The Brits Buried Evidence on David Kelly's Death
Jeebus. Larisa just pointed me to this.
A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead, the Mail on Sunday reported.
And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to Lord Hutton’s inquiry which were not produced in evidence.
The Ministry of Justice said decisions on the evidence were a matter for Lord Hutton. But Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own investigations into Dr Kelly’s death, described the order as “astonishing”.
[snip]
One of the doctors seeking a full inquest, former assistant coroner Michael Powers, told the Mail on Sunday he had seen a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council explaining the unusual restrictions placed by Lord Hutton on material relating to his inquiry.
The letter states: “Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years.”
This is just ridiculous. David Kelly has an email exchange in which Judy Miller–fresh off having been leaked Valerie Plame’s identity by the Vice President’s right hand man–saying:
Judy: I heard from another member of your fan club that things went well for you today [with the inquiry]
Kelly: I will wait until the end of the week before judging–many dark actors playing games.
He then dies in what is pretty thinly disguised as a suicide. And now we find out that the guy who certified that bogus suicide claim ordered that all the documentation pertaining to it be sealed until we’re all dead? Really?!?!?
I’ll add one more thing to Larisa’s timeline. One of the things that happened in one of Ari Fleischer’s last briefings (trying to look for it now) is that he was informed by reporters that Tony Blair would be coming for a visit–Fleischer, apparently, had not been told about what was apparently a last minute trip. Which had the effect of–just days after Plame’s identity was leaked and on the day Kelly was suicided–having Blair and Bush having a last minute visit together.
Just in case he needed to be out of town, you know.
Not being the least knowledgable about UK procedures, is there any avenue of appeal or is Lord Hutton the last word?
Boxturtle (Silly Brits! If you’d just hired Blackwater….)
No Appeal. This is how the UK has always handled secret information.
Don’t these Brits understand how incentives work?
Dark side and dark actors indeed. Wow.
I have followed the David kelley death with interest. It is a parallel, though More deadly, with valerie plame, to whit the distruction
Of a creditable source of knowledge which might trip- up well-laid, and more to the point, well disguished from the public, official plans to invade Iraq.
But the truth is, I don’t know the fine details of either case;
I just wait for a trustworthy summary.
But what I am comfortable about asserting is:
What extraordinary efforts American and British officials are g
Taking to hide official actions re invading Iraq And punishing those we c
Label terrorists.
Memory dims, but I think the effort to hide the behavior of American and British officials re the Iraq invasion and the state response to terrorists
Exceeds by far any prior efforts i recall to hide official conduct at
Low and high levels in the Vietnam conflict or in the Iran-contra shell game.
We have British and American govt officials ( the latter in
The form of the Prez and att gen of the us)
Actively working to prevent public disclosure of prior govt officials’ conduct.
And yet the dike keeps leaking
And leaking
And leaking.
What’s going on?
I don’t know but I suspect the specter is war crimes, war crimes trials, gross, contemptuos violation of established law the two nations were instrumental in supporting.
I’m short, what is being covered up is monumental American and British
Hypocrisy that carries criminal penalties with it,
Including the death penalty.
High American and British officials imprisoned
For long periods persuant to the very inyernahional laws they were instrumental in getting enacted?
Woah.
Cheney swinging in the Hague?
Woah.
Never happen.
The original news source was this Daily Mail article which has more juicy bits:
Nothing to see here, Lord Hutton was simply thinking of the children. Pay no attention to the fact that his email, sent the day before, referenced “dark actors” or that the paramedic who arrived at the scene later stated:
Or that the other paramedic who arrived stated:
Exactly. It’s about Blair and a hell of a lot going on in Britain’s Chilcot inquiry, which has barely been covered in the U.S.
Here’s a piece from the Daily Mail
The article calls for the Chilcot inquiry to condemn Hutton and call for an inquest that never took place into Kelly’s death. An authoritative demand by the parliamentary commission may be the best we can hope for now that Hutton’s submarining of the evidence has been revealed.
Last year, Britain’s Attorney General asked Lord Chilcot to expand his inquiry on the Iraq War to include the Kelly affair. I’m not sure what happened to that request, but this announcement by Hutton is obviously meant to cut off any attempt to do just that when Blair appears before the Chilcot commission on Jan. 29.
Adding this bit of news, from another Daily Mail article:
As I wrote in an article last December on the UK doctors call for an inquiry into Kelly’s death, a story made more piquant by the new revelations around the Gitmo killings, first labeled suicides, and new info, such as garnered by H.P. Albarelli in his book on the suicide/murder of Frank Olson by the CIA decades ago:
Are the 50 Guantanamo prisoners Obama is promising to “imprison without trials” yet another cover-up of torture, or even murder (i.e., witnesses to murder, including the mass killings by Special Operations forces and Dostum’s men in Afghanistan… which was one of my theories behind the killing of al-Hanashi — presuming it too was a murder and not suicide — at Guantanamo… al-Hanashi had been a witness, or spoken to witnesses from this event)?
Cover-ups wherever you look on mass killings, illegal invasions, torture… what kind of a country, what kind of society are we living in???
Thank you, EW, for rushing out this important news.
Dark actors.
Jeff, remember my posting about Al Yamamah-BAE controversy just recently?
Well, one individual that plays a prominent role in both the Hutton Inquiry and the BAE/Saudi Al Yamamah arms-deal Inquiry is Sir Kevin Tebbit, Senior Minister of Defense.
Civil servant dealt biggest blow to Blair
By Kim Sengupta
Tuesday, 27 January 2004
Sir Kevin Tebbit delivered the biggest blow to Tony Blair’s credibility over the David Kelly affair in a dramatic and belated appearance before the inquiry.
The permanent undersecretary at the Ministry of Defence revealed that the crucial meeting which decided the media strategy for the scientist took place at Downing Street, with the Prime Minister in the chair. Sir Kevin said, until then, he and his Whitehall colleagues had thought that no useful purpose could be served by Dr Kelly’s identity being disclosed. But he stated that the MoD “concurred” with No 10’s plan.
Excerpt—-Independent UK———–link to follow
We were discussing this article late on the previous thread, slack-jawed, but, as skdadl said, surely some journalist will get ahold of this and dig deeper. They seem to do a better job of that over there than we do here (excepting of course such giants as Hersh).
And look at this from the Daily Mail:
Hutton was farcical, feeble and amateurish… so we MUST be told the truth next week
Well, MY bullshit meter just pegged ….
Marcy, while you were tending many fires, including the Prop8 trial, I sent you an e-mail, did you get it ?
E-mail me when you can.
EW – your “last minute visit” link goes to the same Miller/Kelley email you linked earlier – I’m thinking you might have meant something different for that last link.
@8 – Maybe he’s thinking about saving them from suiciding if they started making noises that the explanation of their fathers death had been
sexedeffed up.Yes, the killers and their enablers were thinking of protecting the children.
