|
« Dr Kay's complaint
Main |
February 02, 2004
Hutton backlash
One of my correspondents has referred to the article by William Rees-Mogg in the Times to take me to task for deriding the critics of Lord Hutton when someone as apparently grounded as Lord Rees-Mogg also thinks Hutton got it completely wrong. Another correspondent expresses the very understandable bafflement that comes from being bombarded with rival interpretations of the controversy, but with no way of verifying which of them is right. This is indeed a problem. However, despite the fact that this may only worsen my second correspondent's headache, I believe the evidence shows Lord R-M's argument is complete rubbish from start to finish. I wonder whether he has actually read the evidence to Hutton, as opposed to the press reports of the evidence which so grossly misrepresented it. For example, he says Hutton gave too little weight to the evidence of Susan Watts. The significance of her evidence to the anti-Hutton camp is that she revealed conversations with Dr Kelly in which he confided to her his concerns about the 45-minute claim being hyped up. However, there were very significant differences between what he told her and what appeared in Andrew Gilligan's reports -- in particular that the government had not behaved dishonestly, as Alastair Palmer noted in his coruscating analysis of Gilligan's behaviour in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph. There was all the difference in the world between Susan Watts' stories based on her interviews with Dr Kelly, and Gilligan's. As the ST's leader pointed out, Gilligan's story was wrong in every significant particular: 'Everything that was new in Mr Gilligan's report has been shown to be wrong. The 45-minute claim was inserted late in the process of the dossier's drafting, not because Number 10 was growing desperate for material, but because the new information was not received by MI6 until August 29, 2002. It was inserted by the Joint Intelligence Committee itself, not foisted upon the JIC by Alastair Campbell and his colleagues. And Mr Gilligan's claim in his 6:07 am broadcast that the Government "probably knew" that the intelligence was wrong has been shown to be utterly unfounded.' And as for the claim that Dr Kelly's remarks to Susan Watts proved that Gilligan's story was basically right, the rest of the evidence to Hutton showed that Dr Kelly, who was not an intelligence officer and had not seen the relevant 45-minute intelligence, was talking beyond his competence, thus reducing some of those remarks to little more than second-hand gossip -- as Susan Watts herself rightly observed. Lord Rees-Mogg claims that Hutton disregarded the evidence about the naming strategy, which he says showed that 'Downing Street wanted to get Dr Kelly’s name out, but did not want to take responsibility for doing so. The strange game of guesswork with the press was designed to achieve that end,' and that being so named was 'one presumable cause for his suicide.' To take that last claim first: this is quite absurd. The idea that a man as robust as Dr Kelly would kill himself because he was publicly embroiled in a controversy is highly unlikely. It also does not square with the attitude displayed in his emails, even on the day of his death, expressing a stoical expectation that the storm would eventually blow over and he could get back to Iraq to search for the WMD he was certain were there. And from the start, he knew he was likely to be named and displayed no undue distress about this. As for the so-called 'naming strategy' which people are so sure existed because of Alastair Campbell's diary entry in which he said the source had to be got out in order to **** Gilligan, the actual evidence just doesn't support it. It is quite clear from what Hutton was told that it was a classic British muddle. The government did not want Dr Kelly named because they weren't sure whether he was really Gilligan's source. Tony Blair actually overruled Campbell, who wanted to get this information out sooner, for precisely that reason. On the other hand, once he had come forward they knew they had to make that fact known otherwise they would have been accused of a cover-up. On the other hand again, by saying an official had come forward but not naming him would have cast suspicion on other officials (one of whom actually had journalists tapping on his window to attract his children's attention). That was why they decided to put out relevant information about Dr Kelly to journalists who asked relevant questions, including the eventual confirmation of his name. Cock-eyed and ham-fisted? Sure. So cock-eyed and ham-fisted, in fact, it's wholly unlikely that it was a machiavellian plot. It would have been so easy, after all, simply to leak his name if that's what they wanted. It is said they wanted him named but to deny responsibility for doing so. But why? What opprobrium would have followed from naming