UK MUST "OPEN UP" ON LIBYA DEALINGS

UK DEALINGS "SHROUNDED IN SECRECY"

Commenting on reports in The Herald newspaper in which Colonel Gaddafi's son, Saif al Islam Gaddafi suggests that negotiations over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement struck between Tony Blair and Libya connected trade deals to the release of the Lockerbie bomber SNP MP and Westminster leader Angus Robertson said;

"Kenny MacAskill made the right decision for the right reasons and he has explained that decision in Parliament.

"The SNP spoke out against Tony Blair's deal in the desert when it was first struck, but the UK denied that Megrahi was the target and refused to exclude him from the agreement.

"The UK Government's negotiation of a prisoner transfer agreement and meetings between the UK Government and Libya remain shrouded in secrecy.

"It is time for the UK to open up on Blair and Brown's dealings with Colonel Gaddafi.

"The Scottish Government has said it will release all possible information on the consideration of Mr Megrahi's release as soon as it can.

"If the UK Government wants to end suspicion over it's own dealings with Libya Gordon Brown should adopt the same approach and put the details of these meetings into the public domain."

Pot calls kettle black: sod orf and mind your own business Mr O!!!

I read an article today whilst perusing Yahoo! News called Obama: Cameron has no substance and I found myself somewhat irritated.

It wasn't so much because he was criticising David Cameron for being without 'substance' or Obama put it, just 'sizzle'. David Cameron in my view is without 'substance' but he is better than the current man who Obama seems to consider is full of 'substance' but no 'sizzle'. I would certainly agree that Brown is lacking in 'sizzle' but I am not seeing the 'substance' either.

The man he seems to admire the most however is Tony Blair who according to Obama has 'substance' and 'sizzle'. Forgetting for the moment that Tony Blair started two wars with the man (George Bush) who Obama slated all the way through his election campaign for that reason amongst others, it is difficult to see where the 'substance' is.

Under Tony Blair's government, the education, prison, social services, transport, health, political and financial systems have either failed or are in serious disrepair. We are currently in the middle of an economic depression and two illegal wars in which allegations of war crimes and human rights abuses are rife against us. Unemployment is high, crime has risen, cocaine is as common as water and we have the highest teenage pregnancy, knife crime and alcohol rates in the civilised world. Where is the 'substance' again please Mr Obama?

I'm not even convinced about the 'sizzle' which in my opinion is more like 'slither' in Mr Blair's case if you ask me. Mr Obama appears to be heading in the same direction as Mr Blair though in the 'substance' leagues. From what I can gather he hasn't done much either and a good example is his promised closure of Guantanamo Bay. Wasn't this supposed to be done by now? Oh yes, I seem to recall that it was. If 'substance' is defined as inactivity and a huge advertising budget to win an election then Obama and Blair are definitely peas in a pod and should be left to play with each other's 'sizzle' and 'substance' until their hearts are content.

What made me mad though and I mean jump up and down, red faced, 'Yosemite Sam' crazy was that this chap, who is yet to do anything much other than perfect shaking the hands and slapping the backs of other world leaders is arrogant enough to think that he can influence the UK political landscape. Does he think that he is that popular or important over here that he can swing an election? I think he does. That's a bit worrying. Maybe he's been taking some of this 'substance' he seems to be obsessed with himself. Where can I get my hands on some?

I think that when old 'sizzle chops' Cameron himself wins the election by default we will be presented with a perfect opportunity to step back politically from the US and its overconfident leadership. Hasn't it always been America's arrogance, and overconfidence leading to its complacency that has gotten it into trouble time and time again in the past. Yes, but maybe it'll learn one day.

Until then...sod orf Mr Obama and kindly mind your own business in future! Oh and by the way...anyone who uses words like 'sizzle' or 'substance' to criticise other human beings is probably a little lacking in both himself. Find a thesaurus while your at it and try to find some better adjectives (describing words to you Mr O) to use in future .