Isn’t that always the case?
Did MI5 kill Dr David Kelly? Just another crazy conspiracy theory? But, amid claims he wrote tell-all book that vanished after his death, it’s one that refuses to go away
Anatomy of Deceit II?
Actually,
Probably more immediate is the need by current govt
officials to insure that bush and Blair and their
Accomplises don’t end up on trial ( at the very Least) Because they have violated the laws of their respective nations, let alone international law.
It is quite striking to me that the u.s. Goverenment Can go from prosecuting war crimes in nurenburg
To covering up officially sanctioned crimes against their citizens and those of other countries In a span
Of 65 years.
That this happened in 2002-2010 is to me an indication of how
Close We have moved as a society toward authoritarianism.
It’s gotten so that it is irresponsible *not* to be a paranoid conspiracy theorist! Now, about that hole in the Pentagon …
EW,
Thanks for showing us this amazing story.
I wonder about England’s membership in the EU, and whether at some point other members of the EU may force the hand of some of the investigators.
In other words, are we inching closer to a war crimes trial– maybe not in England, but in Europe?
Some time back, someone (EW?) wrote a post on the 12 people who most ought to be investigated for their responsibility for torture, or something to that effect. Perhaps it is time to start compiling a list of the Dastardly Dozen from the Bush & Blair regimes who most deserve to be tried for war crimes, along with indications of why they merit this distinction.
Bob in AZ
Lord Hutton was born, bred, educated, trained, vetted and appointed for precisely such an order as this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/03/davidkelly.media1/print
The whole nation– and England– needs a refresher on Democracy, and the virtues of our Constitution. Republicans as well as Democrats have taken an oath to defend the Constitution, and yet our politicians seem to be falling all over themselves pandering to the Constitution-trashing masses.
I yearn forlornly for our President to rediscover his Constitutional roots, and to realize that it is *in his own interest* to campaign as much for the Constitution as for his own re-election. One thing that impressed me so much about Watergate was the public veneration of our Constitution that seems so conspicuously lacking now.
I almost think what we need is a special Court for cases where politicians took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but then failed to do so. There’s probably no legal basis for trials of such malfeasance, and perhaps for good reason, but I almost wish there were. High on my list is Nancy Pelosi, for her obstruction of impeachment just when it was most warranted.
Bob in AZ
Bob,I don’t know how this squares with “democracy”:
Source: Guardian.co.uk
Arms manufacturer BAE Systems developing national strategy with consortium of government agencies
Paul Lewis
The Guardian, Saturday 23 January 2010
Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the ”routine” monitoring of antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.
The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.
Documents from the South Coast Partnership, a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan with BAE, have been obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.
They reveal the partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the 2012 Olympics. They also indicate that police claims that the technology will be used for maritime surveillance fall well short of their intended use – which could span a range of police activity – and that officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year.
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-polic…
This is a very, very important story. Excellent catch. I’ve already begun writing about drones. It is just the tip of the iceberg, as the use of drones domestically is a primary example of blowback from the U.S.-British adventures. The links to British officials are important, too. But the spread of the drones is very ominous for civil liberties.
Very ominous.
Jeff,that announcement about domestic drones-in the UK- on the heels of the last two SCOTUS rulings in the US is Orwellian.to put it mildly.
Reminds me of the movie “V”.
There are drones in use in the U.S., and appeals to use more. There are air safety issues. But the main point is that the drones are threatening to become an ever-present surveillance issue.
It’s blowback from the military use of drones, and there’s no doubt that the police and military will soon want to use, or could use anyway, missiles on domestic drones as well. They are preparing for an insurrection in a country that has no pending insurrectionary movement. Strange.
The move towards a totalitarian government is proceeding apace. I used to tell myself that was only paranoia, but I’m afraid that it’s not anymore.
UPI has now picked up the story about UK spy-in-the-sky drones.
England (Britain) has no constitution, only a body of laws and common law. Hatton’s report and actions are how the English establishment handle most controversial matters.
In the UK the Queen is Soverign, and as the Government is her Government, the Government is Soverign. It is not possible to sue the British Government, because they are Soverign and above the law.
Synoia,
Isn’t the Magna Carta a kind of constitution?
Or does the MC not have the force of law in the UK?
The Magna Carta is an 800 year-old “contract” between seditious barons and their king. King John breached it at once, but he and his successors were forced to reckon with it. It is not a constitution – England has no written constitution – and it is not “law” in the sense that it binds the sovereign or government in the way the US constitution, legislation or court decisions do. It is more in the nature of a tradition, whose principals have been mirrored and expanded (or violated) by more recent laws.
Limiting monarchical authority to Prime Ministerial advice stems from the Magna Carta or the Runnymede Charter.
No it is not a constitution in any form. It is the basis for some common law. There have been multiple civil wars since the Magna Carta, each modifying common law.
Common law can be changed by Parliament at any time by majority vote.
Well, maybe we ought to rename OUR constitution the Corporate Carta,after that last SCOTUS ruling…/S
Well, I am NAL and not a constitutional expert, but I believe you are misunderstanding the nature of the Crown in a constitutional monarchy. The Crown is, in a sense, the symbol of the sovereignty of the people, all the people all the time. It is not (in theory) political.
There is, iow, a separation between government and state, as there also is in most republics, which have both a president and a PM. The U.S. is unusual, if not unique (I don’t know), in having just one individual as head of both government and state — most of the rest of us keep ’em separate.
I’m pretty sure it is possible to sue the government, in both the UK and Canada, although again I’m not enough of an expert to explain how that is done. To imagine the Crown in a constitutional monarchy as absolute, though, in any terms at all except as a symbol of the people is — forgive me — risible.
A citizen cannot sue the government in the UK. It is soverign.
It is not entirely correct to say that the UK has no constitution – statutes enacted by the Parliament comprise the constitution albeit an uncodified one – these build on precedence but statutes can be reformed, repealed or added to by the Parliament. Also, while the monarch is the sovereign, he/she cannot act or issue public pronouncements outside the advice of the Parliament, in effect the Prime Minister. New Zealand has a a similar uncodified constitution.
As I said, England has no “written constitution” in the manner of the US. It has a collection of laws and treaties that amount to something similar, but with terms very different from those granted – or which used to be understood to be granted – by the US Constitution. Theirs is more amorphous, allowing the government more room and the people less. There is no tradition of judicial supremacy, for example, in that the court’s cannot overrule an act of Parliament, though they can rule one law to have precedence over another, ordinarily, the later in time. That’s one reason more explicitly written continental rules, such as the ECHR, pose a problem, though one the UK courts sometimes deal with well.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s correct to say that parliamentary legislation amounts to a constitution, though some legislation contains the elements of it.
It is entirely correct to say the UK has no constitution. It has a body of common law, which parilament through a simple majority can amend at any time.