him? The whole sinister theory just doesn't stand up, and there was simply no evidence to support it. And that's the point. Every single piece of apparently incriminating testimony which was seized on and hyped up by the press as the inquiry proceeded, such as Sir Kevin Tebbit's late evidence or Jonathan Powell's desire for harder intelligence in the dossier or Campbell's requests for changes to the text, all had perfectly reasonable explanations -- if you actually read that evidence. Thus the 'change' made by the committee chaired by the Prime Minister -- Sir Kevin's alleged 'smoking gun' which on the Chinese whisper circuit was going to blast the PM into oblivion -- was merely to issue the statement that an official had come forward. No incompetence there by Lord Hutton -- the press had just not understood the evidence. Powell's request for harder intelligence was justified by two things: the dossier was the government's presentation of its case and he was within his rights to want to make it as strong as possible, and most crucial of all he prompted John Scarlett to revisit the intelligence where he discovered there was indeed much harder stuff that could be used. In other words, it was his professional judgment that it should be used. Nothing wrong there either. As for Campbell -- who was only in charge of the dossier's presentation, not its content -- some of his suggestions were accepted but others were thrown out because Scarlett thought they were wrong; and the ones that were accepted were mainly about ironing out contradictions rather than requiring the wording to be changed in a particular direction. The backlash against Hutton is fuelled by the impression people received from media coverage of the inquiry which, it cannot be said often enough, bore little relation to the actual evidence. It is also fuelled by the view that if the PM announced the day of the week, he would be lying through his teeth; and most fundamentally of all, by the belief that because no WMD have been found they never existed, that we were taken to war on a lie and that Gilligan was basically right -- even though on every point he was actually wrong. The country is in the grip of a hysterical irrationality and gullibility, from which not even as grand a personage as Lord Rees-Mogg is immune. Posted by melanie at February 2, 2004
Comments
A plausible reason why WMD's were not found in Iraq, is given here Intelligence Failure - David Warren http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/Comment/Jan04/index193.shtml But despite the absence of WMD's in Iraq, the romoval of Saddam from Iraq, led to the disclosure of WMD development in Libya by Qaddafi himself. One could regard this as 'collateral' WMD detection. Of course, the West were aware of Libya's intent to have weapons of mass destruction long before the Iraq War: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2017159.stm So one can't in fact regard Libya's discovery as "collateral" WMD detection. Still, what happened in Libya was worth the UK and US breaking international law for, eh?! Posted by: BeefQueen at February 3, 2004 11:00 AMThe UK and the US didn't break international law. Read up on Lord Goldsmith response when this was challenged. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857347.stm Posted by: Dr T at February 3, 2004 12:40 PM"Still, what happened in Libya was worth the UK and US breaking international law for, eh?!" Better the breaking of international law than the complete moral bankruptcy of those who were quite content to see a continuation of sanctions and Saddam's reign of terror in Iraq. It shows how little actually changes in a culture over time: an appeasement of Hitler in the 30's because "the Jews aren't really worth bothering about"; an appeasement of Saddam 70 years later because "the Iraqi people aren't really worth bothering about." Posted by: Charles at February 3, 2004 01:31 PMDr T: "The UK and the US didn't break international law. Read up on Lord Goldsmith response when this was challenged. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857347.stm" That's not correct. Resolution 687 was only held to apply in this situation because Iraq was held to be in possession of WMD's: resolution 687 refers to Iraq's elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Only resolution 678, and consequently, resolution 687, allow the use of armed force; 1441 refers only to "serious consequences" and does not specify armed force as one of them. If Saddam had no WMD's, he was not in breach of resolution 687; consequently resolution 678 cannot apply and therefore there was no Security Council basis for war. That is why the law was illegal in the absence of WMD's. Charles: "Better the breaking of international law than the complete moral bankruptcy of those who were quite content to see a continuation of sanctions and Saddam's reign of terror in Iraq. It shows how little actually changes in a culture over time: an appeasement of Hitler in the 30's because "the Jews aren't really worth bothering about"; an appeasement of Saddam 70 years later because "the Iraqi people aren't really worth bothering about."" I deeply resent any accusation that I do not care about the Iraqi people, simply because I was opposed to war. I was opposed to sanctions against Iraq, simply because I care about Iraqi civilians. For the same reason I opposed a war that has killed, and continues to kill, countless Iraqis daily. Further, the argument that Iraq now is like Nazi Germany is entirely specious. It is the argument of lazy peope. There was no corpus of international law in 1939, as there is now. Such laws have been constructed precisely to regulate the bases on which wars can be fought. They form an integral part of international security. By fighting what has now transpired to be an illegal law, the UK and US have undermined any respect for international law from those countries whose respect is needed most; those countries who will be quick to disobey such laws in future. We cannot now rely on them when it comes to seeking protection for ourselves. It is for that reason that we should be so concerned. It does grave damage to the "war on terror" and our standing in the international community. Posted by: BeefQueen at February 3, 2004 02:06 PMI find it odd that Melanie Phillips repeatedly assaults the journalistic integrity of Andrew Gilligan when her own record is so poor. Even the manner in which she attacks Gilligan here is a distortion of the facts and of the evidence submitted to the Hutton enquiry and accepted by Hutton himself. Take for example this section: "And Mr Gilligan's claim in his 6:07 am broadcast that the Government "probably knew" that the intelligence was wrong has been shown to be utterly unfounded." It wasn't shown to be utterly unfounded. It was a mistake to which he immediately admitted. As he spoke the unscripted words Gilligan realised that they were not supported by his conversations with Kelly. He omitted this claim in the seventeen subsequent broadcasts he made that day and he apologised for uttering them. So who is guilty of distortion, of twisting the truth and bending facts to suit their purpose? On the basis of what I see here, Phillips is more guilty than Gilligan, which is hardly a flattering comparison. BeefQueen, you have a viewpoint I disagree with but it is a viewpoint nevertheless. International Law is one of those slender reeds it is very unwise to lean on lest it bend. The notion of international law is an Anglo-Saxon concept and has only arisen because Great Britain went to war in 1914 and again in 1939; and since 1942 it has been bolstered by US power. There is no German international law, Russian or Chinese international law. I doubt they would construct such a system; and with their military power it would be moot as when the German Reich refused to recognise the Geneva Conventions, initially with Polish and British troops, then with Soviet POWs. When US power fades eventually and China and India decide how they want to operate, you will hear no talk of International Law but of Might Is Right. It is the US and its ability to go to war which creates the backing to international law as you call it; but it is in fact like all legal systems based upon Ultimate Force....read Kelsen and the Theory of the Grundnorm and learn that legal systems do not arrive from God but are predicated on a premise. Your International Law has no sanction, no punishment, just good wishes and warm sentinmentality. Just what good is International Law in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or in Zimbabwe....or do they have derogations ? Why hasn't Kofi Annan sorted it - he is from Ghana - Africa is a big place - surely it can police itself and uphold international law. ? In fact the Law of The Jungle rules and we live in a quiet period just like we did after 1856 and our British "law" and ships kept the peace until a new force emerged on the 1914 horizon and our bluff was called.....pieces of paper were fine said the Kaiser as he violated Belgian neutrality fguaranteed by Britain in 1839........ obviously only good wishes could correct the indiscretion of marching armies.......or do you think physical enforcement has any role ? THere will be major wars in the future. The world is changing, few are now afraid of nuclear war, Pakistan revels in its bomb and one day it will be used. There is no period of human history where one power has been sufficiently strong to bind all others into an alliance forever.....the imposition of Anglo-Saxon culture as an international legal system is alien to most states which do not themselves even have a proper domestic legal system......no it is the Balance of Terror which keeps the peace. Posted by: Romulus at February 3, 2004 05:02 PMTo beefqueen, the UN resolutions specfically refer to WMD programs, as well as WMD themselves. You can get a copy of 687 from the UN web site and confirm for yourself. So the confirmed presence of programs to develop WMD shows that Iraq was in breach of 687, regardless of whether any WMDs are found or not. The ceasefire resolution (687) suspended the authority of the resolution allowing the use of force (678). A material breach of 687 revives (unsuspends) 678. 