Hague demands Brown takes action over torture allegations

William Hague has written to the Prime Minister to ask what action he will take in response to the Joint Committee Report on allegations of British complicity in torture.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary stressed the Committee’s findings are “extremely serious”, and made clear, “We need to know whether the allegations of UK complicity contained in the report are being examined.”

He asked the Prime Minister whether he will refer any of the new allegations in the report to the Attorney General, who earlier this year launched a police investigation into allegations about the torture of Binyam Mohamed.

And he called on the Prime Minister to say whether the Attorney General is considering any additional cases of alleged UK complicity in torture.

Full text of letter from William Hague to Gordon Brown:

Dear Prime Minister,

I write to ask whether you plan to instruct the Attorney General to consider any of the allegations of UK complicity in torture which are contained in the report released today by the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights. (HL Paper 152 HC 230 of 4^th August 2009).

In your written statement to the House of Commons of 18^th March on allegations of UK complicity in the torture of detainees overseas, you said that “if any cases of potential criminal wrongdoing come to light, the Government will refer them to the Attorney-General to consider whether there is a basis for inviting the police to conduct a criminal investigation.” (18 Mar 2009 : Column 55WS)

I understand that since March this year the Metropolitan police have been investigating the allegations about one such detainee, Mr Binyam Mohamed, at the behest of the Attorney General. (26 Mar 2009 : Column WS51).

I write to request that you clarify as a matter of urgency whether you intend to instruct the Attorney General to consider any additional allegations of UK complicity in the light of the Joint Committee report, which documents allegations of UK complicity in torture in respect of detainees held in Pakistan, Egypt, and Guantanamo Bay, and in the case of Uzbekistan, raises concerns about the receipt of information which may have been obtained through torture?

Can you confirm whether any of these allegations are already being examined by the Attorney General?

The Attorney General has declined in the past to clarify whether she is considering any additional cases, replying to my colleague Baroness Neville Jones that she “do[es] not propose to give a running commentary on consideration of the matter.” (7 May 2009 : Column WA139)

However does the public not have a right to know whether the Attorney General is considering any additional allegations? Is this clarity not important to reassure the public that these issues are being fully investigated in a wide-ranging fashion?

Therefore I hope that in response to this letter you will urgently clarify whether you intend to refer any of the allegations of complicity in torture contained in the Joint Committee report to the Attorney General, as well as how many such cases the Attorney General is currently considering.

Iraq Inquiry: A farce in teh making

The Enquiry into the War in Iraq has officially started today. What a waste of time, money and effort this could end up being.

There is no way that the government will have put itself in a position where it could be held accountable for breaking international law by violating the territorial sovereignty of a fully recognised UN member state.

There is no way that it will allow itself to be held accountable for war crimes including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the use of white phosphorous on civilian targets, torture, detention without trial etc.

Those who have directly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilian and military lives and £billions in damage to property and infrastructure not to mention commerce and cultural heritage will not suffer for their abuse of power and lies told to initiate an unnecessary act of aggressive war and regime change without international and UN backing or agreement.

The present government will not even be in power when the enquiry concludes and those who do come under its scrutiny for any wrong doing will presumably be protected from any of its findings against them because they enjoy the privilege of constitutionally enshrined ministerial immunity.

Sir John Chilcot made a statement that sounds like the committee is going to be thorough, all encompassing and all appeasing yet tough and direct but I wonder how realistic that will be to actually achieve. He has also confirmed that some of the hearing will be in private for the sake of national security or the need for candour and one has to wonder how much of this will include any evidence from notorious Tony Blair.

If Blair is allowed to give all, most or any of his evidence behind closed doors then the enquiry in my opinion will fail in everything it hopes to achieve. Given the cost alone of this exercise this possibility cannot be allowed to happen and I hope that Sir John is not too ensconced within in the establishment to allow a travesty of this magnitude to happen in his name.

This is not the Iraq inquiry the nation wanted to see

William Hague has warned that the inquiry into the Iraq War announced today by Sir John Chilcot will not be the “the inquiry that the nation wanted to see”.