The crown can, typically in times of emergency, rule through the Privy Council. By common law, the crown can no longer raise taxes.
The UK’s higest court is, by design part of the Government, the House of Lords, as is the Church (On becoming a Bishops one is elevated to the Hous of Lords, and are addressed as My Lord), and historically, Noble families.
The Prime Minister’s Cabinet of Ministers are appointed from the Houses of Parliament. There are no polictical appointees in the Civil Service, giving rise the the expression “They are neither civil not do they serve”.
It is a unitary government, also giving rise to the phrase “Dictatorship by Parliament”.
All parts of the Government (and the country), including the military, swear allegiance to the Crown, although is nothing like the US pledge of allegiance. Repetition of an oath in the UK would be (is) considerd unecessary, crass, and uncouth.
In the UK One know’s one’s duty.
Synoia, may I ask what your background in British constitutional law is? Your usage of the term “the Crown” and mine are very different.
I’m English. And a history major. I’m no expert in UK Common Law. In the UK, the Law is for the rich.
Synoia, you wrote quite a bit more after I’d responded to you, and I promise EW and bmaz that I’ll stop this here because it could become unhappily pedantic. I’m Scots and Canadian, btw, although I don’t rest my arguments on those accidents, proud as I am of both as I’ve lived into them.
The Crown means the state, and to me it is important to make that point with readers who aren’t used to the notion of separation of state and government, as even people from countries that supposedly have it may be. As you describe the Privy Council, I imagine many readers imagining King George or King Charles, and that is not at all how it works, in any emergency. In Canada, the Privy Council is a source of honours, little more; when we had a state of emergency (October 1970), it was a PM who decided so (outrageously), although of course he had to get the queen (the GG) to sign off on it, and that of course is how it always is.
You do have a problem with the established church. We don’t. I understand that Charles is ready to deal with that — good idea.
I disagree entirely with your description of parliamentary democracy as “unitary.” The PM and his cabinet are very much an executive; the Crown is another entity entirely; so are the courts; so is Parliament.
And there is a structural, constitutional reason that citizens do not take oaths that has nothing to do with snobbery — quite the contrary. All public servants, including the military and the police, must take an oath to the Crown because they are given special powers and we must ensure that they are loyal to us, the Crown being the symbol of all the people all the time. But the free citizen, being the noblest of all, cannot be compelled — not to loyalty any more than to love or to faith. That’s what freedom of conscience means in part, and the English Bill of Rights dates from 1689, with a long tradition behind it.
The English class system, regrettable though it has been in many ways, is not mainly a matter of constitutional structure.
I heartily agree. Class has dictated parliamentary structure, not the reverse. Labor’s [sic] reformation of the membership in the House of Lords and earlier Labor and Liberal limitations on it since 1911 have made it more responsive to the government’s wishes, not the people’s. Parliament is still overwhelming staffed – in its elected as well as its staff positions – by public school and Oxbridge old boys (and a few old girls).
Class is a function of other things: family, tradition, schooling and university and to a great degree, by the English version of rightwing welfare. It’s not directly about money, but as one wag put it: aristocrats may not talk about money – that’s the hired help’s job – but it’s all they think about. For every landless lord driving a taxi, there are a hundred sitting on company boards, on university councils, and acting as magistrates, county authorities, dog show judges, agrarian and business leaders. Some are quite good at what they do (from a certain perspective), such as Lord Hutton; others mirror Lord Peter Wimsey’s older brother. Class rules, from behavior and dress to attitudes and actions, are unwritten, the better to keep out the hoi poloi and the nouveau riche.
Class is as forgotten in England as race in America.
The
EnglishAmerican class system, regrettable though it has been in many ways, isnotbecoming mainly a matter of constitutional deconstruction.This is where I came in! *wink*
And to eoh @ 121 and earlier: I always love it when you agree with me even somewhat. *wink* But I also feel guilty for derailing EW’s threads. For being on-topic, I figure I’m just barely getting a passing grade lately. Where’s the SJC lately? I can do them in my sleep.
And unlike England, class in America is more overtly about money. Taste and honesty – let alone empathy or an appreciation for the labor of others that led to earning or keeping so much money – are likely to get you ostracized.
Earl, I want to have your elegant eloquence when I grow up. *G*
Football, not rugby, then. I agree that English law and lawyers are among the most expensive in the English speaking world. The local solicitor is pricey; magic circle firms in the City make Goldman Scratch look like a street vendor.
I agree with the distinction that the crown refers to the Queen in her official capacity (not her personal status as a woman or billionaire). She is not the state, but the head of state, which includes the country at large and the government, including Parliament, the armed forces, etc.
“Government” refers to the administration of the day, in this case (for a short while, at least), Gordon Brown’s or, formerly, Tony Blair’s. More broadly, it also includes the permanent civil service, whose membership does not change from one administration to the next. They run the MoD, MI-6, MOE, etc. Its top membership, once referred to by the revealing metaphor of “mandarins”, as in France, is more powerful than is probably true of top staff in US departments and agencies.
That top staff are still often recruited from narrow educational and social backgrounds is one way the upper class retain their hold on power. Like Villagers inside the Beltway, protecting their own is the first thing they do; it’s what keeps them individually and as a class in power. Those who abandon that solidarity are sometimes ruthlessly expelled, withering in the media and legal glare like an unprotected whistleblower.
I posted an article up @#69 and #70, that relates to what is being discussed .
You may find the excerpt and article itself ,informative .
It’s a different system. One of the interesting differences is in the Commons, Prime Minister’s question time.
The Prime minister has to answer, in Parliament, questions from the commons. The equivalent in the US is the President having to answer to Congress, in the House.
The majority party, by electing a different leader can effetively fire the Prime Minister. Effectively, because it’s a more complex process. The Commons can also effectively fire the Government in a Vote of (no) Confidence.
Imagine a leader actually having to stand up and answer questions! AND they can’t sit down to answer, can they?
Reminds me of “extemporanous speaking” contests during my salad days.
I watch C-Span sometimes when they have these sessions.
LOVE IT!
I used to shake my head and wish that GWB would have had to stand up and answer questions like that.
Now THAT would have been “Must See TV”!
Yes, but now EU law also applies, so this isn’t so clearcut anymore. Any lawyers from Europe out there?
thank you quake and skdadle, too. I thought Synoia was being too pedantic to warrant an answer. The fact is, a constitution is essentially a concept, not simply a written document – after all, the spirit of the written US constitution has been severely abused by the US Congress, its POTUS and its SCOTUS in the last decade, if not for longer. Synoia, I usually appreciate your input but this time, i take issue in that I maintain a constitution to be a concept, written or uncodified, that defines legislative and executive authority and their delineations. Having said that, the USA is nowhere near to having anything resembling the current Chilcott hearings being held in the UK. Yes, I am British, Australian, have permanent residence rights in Canada, have been married to an Englishman, a Canadian and now to a Brit (a Jew – I am not one) – I am not religious and don’t believe in marriage and that explains why I have married three times – I am no Christian either – was born a Hindu and will die one some day because I refuse to deny my ancestral cultural heritage.
