "at the time, Blair should have considered what he was saying to be true" since John Scarlett said it was.

And this is my big problem with Hutton's judgement - I just don't see how he can be so unbothered about systematic attempts by politicians to remove any ambiguity in the presentation of intelligence assessments, and always in their own favour. There was ambiguity in the original intelligence, there was ambiguity in the first drafts of the September dossier, there was non in the published version after the interventions of Campbell and Powell, and Hutton doesn't seem to care.

Maybe he's taking a purely mechanical view of it. Like, it doesn't matter that John Scarlett only removed the ambiguities at the request of Blair's staff - the fact that the ambiguities were removed means that Blair had no reason to contemplate them and so was being 'truthful' when he presented his unambiguous conclusions to the House. So much of what Blair 'knew' at the time we now 'know' to be wrong, but again Hutton seems quite unbothered - because that's beyond the scope of his inquiry.

Originally posted by bonkey
Actually, from what I've been reading and hearing his conclusion was that there is no evidence that Blair knew what he was saying was not true, and therefore it cannot be concluded that he was lying.
jc

I'm inclined to wonder though that if Blair knew at the time that there was false information in the dossier, how did he know this?
Who told him, in other words was the case for war at the time sexed up.
I'm veering towards two answers to this.
Either Blair is a brilliant liar and the normally very leaky whitehall has been incredibly watertight on this.
That would seem incredible though.

Or the inteligence services got the thing so very, very wrong.
Given also the nature of public opinion on the "inteligence" services as it stands now and the distrust that this has associated with the Blair government in the eyes a a significant minority of people in Britain...
I find it inconceivable that this could have been part of some great plan, of "make up the inteligence" and shur if we are found out, the job will be done and we'll deal with the consequenses later.
If it was and I doubt it, it has back fired.

At least thats one good thing that has came out of this , it has focused peoples minds, to such an extent that a repeat of British compliance with some great plan for U.S world domination would be difficult.

BattleBoar

On the topic at hand, the questions of the WMD *still* needs to be dealt with. Bonkey is right in the sense that this does not completely vindicate the labour government and Blair from all responsibility. Ultimately, the intelligence on WMD in Iraq at this point has proved to be wrong and the decision to act on intelligence that has proven faulty does not reflect well on the leadership, British or US. There still needs to be an independent inquiry to see how these intelligence agencies could get it so wrong in the first place.

What the report does seem to do is vindicate Blair and his govt against these charges the BBC have made against it as well as raise serious doubts about the editorial standards and credibility of the BBC. Slightly off the subject, but I lost all respect for the BBC when they sacked Kilroy-Silk but did nothing to Tom Paulin. I think a major overhaul of the leadership at the BBC is long overdue, personally.

shotamoose

As for who's come out of it best, well, I think the government's words will eventually come round to bite them in the ass. I heard John Reid being all magnaminous on the Today show this morning, saying that people make mistakes and that it's only right and proper that they own up to them when the truth comes out.

I agree. The BBC in the person of Greg Dyke have done so in this case, and deserve credit for it.

The logical next step is for the government to have an open inquiry of some form into the biggest question left unanswered by Hutton, a question that everybody seems to want answered: did the UK go to war on the basis of an exagerrated threat? Was what the government told the Commons and the people about the threat from Iraq actually true?

Most people now think it wasn't. If the Blair government has any integrity it needs to establish the answer and, if it is found to have made a mistake, it needs to own up to it and say sorry. Otherwise all this post-Hutton talk of 'the truth will set you free!' is just more spin bollocks.

Oh and one final question: why does Andrew Gilligan still have a job at the BBC?

DMC

Greg Dyke doesn't anymore.

Johnny_the_fox

Originally posted by DMC
Greg Dyke doesn't anymore.

:eek: they are dropping like flies....

BBC director general stands down

Éomer of Rohan

Having listened to the parliamentary summary ot the Hutton report by Lord Hutton himself around lunchtime yesterday, on BBC Radio Ulster, and despite my misgivings about what his report says, the most worrying thing in my opinion is that the journalistic teeth of the BBC will be severely curtailed by the amount of high level resignations and the government's persistence in their call for a 'greater apology' than the statement that was read out yesterday.