The Shadow Foreign Secretary condemned the “worrying new caveat” that sessions will be held in private not just when national security is concerned but also when there is a need for candour.

And he stressed, “If there are difficult truths to be told they should be told in the light of day, not behind closed doors. It would be unacceptable if sessions are held in private simply because Ministers or former Ministers, including Tony Blair, want to avoid embarrassment.”

William also said it was “disappointing” that the membership of the Inquiry still lacks cabinet or military experience:

“Drawing on outside military experts is not the same as having a heavyweight Committee member who has high level military experience. And it still remains the case that no one on the Inquiry has had experience of cabinet.”

He stressed, “Despite Sir John’s best efforts this is still not the Inquiry that the nation wanted to see, and it is a classic illustration of Gordon Brown’s lack of openness in Government that it has been announced too late to report before the General Election.”

Blair and Brown Must Not be Allowed to Escape Spotlight of Iraq Inquiry

Commenting on Sir John Chilcot’s announcement on the terms of reference for the Iraq war inquiry, Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats said:

“It is essential that this inquiry has the teeth it needs to get the job done. The Government must not be able to interfere to keep Blair and Brown out of the spotlight for the sake of political convenience in the run-up to an election. Tony Blair ordered this disastrous war and Gordon Brown signed the cheques - without public appearances from them this inquiry will be seen as a whitewash.

The inquiry must have access to high level legal advice, in particular a counsel to assist them in cross-questioning witnesses. This is important to ensure that as gifted a communicator as Blair is not allowed to slip off the hook. It is very disappointing that the chances of an interim report have been described as ‘unlikely’ - there is no reason that such a report could not be published before the election.

Sir John’s assurance that evidence will be held in public ‘wherever possible’ is welcome. But where evidence is given in private, a genuine national security interest must be proven in each case. There is a strong case for televising hearings so the public can see that proceedings are as open as possible.”

BLAIR AND BROWN MUST GIVE EVIDENCE IN PUBLIC

IRAQ INQUIRY WILL BE JUDGED ON ANSWERS AND LESSONS LEARNED

Commenting as the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war gets underway, SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson MP said the investigation would be judged on the answers that it provided and said the former and current prime ministers must give evidence in public.

The SNP have led demands for an inquiry into the Iraq war, and secured the first substantive debate at Westminster in October 2006 – at that time the vote calling for an inquiry was narrowly lost by just 25 votes – with 12 Labour rebels. It was backed by all Tories and Liberal Democrats.

Mr Robertson said:

“This inquiry will be judged on the answers that it provides and the lessons that are learned.

“Sir John Chilcot has a mountain to climb if he is to convince people that this an open and independent inquiry and not some establishment stitch-up with Downing Street pulling the strings.

“The whole point of an inquiry is to get to the truth about the Iraq war, and the conduct and conclusions of Sir John’s investigation must leave no doubt in peoples minds or questions unanswered. It is essential that both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown give their evidence to this inquiry in public.

“By every measurement the Iraq war has been the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times, and those responsible for it have never answered the most fundamental questions about why we were led into this war.

“The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a blatant lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers.”

Statement by Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, at a news conference to launch the inquiry on Thursday 30 July 2009 at the QEII Conferenc

Statement by Sir John Chilcot, chairman of the Iraq Inquiry, at a news conference to launch the inquiry on Thursday 30 July 2009 at the QEII Conference Centre, London.

'Good morning. My name is Sir John Chilcot and I am the chairman of the Iraq Inquiry. Seated on my right are the other members of the Inquiry team – Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert, Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar.

What I’d like to do today is explain what we think our task is and how we intend to approach it. Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.

The Inquiry will have access to all the information held by the Government and may ask any British citizen to appear before it. In the Prime Minister’s words, “no British document and no British witness will be beyond the scope of the inquiry.”

The potential scope of the Inquiry is considerable. Previous inquiries have tended to focus on a specific event within a relatively limited period. We have been asked to examine a range of decisions and actions over a period of eight years. There are differing views about what happened during that period, and why, which we will need to address.