EU law is part of English law in a way similar, but not identical, to how federal law becomes binding in states or provinces. It must still be applied by English courts, but it is defined in the last resort by the courts in Brussels.
lab dancer @17
so hutton’s grandma and
john robert’s grandma were sisters.
fits.
Well I’ll be!
I think the story is here.
Grant Green (guitar) & ensemble:
Blair’s career over the past thirty months, after ten years as the UK’s Prime Minister? Summer 2007, Special Envoy to the Quartet on the Middle East; summer 2008, founder of the “Faith and Globalization Foundation”; summer 2009, appointment by Yale as a co-professor of the “Faith and Globalization Seminar”; November 2009, defeated as candidate for the Presidency of the European Council….
But the Quartet is dead; nobody hears a word about the Foundation; the European Council exists in name only (and has to protect is name by keeping a pariah at bay); and as for the Yale professorship… well, the ever-grateful Bush still has some standing at Yale (which granted him a degree Honoris Causa not long ago).
To me, this reads like a genteel version of “The Rake’s Progress” (does anyone answer Blair’s phone calls any more?). He’ll soon be living in Switzerland–or some other haven for exiles…
July 17, 2003 — the day Kelly died — was also the evening when Guckert/Gannon claimed to have been “entertaining” Tony Blair — at Blair House, across the street from the White House, presumably — during Tony Blair’s Washington visit.
Wasn’t there some problem in the Secret Service logs about Guckert/Gannon sometimes signing in on entering the White House and then never signing out? I’ve always wondered if there are secret underground passages between the White House and adjoining buildings, including Blair House.
Despite Roman Polanski’s current house arrest, editing of his latest movie The Ghost Writer has been completed, and it is scheduled to open in the U.S. on Feb. 19 (after a world premiere in Berlin a few days earlier.)
It’s based on Robert Harris’s novel The Ghost, which is a roman a clef about a Blair-like figure. Harris was a journalist who was closely associated with Blair during his political rise. In The Ghost, the Blair-like figure turns out have been complicit in war crimes and a mysterious murder.
And people on another site made fun of me for pointing out (contemporaneous with the Polanski arrest) that it was open, public knowledge over a year ago that Polanski would be filming this film in Germany. (I knew about it late in 08 – one of my then-neighbors was all excited about going there to work on the film with Polanski.) I suggested when Polanski was busted in Switzerland (where he’d both travelled freely many times before (so much so he owned a house there) and had been baited with the honors he was going to receive, for the specific purpose of delaying if not ending entirely the release of the film. Delaying it until after Blair would have to come to testify would take most, if not all, the attention off it. And, not for nothing, it would also appear that your Department of State had a hand in helping California get Switzerland to act. Worth remembering, too, that at the time Polanski was arrested in Switzerland, the Swiss were under severe pressure from the US relative to UBS and its money [umm] management activities in and out of the US, and that a settlement was achieved soon thereafter.
I said it then and I’ll repeat it now: The Swiss busted Polanski at the behest of the US (and, probably, the UK) to delay or prevent Polanski’s film from timely (or any) release (At least until after Blair’s testimony and this fix) and, in return, the US agreed to lighten up on UBS relative to its money-moving activities.
But, no, nothing to see here….
Heh, that is possible I suppose. I would say clarify one thing though, the State Dept. is inherently involved in international warrant enforcement, including extraditions, so of course they would be involved.
What blows my mind is the concerted, organized effort to distort the truth in the media. It’s hard to fight. I just can’t get over how many people will hear a meme and just believe it. “conspiracy theories are all bs.) for instance. A lot of them are, but the dichotomous dismissal drives me crazy when talking to my counter parts in Nebraska. (I know, land of Ben Nelson). At any rate, the distortion of thinking blows my mind. You’d have to be half dead, knowing the facts in this lead up to the Iraq war, not to want a formal investigation. Not to see that we need to know the truth. But so many people just don’t want to know.
It is amazing that most of the MSM is still complicit in the Republican lying and other crimes to this day. Indeed the media is equal in treason.
have you any IDEA…how much these teleprompter readers make?millions upon millions for their mediocrity,and the network heads make 10x that…..we are screwed
It’s such a haunting story. One line that bothers me is Kelly’s description months before of what might happen to him — he would be “found dead in the woods.” He envisaged the scene precisely, how it would happen. I don’t doubt that he was murdered; I just don’t know how to fit that line into the plot.
My favorite suicide is that of Herbert Marshall, down in Texas in the early 1960s.
Marshall was an agricultural inspector who was looking into some very nefarious land deals that had huge criminal implications for LBJ, then VP.
Marshall bludgeoned himself in the head and then shot himself in the back several times with a bolt action rifle.
Yup, suicide, the local coroner ruled.
I often wondered how corrupt stupid and foolish the transcript would make
lordshit sucker hutton out to benow, I guess we KNOW how bad the transcript is
that lying sack of slimy snake shit
lordhutton must look pretty fucking corruptno thinking human with any personal relevant knowledge can EVER review the evidence ???
so what’s the matter, sack of shit hutton ???
is your report so pathetic that a retarded yak could destroy your reputation on the first page ???
maybe somebody should have told mouldering sack of shit hutton that trying to hide his handiwork tells us all we need to know
and the brits think these people are NOBLE ???
what a fucking deluded country
Hutton is following orders.
That’s how the British establishment protects itself.
I am really starting to lose respect for America’s and England’s systems to punish the Elite who lied, tortured and probably killed to get us to war.
I’m thinking though that Tony Blair and Bush both wanted to be Historic War Time Presidents and given their Personalities they both really wanted to be liked after they were done.
So far they lost two wars let Ossama get away engaged in torture, war crimes and as the economy keeps melting down Bush and Blair are both getting the blame for deregulating the economy which has to hurt they both thought they understood the economy better than us.
Look for a man’s pride in what he does by choice and not what he is forced to do. The economy was both their Pride and that has certainly turned to ashes.
starting?………they killed 1,000,000Iraqi men woman children,poisoned them for generations to come,to get that OIL……yes and they let the WTC fall too….yes everybody is MOVING ON………with IRAQS treasure in tow
Depleted Uranium? but that will also get our troops we are going to be facing a huge increase in cancer among vets breathing in radioactive dust for years
will certainly cause cancer.
Also I’m thinking the solders will sue there is no way a judge will argue that the Government and the Corporation that made the tanks did not know that Uranium might cause cancer.
But I’m sure the Supreme Court will throw the case out and declare that people belong to Corporations as they erase our Personhood.
I wonder if England tortured people or engaged in other war crimes? If so is Tony worried about being picked up in Europe?