1441 states that Iraq was in breach of 687 and hence 678 is automatically revived. There was nothing what so ever in 1441 requiring yet another resolution. Hans Blix final report to the UN stated clearly that no porgress was being made. So you are wrong on it being illegal according to international law. I find it odd that you should just reject the attorney generals argument in this way, are you a lawyer? This is the highest legal opinion that you can get outside of going before a court. Romulus "...no it is the Balance of Terror which keeps the peace." With MAD during the Cold War, all but CND thought we knew where we stood, because it seemed that mutually assured destruction was an expensive but effective deterrent (a bit dubious as it turned out - we were lucky). The current 'balance of terror' is surely a different kettle of suicide bombs/chemical weapons. A balance of terror where one side (or several sides in this multi-faceted global conflict) cares not about death but rather welcomes it, is no balance at all, because it gives the underdog the edge. That's no recipe for peace, it's a recipe for constant localised wars until one of the many cells of mad bastards gets hold of a really nasty piece of equipment and sets off a global chain reaction of knee jerk button-pushing that creates a gigantic fusion of clinker, part of which will be the flesh, blood and bones of homo sapiens not-so-sapiens, rather than just social and religious confusion. So what do you mean by the balance of terror in this context? Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 3, 2004 06:34 PMMr P you may agree with this from Mark Steyn in today's Telegraph Melanie is entirely right about Hutton - the Gilligan report was essentially WRONG! It has become rather fashionable to say that Andrew Gilligan's report was "basically right", and if only he had been more careful in a 'two-way' at 6:07 in the morning, then it would have been a great story. But here's the thing - the story was almost entirely wrong! We now know that regardless of Gilligan's "slip of the tongue" that the government inserted the 45 minute claim against the wishes of the intelligence services whilst knowing it to be wrong, the story still doesn't stand up. Firstly, as far as the 45 minute claim was concerned, Dr Kelly was out of the loop on this matter, as this was not a piece of intelligence that he had dealt with himself. And even the technocrats in DIS - scientific experts - who did review the 45 minute claim, and had minor concerns over the language, still said that at no point did they argue against the inclusion of this intelligence in the dossier. (Brian Jones said he thought it could have started with the words "intelligence indicates....", which I find very strange, considering it was an intelligence document, and was never presented as cast iron fact.) But DIS officials don't deal with sources, so they were not in the position of MI6 and the JIC to assess the credibility of this information. And we now know from the evidence given by the boss's of MI6 and the JIC that the intelligence on the 45 minute claim came from a "highly credible source" and they fully stand behind the accuracy of this piece of intelligence - totally discrediting Andrew Gilligan's claim that the government knew it was "unreliable" before inserting it into the dossier - "unreliable" being the word that Gilligan now says he should have used instead of "wrong". So it's clear-for-all-to-see that even after corrections, the Gilligan report still doesn't stand up. The few concerns from people in DIS were the natural business of interagency government - not disquiet - where people who are not privy to all the information naturally feel concerned about something that they don't fully understand or know about. And on top of that, we have subsequently discovered that the DIS were not privy to all the intelligence either, which is why the boss's of DIS felt at ease with the minor concerns of a few officials in their department, knowing that it was not their job to assess the credibility of that information. But still, given all this, we must remember that DIS were happy with the dossier, and Dr Kelly himself gave it the thumps up, describing it as a "good document." But most importantly, the people whose job it was to assess ALL the intelligence, and the credibility of that intelligence, we're 100% happy. So having established that the story itself was almost entirely inaccurate - apart from a few chronological details - people are still asking the legitimate question: aren't you allowed to report the concerns of a credible