The Committee was asked to start work as soon as possible after the end of July. We have already started. We have made our first requests for Government documents. We will have a huge amount of reading to do over the next few weeks to help us to identify the critical issues on which to focus.
During this initial phase the Inquiry team will engage expert specialist advisers – on international law, military operations and on reconstruction – to help us interpret the evidence.

One of our first priorities is to hear from the families of those who died during the conflict and others who were seriously affected, including veterans groups. We want to know what they think the Inquiry’s priorities should be. I’ve already written to many of the families explaining what we’re doing. We will be making arrangements to offer meetings to those who want them as soon as practicable. We will leave it to them to decide whether these discussions are held in public or private - or indeed whether they wish to talk to us at all. We want to be sensitive to, and respect, their wishes.

We come to this task with open minds and a commitment to review the evidence objectively. Each member of the committee is independent and non-partisan. We are determined to be thorough, rigorous, fair and frank to enable us to form impartial and evidence-based judgements on all aspects of the issues, including the arguments about the legality of the conflict. We will be thorough and rigorous in our analysis of the evidence, taking advice, as I have said, from a range of specialist experts.

In order to be fair to, and to get the most from, witnesses, we will adopt an inquisitorial approach to our task, taking evidence direct from witnesses rather than conducting our business through lawyers. The Inquiry is not a court of law and nobody is on trial. But I want to make something absolutely clear. This Committee will not shy away from making criticism. If we find that mistakes were made, that there were issues which could have been dealt with better, we will say so frankly.

We are all committed to ensuring that our proceedings are as open as possible because we recognise that is one of the ways in which the public can have confidence in the integrity and independence of the inquiry process.
In that spirit, we want to ensure that as many people as possible have access to what is happening in the public hearings, either direct or through the media. That includes the possibility of public hearings being televised and live streaming on the internet. We will need to decide on the detailed arrangements nearer the time but we are committed to openness.

We will have a website for the public to access transcripts of hearings and factual and other background material, as well as details on how to contact us if they think they have information relevant to our investigations.

I have already made clear that I consider that as much as possible of the Inquiry’s hearings should be in public. But if the Inquiry is to succeed in getting to the heart of what happened and what lessons need to be learned for the future, we recognise that some evidence sessions will need to be private. Sometimes that will be consistent with the need to protect national security, sometimes to ensure complete candour and openness from witnesses. But I repeat: the hearings will be held in public wherever possible.

There will be speculation about whom we call as witnesses. The people we invite to give evidence will be those we judge, having considered the material before us, are best placed to supply the information we need to conduct our task thoroughly. That will, of course, include the former Prime Minister and other senior figures involved in decision-taking. But not all of the witnesses will be household names. Some may be junior officials with vital evidence about the ways their managers and leaders acted.

We intend to complete our task as quickly as possible, but we are also determined to be thorough. We cannot know, at this stage, how long the Inquiry will take until we have read the background material and heard the evidence. If, as we work through the evidence, we consider that it would be helpful to publish an interim report, we will do so. But it is more likely, given the purpose of our inquiry – identifying lessons for the way government acts and takes decisions in the future – that our report will be a single one at the end of the Committee’s deliberations. That report will be published, and then debated, in Parliament.

We recognise that our task – of identifying lessons for the future – is a difficult and important one. It is one which we all take extremely seriously. Our promise to you today is that we will approach the task in the thorough, rigorous, fair and frank way I have outlined, with a shared commitment both to openness and to completing our work as quickly as the task allows.'

Labour's backing of Blair for EU President disregards democracy

William Hague has criticised the Government’s decision to support Tony Blair for the proposed new post of President of the EU Council.

Labour’s Europe minister, Glenys Kinnock, today announced that Tony Blair will receive the Government’s full backing.

But William, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, stressed the former Prime Minister should be let “nowhere near the job”:

“The creation of a new EU President could be enormously damaging for Europe. Any holder is likely to try to centralise power for themselves in Brussels and dominate national foreign policies. In the hands of an operator as ambitious as Tony Blair, that is a near certainty.”