Binyam Mohamed makes pretty compelling arguments there were Brits present when he was undergoing some of the worst torture. So yes, the Brits are on the hook for that, too.
Thanks EW Then Tony has to be worried about visiting the EU as more evidence dribbles out. That and Tony was a Labor Party PM if British Labor is like our own Democratic party I’m guessing Tony has lost allot of friends for some reason Lefties in this day and age don’t like torture and war crimes.
I wonder how many people walk out of parties or Church when they see Tony Blair or Bush attending? I wonder what kind of Fan Mail they get?
David Kelly’s closest female confidante on why he COULDN’T have killed himself
There are a lot of unanswered questions that will not matter 70 years from now but why a person who apparently didn’t indicate to anyone that he was under any sort of unusual distress would go against his religious beliefs and intentionally harm his family by the act of suicide are pretty high on the list.
eh no big deal……..LOTS OF OLD MEN and their families (Cheney Mob) made tons of money…..pallets of cash
The heartbreaking, disgusting truth about all this is that certain people are resorting to the extremes of murder (the worst among a host of despicable acts we’ve seen) attempting to hide their malfeasance. Yet, the American and British publics, and the world as a whole have shown with absolute assurance that Blair, Bush, Congress, and the House of Commons could hold a globally televised, infant-sacrificing Black Mass on the Washington Mall and all they would hear from it was that people were pissed that it preempted JERSEY SHORE.
How many times do we have to look the other way and pretend something didn’t happen before all those vain-glorious, hateful SOBs realize they’ve won–the republic is no more and impunity prevails?
yup……….outrage died at AUSCHWITZ
FDR expressly did NOT order the bombing of the rail lines leading to the camps.
Did Sadley say that?
No, it was just a comment in furtherance of his. Or a kind of footnote. That’s all.
no i didnt…i have no knowledge…he did however turn back the SS ST. LOUIS
I sure Obama will create a bipartisan commission and the truth will be found. This is probably urgent so as to prevent an Obama suicide.
Well, like Fred Hampton’s untimely death by natural causes (pardon me while I retch at that grotesque joke) the authorities placate us with the, “Move along folks, nothing to see here.”
Thanks for the post, emptywheel.
Sir Kevin Tebbit delivered the biggest blow to Tony Blair’s credibility over the David Kelly … Sir Kevin, the highest ranking civil servant in the MoD, …
http://www.independent.co.uk/…/civil-servant-dealt-biggest-blow-to-blair-574585.html – Cached
my bold
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)#Contact_with_Andrew_Gilligan
The Mail the BBC are not connected are they if not then 2 different news companies broke this story I am assuming they used different sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Campbell#Iraq_War
My bold Tony and Bush may get away with this but there is no way history will ever respect them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherie_Blair#Political_attempt_and_views
My bold Tony’s Wife is an International Human rights Lawyer WTF, OMG the Irony if Tony ever goes to trial! I’m guessing Tony cost his wife lost of friends.
Among other things, Mrs. Blair is a specialist on English labor law, which would involve a familiarity with human rights laws. The practice she joined seems to have wider expertise.
Iraq war inquiry | UK news | guardian.co.ukJan 20, 2010 … John Chilcot, the chairman of the Iraq war inquiry, at the Queen …. war inquiry key witnesses: Lord Michael Boyce and Sir Kevin Tebbit …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/iraq-war-inquiry – Cached
Sir John Chilcot ‘wrong man to head Iraq invasion inquiry’ | World …Nov 15, 2009 … The inquiry will be chaired by Sir John Chilcot, a former staff …. Iraq war inquiry key witnesses: Lord Michael Boyce and Sir Kevin Tebbit …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/…/sir-john-chilcot-wrong-man – Cached
Sir Kevin Tebbit – SilobreakerIraq War Inquiry Key Witnesses: Lord Michael Boyce and Sir Kevin Tebbit … questioned by Sir John Chilcot’s investigation into war Past and present chiefs …
http://www.silobreaker.com/sir-kevin-tebbit-11_204257 – Cached
NOTE: The first link is exceptional,as it leads to a compendium of stories all relating to the Iraq War and the Chilcot Inquiry.
The Dec./09 testimony of Lord Boyce and MoD Tebbit-you can read actual transcripts- is devastating to Rumsfeld in particular.
Very informative.
Ministers kept Iraq war plan secret, Chilcot inquiry told | UK …Dec 3, 2009 … Government did not want invasion plan to become public knowledge, forces chief says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/03/iraq-war-plan-kept-secret – Cached(*)
Sir John Chilcot called Gordon Brown to give evidence early ‘as a …Jan 22, 2010 … Chilcot said: “The prime minister wrote to me earlier this week saying he was … in the run-up to the conflict have already told the Chilcot inquiry, ….. How did he justify the Iraq war? As he has insisted on clear … Jack Straw: I drew up secret plan to keep Britain out of Iraq war (87); 4. …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/…/chilcot-brown-iraq-inquiry-election-matter-fairness – Cached
Show more results from http://www.guardian.co.uk
(*)This first link is to the article recounting testimony by Boyce and Tebbit that is so revealing about Rumsfeld-among many OTHER things.
The Kings of England
January 1, 2008
The unaccountable people who launched the Iraq war have learnt nothing from it.
If you doubt that Britain needs a written constitution, listen to the strangely unbalanced discussion broadcast by the BBC on Friday. The Today programme asked Lord Guthrie, formerly chief of the defence staff, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, until recently the senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, if parliament should decide whether or not this country goes to war. The discussion was a terrifying exposure of the privileges of unaccountable power. It explained as well as anything I have heard how Britain became party to a crime that might have killed a million people.
Sir Kevin appears to have a general aversion to disclosure. In 2003 the Guardian obtained letters showing that he had prevented the fraud squad at the ministry of defence from investigating allegations of corruption against the arms manufacturer BAE, that he tipped off the chairman of BAE about the contents of a confidential letter the Serious Fraud Office had sent him and that he failed to tell his minister about the fraud office’s warnings(8).
In October 2003, under intense cross-examination during the Hutton inquiry into the death of the government scientist David Kelly, he revealed that the decision to name Dr Kelly was made in a “meeting chaired by the Prime Minister.”(9)
That could have been the end of Blair, but a week later Sir Kevin quietly sent Lord Hutton a written retraction of his evidence(10). No one bothered to tell parliament or the press; the retraction was made public only when the Hutton report was published, three months later(11). Blair knew all along, and the secret gave him a crushing advantage(12).
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 1st January 2008.
(Excerpt)
Monbiot.com » The Kings of EnglandJan 1, 2008 … Sir Kevin maintained that “no prime minister would be able to deploy forces without being able … from investigating allegations of corruption against the arms manufacturer BAE, … Sir Kevin Tebbit, 13th October 2003. …
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/01/…/the-kings-of-england/ – Cached – Similar
NOTE: The documents that the Hutton Inquiry has ordered sealled for 30 years-I wonder if Sir Kevin’s letter(s) are also included ?