source even if they turn out to be wrong? But here again the Gilligan report falls down. Dr David Kelly and his family insist that Gilligan's report was not an accurate reflection of what Dr Kelly had told Mr Gilligan, which led to Dr Kelly himself telling one journalist that Gilligan's report was a crock of "shit". And the Kelly family lawyer described Mr Gilligan at the inquiry as an 'unreliable historian', such was the outrage at the inferences he had attributed to Dr Kelly. And further to this, Gilligan was unable to produce any evidence to prove that the claims he was attributing to Dr Kelly were consistent with what Dr Kelly had told him, not having made any satisfactory notes of the meeting. And Gilligan's inability to check whether Dr Kelly would be in a position to know to exact nature of Alistair Campbell's role - or Number 10's role - in the drawing up of the dossier was an extraordinary admission. To try and bring down the elected government on a single second hand source - a source which he had not been pressed on their ability to know the information they had allegedly given you, was astonishing and utterly incredible. The fact is, in the little that Dr Kelly did tell Mr Gilligan, he was engaging in office gossip about a situation which had happened eight months previously. It's fair to assume that not in Dr Kelly's wildest dreams could he have imagined that his words would be manipulated to try and bring down the government and to discredit a war he so passionately supported. And that's why he voluntarily came forward to discredit the report. So that brings us to Andrew Gilligan's last line of defence - post-facto justification. He now asserts that because of the evidence that came out during the Hutton inquiry that Dr Brian Jones had concerns over the wording of the 45 minute claim, this proves that his story was correct. But putting aside the fact that we already know that Dr Brian Jones hadn't seen all the intelligence and never argued over the inclusion of this piece of intelligence, this charge is fundamentally different to the charge that Andrew Gilligan continued to make way after the famous 6:07 broadcast. Dr Jones's minor concerns on wording went no further than his line manager, because his line manager judged his concerns unfounded. This is not the same as the claim that it was "Number 10" who overruled the concerns of the "intelligence agencies". This was the claim that was made throughout the foreign affairs select committee process, and throughout the Hutton inquiry, and is still maintained by Gilligan to this day, even though there is not a shred of evidence to substantiate it, and an independent judge has ruled this to be unfounded. Like Lord Hutton, I am completely at a loss as to why the BBC management didn't pull the story once the JIC and the head of MI6 confirmed that it wasn't true. It was almost entirely wrong when Andrew Gilligan first reported it, and it remains entirely wrong to this day. Posted by: John C at February 3, 2004 09:29 PMFrank, my point is that 'international law' is an abstraction created by Anglo-Saxons, but in reality it is predicated on British, and now US power. Teddy Roosevelt said 'apeak softly and carry a big stick' In the past decades the US has spoken softly but failed to wield a big stick which is why Carter sugffered humiliation in Iran and so on.....Bush has used the force of arms to enforce respect for the big stick. It was a limited application and avoided having to go for the big one, so we might have bought another decade of peace as the upstarts think twice before challenging the current order in the world. You Frank follow the thesis that bin Laden will stra an atom bomb onto a suicide bomber and blow up New York. Personally, I consider this fanciful. Bin Laden uses simple mechanisms which explout the lazy security ie. on aircraft in the USA; poor security on flight training; poor security on flight-boarding; - it is our mistakes which give him the edge, not his genius or technology. The Americans are technology-fetishists and are discouraged if they cannot order technologically advanced counter-measures. Bin Laden is low-tech, and is hard for US Intelligence to comprehend; with suicide bombers he needs no escape routes and so the mission is simplified.....but this makes it far easier to penetrate these societies. MAD worked between states, essentially because after Khrushchev that USSR was a conservative state which still rememberd real devastation from 1941-4 in a way the US could not imagine; but essentially looked for weak spots in our defences to destabilise.....proxy wars were the corollary of nuclear weapons......and bin Laden has less chance of using one than Saddam Hussein had in building one. Pakistan has done more to make the world nuclear insecure than any single nation on earth; and it did so with the help of China, and stolen plans from Urenco........that is the real threat not bin Laden. Posted by: Romulus