The fact remains, the Governors of the BBC didn't do their job to the extent that the government would have liked it done and the peice by Gilligan was badly done - it should have been phrased as a doubt rather than fact, BUT this is no reason to go all out against the BBC as the current Government spin machine is doing.

What is more worrying still for those concerned with the state of British politics is that the replacements for the resigning employees of the BBC are Tories and it has been voiced by more than one commentator that Tony is very pleased with this.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I'm inclined to wonder though that if Blair knew at the time that there was false information in the dossier, how did he know this?
Who told him, in other words was the case for war at the time sexed up.

Who knows. Thats ultimately - for me - where the problem comes in....

The Hutton report lambasts the BBC for not investigating beyond their sources sufficiently, to the extent that they accepted information as being true, based on insufficient grounds to actually be held up.

At the same time, Hutton does not criticise the British government for having accepted information as true which was without sufficient corroboration etc. to be able to stand up.

So, what seems to be the conclusion of this report is that its ok to commit your country to war on information you believe - but have not verified - to be correct, but it is an unthinkable travesty to print a story on the subject on information you believe - but have not verified - to be correct.

IN other words, the requirement for the press to be correct in what it prints is more stringent in Hutton's eyes than the need for a government to be correct on what it commits itself to war for....

Weird.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from bonkey
At the same time, Hutton does not criticise the British government for having accepted information as true which was without sufficient corroboration etc. to be able to stand up.

So, what seems to be the conclusion of this report is that its ok to commit your country to war on information you believe - but have not verified - to be correct, but it is an unthinkable travesty to print a story on the subject on information you believe - but have not verified - to be correct.

IN other words, the requirement for the press to be correct in what it prints is more stringent in Hutton's eyes than the need for a government to be correct on what it commits itself to war for....

To be fair, while I don't believe that there ARE WMD and don't believe there ever where AND believe that both governments knew there weren't any, I do think your statement a little premature - who knows what they'll find before the Americans pull out. Mind you, who knows when the Americans are going to pull out at all lol? And then again, who's to say they won't plant something?

Piliger

As posted above, Hutton's career demonstrates many decades upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland dealing with heinous terrorists correctly with complete integrity as well as admirable involvement in recent affairs where he distinguished himself. His life as part of the establishment made him wonderfully suited to producing an independent trustworthy report considering that the BBC is the establishment party to the affair and the Government was accusing it of lying. All in all an excellent choice.
The BBC were found out to have accused the Gov of lying based on fictitious grounds and then spending six months repeating those lies everytime they defended them. It has been a disgraceful performance by the BBC management who's knee jerk reaction was to raise the barricades and repeat the lies rather than actually investigate the truth of their reporting.

Today on the BBC and other tv channels we had a series of incestuous round table interviews and discussions where journalists interviewed journalists and editors who inevitably raised the same barricades with righteous indignation that anyone should judge their profession at all and dragged out the ultimate red herring now that they have been exposed, of the WMD question. What a wonderful distraction. So convenient. Andrew Neil was outraged that anyjudgement or restriction be placed on journalists who should be free to do whatever they felt was right without answering to anyone, even heir editors, for the accuracy or reliability of their sources.
We also heard repeatedly the creation of false scares right across the journalistic spectrum, of the danger of political comment and journalism being blunted, of Jeremy Paxman being blunted. What a load of transparent spin by the experts in spin, the journalists, editors and reporters.
The truth is that the BBC have been found of lying and laziness. There was no criticism of them being critical of the Gov, or being too aggresive. But it creates a great scare to raise this as a great 'fear'.

Like any other Government, Blair & co have and had no way of knowing or finding out if the intelligence delivered to them by the Interlligence Service is accurate or not. They are politicians. They can only act on what they are told to be true. They did so, admirably, and have been found to have acted totally correctly.
It is clear to anyone interested in a balanced view of the truth that the Intelligence services on both sides of the atlantic may have something to answer for if no WMD is found in the next couple of years, but as far as Hutton goes I hope that the BBC jettisons it's recently adopted policy of mimicing the trash journalism practiced by so many newspapers.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Piliger
As posted above, Hutton's career demonstrates many decades upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland dealing with heinous terrorists correctly with complete integrity as well as admirable involvement in recent affairs where he distinguished hi

Also known as the Widgery Report. Need I say more?

Piliger

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Also known as the Widgery Report. Need I say more?