I posted this elsewhere last night, but listen to these voice messages from Anthrax scientist and suspect Bruce Ivins, left on the phone of his therapist who had him committed, while the therapist was under house arrest:
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/archives/display_detail.htm?StoryID=100532
And let’s not forget the possible Jimmy/Jeff Guckert/Gannon Blair liason here on the day of Kelly’s death. From Marcy’s old stomping grounds.
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2005/10/tonys_surprise_.html
A background to British Law Lords and their abilities. Conjure up LORD WIDGERY from the BLOODY SUNDAY judicial inquiry.
Lord Hutton has joined his name in a gallery of judicial infamy.
These sorts of evidentiary protection orders are obscene and clearly designed to protect the government – from embarrassment, at the very least – rather than to get to the truth about the death of a single former government employee.
When that former employee’s family wants the truth – and the full record from which it was determined – and the government denies access to that record, it is hiding its own wrongs, not the behavior of a dead man.
The Ministry of
TruthJustice is also being coy when it disarmingly says that “decisions on the evidence were a matter for Lord Hutton”.The idea that Lord Hutton and top permanent civil servants weren’t of one mind on the outcome of the inquiry, including what to do with any “evidence” that came to light, requires a denial of the aristocratic, class, bureaucratic, governmental, legal and law enforcement arrogance that have been hallmarks of English society since before Queen Victoria coined her famous rejoinder, “We are not amused”.
There is video of the Ministry of which you speak.
How silly. Now follow Eyegore, and walk this way.
Well okay, don’t mind the humph in me back…..
What hump? Just call me Abby Normal.
One prototype of the US version of in-troposphere aerial platform based surveilance is fairly thoroughly discussed there, for the curious.
I think Blair was a lot more resistive to Bushco hype early in the Bushhco drumbeat of Iraq war than Blair was given credit for, as both within Labour, and abroad among the various hawks, there were numerous politicians seeking to attempt to marginalize Blair from *left* or *right*, much like some of the current criticism of the US president and his party in 2009-2010. I have not followed the Kelly matter, yet, recall some of those threads, like the one @73 linked.
“Lord Boyce said the defence chiefs “ramped up” planning for possible war after a key meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush at the US president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, 11 months before the invasion.
Boyce said there was a “complete reluctance” on the part of influential members of a “dysfunctional” Bush administration, notably defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to believe that Britain would not commit troops unless the diplomatic process had been exhausted and parliament approved.
No matter how many times British officials said to senior American commanders, and to Rumsfeld in particular, that the UK would not commit itself to military force without going through the UN route, “‘we know you say that, but come the day you will be there’ was the attitude,” Boyce said.
The Iraq inquiry has heard how the Blair government succeeded in September 2002, six months before the invasion, in persuading the Bush administration to seek UN approval for military action.
It has also heard that British influence over US policy evaporated as Bush, and his neocon advisers in particular, lost patience with the UN policy of “containing” Saddam Hussein.”
(December ’09 testimony of Lord Michael Boyce before Chilcot Inquiry.)
Ministers kept Iraq war plan secret, Chilcot inquiry told | UK …Dec 3, 2009 … Government did not want invasion plan to become public knowledge, forces chief says.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/03/iraq-war-plan-kept-secret – Cached
.
Aristocrat-led inquiries burying government-unfriendly evidence are a staple of English political life. The lords-as-cutouts are often suitably rewarded. Nothing to see here, now move along, or we’ll slap an ASBO on you.
I imagine more readers will be oggling the $300 million Brangelina divorce settlement.
The characterization that Lord Hutton imposed a lifetime gag order on the evidence “to protect Dr Kelly’s children” is somewhat less credible than the claim that Tony Blair told the truth about why he went to war in Iraq or the allegation that failed politicians and CEO’s leave their posts “to spend more time with their families”.
Of course, as Larissa observes, if Dr. Kelly did not “commit suicide” he was murdered, presumably by or at the request of the British government. It has very good people for that sort of thing, so the doing would be no problem.
Remarkably, this suicide appears to have been almost intentionally bungled (or someone thought they could do it more cheaply by hiring it out to incompetents), because lay persons can readily tell that suicide seems an unlikely, if not a ludicrous explanation of his surprise death. Slitting the wrist after supposedly taking several prescription pain relievers would be thought an efficient way to say goodbye only by someone who failed their “O” levels, not be a life sciences Ph.D.
It’s almost as if the government were sending to Dr. Kelly’s colleagues a message that read something like, “sauce for the goose” and all that.
They know how to do assassinations very well. I noted that they’ve studied that in an article at FDL the other day. When assassinations are bungled or done sloppily, it’s usually for the same quotidian reasons that any job is so butchered, haste.
For whatever reason, they were ill-prepared to take out Kelly as quickly as they ultimately felt they had to. Perhaps he gave more of a fight. Perhaps it was, as you speculate, that they were cheap and went for something less than professionals (or professionals were not ready as quickly as they needed them). Of course, even professionals make mistakes, or bungle things.
An interesting take on this appears in the classic movie, Three Days of the Condor. Worth watching again, with an eye to the degree of consciousness on these matters over 30 years ago, and how little we’ve progressed on that since. (Watch it as a double feature with The Ipcress File, and you’ll believe in deja vu all over again.)
“Of course, even professionals make mistakes, or bungle things.”
Talk to the families of the slaughtered injured, or millions displaced in Iraq. Nah. Our media outlets will not go there. Too easy to focus on the act of nature that has devastated Haiti than show the American people the death and destruction that they are responsible for in Iraq.
Just “move forward, turn the page, next chapter, do not be about retribution, vengeance” Those Iraqi lives are not worth ari time in the U.S. Move along
Um, Leen, my comment on professionals bungling things had to do with the obvious evidence negating suicide in the case of David Kelly, and nothing to do with a statement on the Iraq War, or the actions taken to cover-up the intentions to go to war long before any dance around WMD was dangeled in front of a world audience.
When it comes to the crimes surrounding the decision to go to war and kill hundreds of thousands of people, and occupy other countries, not to mention torture untold thousands… I’m totally with you.
Did you misunderstand me? How could you ever think I would try to alibi war criminals?
Did not think that for a second. No misunderstanding
And by the way, while primarily an act of nature, some amount of the devastation in Haiti should be attributed to human causation, to wit, the years of imperial corruption and predation of the Haitian people. See Mark Danner’s article in the New York Times, 1/22. Of course, I imagine you agree with this thesis, yes?
Even better have been Chris Floyd on Haiti:
I would add, too, pretty much anything written by the former MI-6 officer David Cornwell, aka John le Carre. Literary license aside, I suspect his general take on the lengths to which governments can go to protect their secrets and the source of wealth of their aristocratic and corporate supporters is considerable.