at February 3, 2004 10:29 PMRomulus "..my point is that 'international law' is an abstraction created by Anglo-Saxons, but in reality it is predicated on British, and now US power. Teddy Roosevelt said 'apeak softly and carry a big stick'" Yes, I've always thought that so-called 'international law' is a myth,rather than just an abstraction, because there are no enforcers. What there is comprises mutually beneficial agreements, lots of double crossing and jiggery pokery and if real disagreements occur that simply have to be resolved, then it is not international law, but international war that ensues. Then the enforcers are Tommy Atkins and his buddies in the poor bloody infantry (with quite a lot of help these days from the techie war-games wizards). So called 'International Law' is just another honeypot for lawyers. As Bismark said, "There is no altruism among nations ... these things are settled by blood and iron." I agree, as I have previously ranted on other posts, that it was not only right, but long overdue, that Iraq should be liberated from Saddam and his henchmen. Once that decision was taken by the US, we were duty bound to support them. Saddam was setting an example to any tinpot dictator, or wacky militant, or crazed religious nut, who wanted to defy the dictates of the UN (a toothless pussy cat) and making the West appear to be an easy touch. Which we were, until the Shrub decided to sew our balls back on. I could care less about what sub-agendas are being played out for personal aggrandisement of Blair or Bush. Saddam had to go and now, albeit a little belatedly, he's in the pokey. Mission accomplished and the rest is mopping up operations. Expensive, but in the long run worth it. In my policing days, if a gangster got too big for his boots, then others were encouraged to extend their criminal empires too. So you headed for the one with the worst reputation, took him out and the others inevitably kept their heads down for a bit, lest they were next. It's the same principle. Moreover it's a continuum that has to be addressed ad infinitum. But now the Peaceniks, aided and abetted by the media,with their everlasting anti-war clap-trap and semantics are undermining that resolve and putting our khaki enforcers and 'peace-keepers' in jeopardy, through treasonous propaganda which indicates to the ragged remnants of Ba'ath and mini mafias of Islam that, as the West is racked by internal squabbles, they are still in with a chance if they are determined enough. We need to put our own quislings down, then maybe the enemy will know we really mean business. The BBC has been beneath contempt and no matter what BeefQueen drags out of academic files stating that the BBC supported the war, I listened to the subversive crap that spewed from their transmitters throughout the conflict and grieved for England. When I remember how they kept up our spirits through WW2; when I think of the British and allied bones buried in the war graves of that treacherous continent, all once carrying souls willingly sacrificed for freedom, I wonder what the heroes would say if they were able to witness the mewling of Gilligan, Dyke - and all the prats at the BBC who want to lionise their sacked brothers. The dead of WW2 should rise up en masse and haunt them for the rest of their lives. Overpaid, overfed cowards, the lot of 'em. Having got that off my chest, I agree with much of what you infer in your explanation above - I think! Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 4, 2004 01:48 AMDavid Marquand has written an interesting article about Hutton, the BBC and the Iraq war. Here are some (highly selective!) extracts: “Planet Hutton, it seems, is a very different place from Planet Earth. [the same might be said for Planet Phillips too – Brendan] Hutton’s finding that the dossier was not ‘sexed up’ in the course of the redrafting that preceded its public release is preposterous. Successive changes were made in successive drafts. Virtually without exception, these hardened the text and strengthened the impression that Saddam’s alleged weaponry posed a threat to this country. If that is not ‘sexing up’ it is difficult to know what would be. Blair gained nothing by treating the people like children when he could have treated them like adults. He lost. Despite Hutton’s encomiums, he is now a broken-backed prime minister. His credibility is in shreds. His American ally, announcing his own inquiry into the failings of pre-war intelligence, has hung him out to dry. Above all, he has fanned the flames of public distrust.” Apologies - that last one was from me - I can't bear anonymous posts! Posted by: Brendan at February 4, 2004 07:10 PMMelanie, Found your site about an hour ago. Have spent that time reading through two of your posts and the comments. Terrific writing and discussion. Especially enjoyed and agreed with Frank Pulley and yourself. Thank you. Posted by: Ingrid Jones at February 5, 2004 10:30 PM |