Absolutely not. An admirable job carried out with total integrity.

Sparks

Originally posted by Piliger
Absolutely not. An admirable job carried out with total integrity.

And his decision to overturn the ruling that Pinochet could be arrested and tried on the grounds that the judge who issued the ruling had ties to Amnesty International?

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey

So, what seems to be the conclusion of this report is that its ok to commit your country to war on information you believe - but have not verified - to be correct, but it is an unthinkable travesty to print a story on the subject on information you believe - but have not verified - to be correct.

IN other words, the requirement for the press to be correct in what it prints is more stringent in Hutton's eyes than the need for a government to be correct on what it commits itself to war for....

Weird.

jc

Nonsense . . . the report makes no conclusions with regard to the basis Blair had or did not have for going to war . . . If you read his report, Lord Hutton is quite explicit in defining his terms of reference and these terms of reference specifically excluded this question . . .

This will be a matter for another inquiry!

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
To be fair, while I don't believe that there ARE WMD and don't believe there ever where AND believe that both governments knew there weren't any, I do think your statement a little premature - who knows what they'll find before the Americans pull out. Mind you, who knows when the Americans are going to pull out at all lol? And then again, who's to say they won't plant something?

Yeah..but Dave...I never said they were wrong. I said that the criticism was about the lack of certainty and verification. It is undeniable that the UK (and US) govts most certainly had not properly verified their information....which is exactly what the BBC was lambasted for.

jc

projectmayhem

hutton is causing a lot of trouble, not least because the public are disillusioned with his findings, possibly because the public would rather stand behind the bbc then the government. i somehow doubt this will be the end of it, but tony blair certainly looks like a happy bunny, for now.

the question is now not wether there are/was sufficiant evidence of wmd's in iraq, it's now a question of when is the right time to enter into a war, with what grounds and with what reason. if blair and bush had said that saddam needs to stop killing people and "we're going in there to rid iraq of a tyrant" rather then " we need to rid saddam of wmd's", would we have a different situation?

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by bonkey
It is undeniable that the UK (and US) govts most certainly had not properly verified their information....which is exactly what the BBC was lambasted for.

jc

Again . . . this is just not true . . . the rights or wrongs of how the information was verified was never a subject of argument between the BBC and the government and was not a subject of the Hutton Inquiry . . The BBC were lambasted (and I think quite rightly) because they accused the government of lying to parliament and to the people. . . of knowingly adding information to the dossier that they knew not to be correct . . The Hutton inquiry has shown that these accusations were without basis in fact !!

tricky D

The Guardian has dug up some good info on the propaganda unit (Operation Rockingham) and Kelly's involvement which unsurprisingly didn't make it to the Inquiry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1134826,00.html
Another thought: isn't the whole notion of the dossier an act of sexing up the war?

Piliger

Originally posted by Sparks
And his decision to overturn the ruling that Pinochet could be arrested and tried on the grounds that the judge who issued the ruling had ties to Amnesty International?

His job was to uphold the law - not make a moral judgement.

That's why we and they have judges, and to condemn a judge for upholding a law that you don't agree with it rediculous imho.

Piliger

Originally posted by bonkey It is undeniable that the UK (and US) govts most certainly had not properly verified their information....which is exactly what the BBC was lambasted for.
jc [/B]

Wrong. There was no evidence in the Hutton enquiry whatsoever about whatever methods or sources that the intelligence services may or may not have used to gather information about Saddam and his regime and WMD. The Hutton enquiry didn't cover that and wasn't supposed to cover that.

tricky D

His job was to uphold the law - not make a moral judgement.

That's why we and they have judges, and to condemn a judge for upholding a law that you don't agree with it rediculous imho.

Missing the point(s) perhaps, which is that Hutton appears to usually come down on the side of the state, not the public good as he would have you believe, across a spectrum of cases and so is a good choice for any Gov on the back foot.

The Pinochet overturn was so made because a judge had ties to Amnesty, so what. The judiciary is well capable of seperating their own bias and opinions from legal practice every day of the week, just like so many others of us who have to leave some of their own personal thoughts, ethics and morality at home while working. Why should a judge be ruled against because of his private freedom of association with an org which tries to uphold human rights laws. A judge being ruled against for promoting the law and/or what's right, hmm.