They also have expertise in investigating the lethal tradecraft of others, most recently, the Russians.
Hopefully that Lord Hutton ruling will be overturned. Would a petition from folks in the U.S. help?
70 years…nothing to hide there. (cough)
Judy “I was fucking right” Miller, Douglas Feith, Micheal Ledeen and the rest of the false WMD intelligence resource team are the ones who stand to lose and the truth stands to gain by overturning that ruling.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people dead, injured, millions displaced due to the use of that false intelligence. The bloody Pre war intelligence thugs should be held accountable. The least the world can do for those who died based on a “pack of lies”
Could never understand what all of the efforts to examine all of the false pre war intelligence was all about? Senator Rockefeller what was the point if you do not hold those responsible for all of the false pre war intelligence accountable? What was the fucking point of Phase I and and the long time blocked and stalled Phase II of the SSCI?
Did I miss it? Was someone held accountable for those Niger Documents? What a bunch of fucking powerful murderers. “No one is above the law” Complete bullshit
Could never understand what all of the efforts to examine all of the false pre war intelligence was all about?——————–
“Leverage”?
Ew “The Brits Buried Evidence on David Kelly’s Death”
And all of the evidence about the false pre war intelligence that was used to convince some of the American people to support an illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq is buried under the hundreds of thousand of Iraqi people who are dead, injured and millions displaced.
And our MSM goes right along.
Show them the tragedy in Haiti. But don’t show them the death and destruction in Iraq that they are responsible for.
Have the journalist at the BBC who Kelly first talked to ever been contacted or interviewed? One would think Dr. Kely’s family would want Lord Hutton’s ruling to be overturned
Jeff,
This comment may have been better suited to the Book Salon topic yesterday, but, I didn’t realize that Kelly’s work included research involving anthrax.
Yes, of all the topics yesterday we could have covered, Olson’s work around the operationalization of airborne anthrax would have been very interesting. He apparently also worked on safety suits for agents in the field using such weapons. We don’t know the totality of what he did.
Over in that thread, someone got all caught up in thinking we were making Olson into a hero. Hardly. In the book, Albarelli goes out of his way to note we have no redemptive evidence re Olson’s work, or some change of mind about what he did. There is anecdotal evidence (I received some by email last night), but the point about Olson’s death is that he was a clean member of the inner conspiracy, and they killed one of their own to cover up their bigger crimes. (And by clean, I don’t mean noble; Olson was among other things, apparently an anti-Semite.) While the CIA insists they don’t kill one of their own, they do. (To know more of what I mean, you’ll have to read the book.)
I have come across some very provocative theories relating to this anthrax affiliation.
Apparently, in the UK and Canada there was a film about the untimely deaths of many top biowarfare scientists. First time I have become acquainted with these matters.
In regard to yesterday’s Book Salon and your refernce to Olsen’s prejudice, check out Cornelius Rhoad’s Wiki sometime. That is a DEFINITE must read.
G@92, Tx for the reminder; the UN was involved in the Blair strategy. We know who Bushco thought best would serve as UN representative, **He*s baack** Bolton, to cite a contamporaneous blogpost title. I wonder how complete the Bolton document dump to NARA was upon departure of that administration. Ah, yes, the 20 million *restored* emails matter, now in NARA*s historian sifting process.
YW!
Well, now that Interpol has been given immunity from FOIA, perhaps a new “black hole” has emerged for “misplacing” all manner of inconvenient flotsam and jetsam.
*G*
Oh, my, what a McGuffin. Stop it. *g*
The Earl of Grey is brewing in the tiny, tempestuous teapot. *G*
I resemble that remark. *g*
we have our own version see the brad blog about michael connell.
the moral of the story is if your the bad guys is that dead guys
can’t talk!
There is no competent evidence I have ever seen that Connell’s plane crash was anything other than a plane crash. Do you have any??
O/T. I’ve been concerned for quite a while now about churches in the US standing up, speaking out against torture. Here’s some good news. The Council of Churches in Pennsylvania is indeed standing up and speaking out.
O/T: Afghanistan. So, buckle up your safety belt, stiff upper lip and all that, gird your loins, or whatever:
Afghanistan will take longer to tackle than Iraq, General David Petraeus says
Link.
As this thread seems to be still open can I register my amusement at some of the misconceptions about Britain being aired here. I am not being snide, as I have learned more about how the US system works from reading Firedoglake and especially Emptywheel than any other source!
But let me clarify some related things. Brian Hutton got to be a Lord because he became a judge, not vice versa.
When the House of Lords was the highest court, its decisions were made entirely by judges, who had got there the hard way, through excellence in practice of the Law.
Now we have a Supreme Court instead.
But most important, England is not Britain, and never was. Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. The United Kingdom adds in Northern Ireland (where Lord Hutton was a judge, which is another relevant tale). The United Kingdom has three related but not identical systems of law (England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland).
Confused? So are we most of the time.
@#135
Can you email this distinction in governing to the President?
IMHO, he has been acting like a Prime Minister,rather than as a President.
I’m not chetnolian, and it would be interesting to hear Merkin constitutional scholars opine on this, but in a sense, your president is both PM and president — ie, he is both head of government, involved directly in legislation, and head of state.
Every once in a while it seems to me that that has some implications. Like, I am very glad that our PMs don’t enter formal banquets to the playing of national songs like “Hail to the Chief” — although clearly, Steve would like to do that, as Tony no doubt wanted as well. Steve has actually dared to insist on taking the salute from the troops, which is a serious no-no, and yet the GG let him get away with it. The queen is the c-in-c, and she is not political. The military should not be politicized, and the house of the people should not be militarized.
There are some,so they say, who would proffer that his performance indicates he is both head…. AND tail .
As head of his party and of the government, the president has considerable but informal legislative clout. He can threaten legislators and give or withhold his potent political support for their pet projects or re-election. But has no formal legislative role and cannot be hauled before parliament to answer questions or explain himself, to be subject to a vote of censure or loss of a majority on a major piece of legislation that could end his administration. In a sense, we have the worst traits that the Founders tried to avoid by separating the executive formally from the legislature.
I agree that Obama acts as if he would rather be a PM than POTUS but then again the PM does need to be a leader of his/her party in govt and muster unqualified support. When a PM fails to get that support, well, he/she is toast – as happened to Thatcher and Blair.
The Parliament does introduce legislation and passes it, the Lords can throw a proposed legislation back to the lower House of Parliament by not passing it and the game can only last three rounds – after that it doesn’t matter what the Lords have to say – if the lower House passes it, it’s a statute and becomes part of the uncodified constitution. It does not imply that backroom deals do not go on but the very public sausage making as happened with HCR in the US with both chambers acting independently is spared. That’s the UK situation and the Lords and the lower House usually attempt to avoid a direct confrontation of going the three rounds although it has happened in the first half of the 20th century.