William pointed out that because Gordon Brown has refused to hold a referendum on the renamed EU Constitution, the British people have not actually been asked whether Europe should have a new President at all.

He stressed, “Rather than secret stitch-ups by unelected politicians for unelected politicians voters should have their say on the future of Europe. Appointing Tony Blair as a President in Europe would be the perfect symbol of this stale Labour Government’s arrogant disregard for democracy.”

Plaid MP: ‘ UK Government should be accountable to International Court of Justice’

Plaid’s Adam Price MP will tomorrow call on the UK Government to submit itself to the will of the International Court of Justice should the Iraq inquiry raise doubts as to the legality of the Iraq war.

Tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday), the House of Commons will debate the manner in which the Iraq inquiry should be carried out, and specifically whether the Inquiry should commit itself to an open and public investigation.

The International Court of Justice is the judicial arm of the United Nations. The Court’s principle role is to settle legal disputes between states submitted to it by them and to give advice on specific legal matters referred to it. Only states, not individuals, are eligible to appear before the Court.

Commenting in advance of the debate, Adam Price MP said:

“If the Government’s report raises doubts as to the legality of the Iraq war, then it is only right and fair that the Government should submit itself to the judicial scrutiny of the International Court of Justice.

“It should then fully accept its findings and it should remain the prerogative of the Court to issue a judgement.

“In the meantime, the Government should also consider splitting the initial inquiry in two now - one to look into why we went to war, and another to investigate actions during the war.

“Since the Government announced the Inquiry to be launched, it has already backtracked and is now unclear how the Inquiry is intended to be carried out. Even the Head of the Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, is urging for open and public hearings.

“This has gone on for far too long, and with a closed investigation, it may well drag on again before we hear the truth. There are still unanswered questions and challenges to be accounted for.

“If the Government is serious about the findings of this Inquiry too, then it should willingly submit itself to the scrutiny of a higher Court. Tomorrow’s debate will be testament to how much the Government respects the investigation.

“Plaid Cymru has long argued that a full and transparent inquiry must have full access to all information and paper trails. Now the UK Government has to show that it is accountable to the electorate, but also accountable to the world community.”

Davey: Blair must come clean on torture or quit as MidEast envoy

Reacting to the allegations that Tony Blair knew about secret interrogation guidance for British intelligence officers who became aware of the torture of suspects, Edward Davey said; "Surely Tony Blair cannot hold the position of Middle East Envoy when he stands accused of breaking the UN Convention against torture".

Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary said; "He needs to either make clear what he knew about the torture policy or stand down as envoy. He cannot have it both ways."

"There are also serious questions to answer for both Jack Straw and David Blunkett. They had oversight of MI6 and MI5 at the time, and should have known about any guidance their agents had been given."

Edward Davey called for a debate over the guidance regarding the abuse of suspects under interrogation provided to the security services at Business Questions in Parliament today.

Ed concluded that "Parliament must be allowed a debate on the issue of oversight of guidance on interrogation and the current Justice Secretary, given his long-term involvement in this issue, should respond for the Government."

Lets see if dodgy expenses stick to Teflon Tony: I shouldn't think so!!!

It is the cause of unbridled rage and anger but can be of no great surprise that the architect of the current government has now also come under scrutiny for "playing" the MPs expenses system like a game of Monopoly. Tony Blair is under fire for loans and expenses claimed in relation to the property portfolio he amassed whilst PM. The full article can be found at The Telegraph website.

The other legacy Blair left us other than a bunch of sticky fingered crooks in power was the principal that if you deny something for long enough people will believe you. He did it with Iraq and WMD, Brown has applied it over the ecomomy and Gurkhas, Milliband has applied it to the Binyam Mohammed scandal and Jacqui Smith, almost every other day to every other thing she does.

This principal doesn't seem to work as well for the others as it does for their old master. Tony will however apply it to this latest episode and with others in the immediate firing line his trademark abilityto lie himself out of trouble will save his bacon again (and not for the last time I guarantee). Surely this man is truley made of Teflon.