People in the UK regard the lower House as the Parliament and the Lords as a review body – the majority of members of the Lords are legal eagles, judges, but there are also hereditary peers and political appointees – nominees by the govt of the day and approved by the Parliament (the lower House).
Another thing, the EU Human Rights Convention is a mandatory underpinning of all statutes – that’s a condition of EU membership and cannot be violated as is the Runnymede Charter that obliges the monarch to act only on the advice of his/her PM.
The PM has no say in the appointment of judges unlike the POTUS. Theoretically, this should make the judiciary less political but this isn’t the reality – most judges, not all, are very conservative but not partisan and that’s an issue of class tribalism. That perhaps explains why the Scottish judiciary released the Lybian guy on humanitarian grounds since he’s going to die anyway sooner rather than later.
Also, the Electoral Commission is totally independent of any govt control and responsible for supervising elections, drawing up electoral constituency boundaries, as is the case in Australia too. The thought that the judiciary can intervene to stop counting ballots cast is simply weird and unpardonable in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand – the countries that I am familiar with.
I have spent time in the US and there is much I admire, FDL being one of them, and much that I am critical of, nevertheless, I don’t criticise unless I care.
Real difference between the POTUS and the PM? The latter needs to twist arms to retain leadership or else his/her own party would roll him/her as happened with Thatcher – some others, like Blair, resign to retain a semblance of grace – a change of leadership does not necessitate a fresh election, Brown assumed PMship with Blair’s resignation, since the electorate voted a party in govt, not an individual, however personalised leader focused pr of a party is.
Does that answer your curiosity? As a Brit/Aussie, I never felt you were freer than I felt growing up in London and I must say, the London I grew up in was far less racially/tribally segregated than what I observed in the US in my almost 6 years there.
Thanks for the review. I think it overstates a bit the continuing validity of Magna Carta. Apart from its symbology, and although a version of it remains on the statute books, its terms have largely been superceded by later statutes and practice. The terms that continue to bind relate to habeas corpus and due process, as well as one relating to the freedoms of the Church of England.
As for the formal vetting or appointment of judges, that power is less important than the political forces and social networks that give the establishment considerable control over the personalities it lets judge others. Senior judges, the lord chancellor and the attorney general work closely and, as you say, belong to the same tribe. Judges are closely screened as they progress from barrister to QC to the high court to the Supreme Court.
As for the difference between a pm and president, the pm is responsible to parliament for his legislative agenda and for getting it past. The president would rather not have that formal power and with this supine a Congress, he doesn’t need it. The formalities of government here have in many ways been superceded by party practice and by insider vs. outsider norms. What would be nice is if the president had to submit to questions from the House and had to keep his majority or end his administration. It would be even nicer if Congress would lay less supinely and use its oversight powers. Compared to parliament’s, they used to be formidable. No longer, with the likes of Joe Lieberman in town.
That’s why they call it the law of England and Wales, though the Celts often wish it was the law of England. And Scots law has a good bit of French continental influence about it.
Lord Hutton and his peers, so to speak, may get to become law lords or members of the Supreme Court – really a carving out of the law lords from the mildly eviscerated House of Lords – but he and they also get there because he and they are very political animals.
The sequestering of the evidence for two generations is a remarkably political act. It is remarkable, too, in that Lord Hutton precludes Dr. Kelly’s children – the people he claims to be protecting – from knowing how and why he died. That’s rather like the old FRCP who refused to tell one’s grandmother she was about to die of cancer because not telling her the truth was good for her (in that he then needn’t touch her grief).
It will be left to Dr. Kelly’s grandchildren, as middle-aged adults, to ask pretty please may I know whether my grandfather really killed himself or was a victim of MI-5 or some other black agency protecting its masters.
Oh — since Scots independence still seems to be a subtopic today, Happy Burns Night, everyone!
Here’s tae us!
Wha’s like us?
Damn few
And they’re a’ deid.
Everyone got a nice fat haggis for supper tonight?
As the official site warns, after you’ve read Address to a Haggis and before you eat your whisky-laden trifle and sing Auld Lang Syne, slit open the hot haggis before serving it, lest a bit of warm fat leap into your diner’s eye.
Heh. Here’s tae the immortal memory!
I would love Burns as a poet even if I didn’t feel all the national associations. The genuine love for ordinary people “the werreld o’er” is so palpable in everything he wrote, and of course, he loved the lassies, oh, and wrote about love so well.
Had we never loved sae kindly
Had we never loved sae blindly
Never kissed, and never parted
We had ne’er been broken-hearted.
Whats up whith that get in to the grove here….ol’ sneaky is shakin his moneymaker…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM0sTNtWDiI
“The National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) sets out the following guiding
principles: responsive and incisive understanding of global threats and opportunities,
coupled with an agility that brings to bear the Community’s capabilities.”
He he grabbed me some NY finest in the process LOL stoll anything at that speed
Nasty smart principle if i may say so…LOOOL also landed the relief org. some nasty satellite photos..
BTW anyone ever seen a viking 3 star GN fly F5…with procecuter and CMSGT*S hot on his 6?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8rZWw9HE7o&feature=related
He he just goes to shows u take care of your people out there…or there will be hell to pay…in more ways than one…
http://politiken.dk/politik/article887550.ece
Anyway anyone up for a good ol human story u might wanna check this guy out up in Boston MA (KBOS tower) but respect his private life por favor
Anyway marcy this…. let it go i met david back in the ol days….and the folks doing the explaning…i put em there..not for revenge but cuz we needet it.. to get on with the big problems, anyway u might see that they eventually will all go and put flowers on davids grave IN PUBLIC…and lets leave it at that shall we PLEASE
Just my five cents worth (do u think those personel dude’s running the show would know how to pay ol’ CMSGT..the pay wouldent u? WHAT DOES A MAN HAS TO DO TO GET HIS 30 SILVER….? here at the coffemaker where throwing darts unto pictures of Mr jones, brennan, panneta, mullen, rahm…and others…. Shysters…loosing ted kenedys seat in Boston to a repuplican…what are the world cumming to?
Och aye — that’s great, very much in the spirit. Thanks.
He he…The Noble art of loosing face remember?
What can i say the man is a pro, they don’t PAY i don’t play….the engine don’t run on fumes alone…This brainfarts off PHD and others…(present company excepted) couldent come up with a plan and execute it if they tried…LOOOOL These bledding brainfarts cost more pr. hour than i do pr. month…when u think about it…
BTW what ever u do dont turn me loose in the same room whith rachel…ol’ sneky got a softspot for woman with brains…also make him STFU and run for cover under the bed…Hehe
BTW saw rachel and Jim on MSNBC from a bar up in boston….if im ever that way that would def be my waterhole…(ol’ senky gets that urge and slurpind feeling)