Iraq inquiry: Secret Government documents could contradict public evidence

[sabra]

Source: telegraph uk

Tens of thousands of secret documents could contradict evidence given by key members of the Blair government to the Iraq inquiry, its chairman Sir John Chilcot has suggested.

Sir John disclosed that the panel was examining far more documents than previously thought, with more "arriving every week". Their access to the papers was "unrestricted", while a "limited number" of them might be published

Sir John said the confidential papers would form the core of the inquiry into the Iraq war and show “what really went on” in the build up to the start of the conflict in 2003.

He said: “Many of them are highly classified. They allow us to shine a bright light into seldom-seen corners of the Government machine, revealing what really went on behind the scenes, before, during and after the Iraq conflict.”

Sir John that the inquiry team would examine the documents “over the next few months”, adding: “That will enable us to see where the evidence joins together and where there are gaps.”

...

He also said the inquiry would look to visit Iraq and quiz key members of the Bush administration and Iraq veterans later this year. Possible witnesses could include Colin Powell, the former US secretary of state.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7190630/Iraq-inquiry-Secret-Government-documents-could-contradict-public-evidence.html

[tomm2thumbs]

1. at least SOME country's govt is interested in finding and telling the truth

[No Elephants]

2. If they don't prosecute, though, the message is: you CAN do these things and get away with it.

In fact, in the U.S., we now have the roadmap.

No one who can point to a legal opinion will be prosecuted, so, first, get a legal opinion. Second, lawyers giving the opinions will not be prosecuted, either. In fact, they will be rewarded, maybe with a federal judgeship.

So, the lawyers don't have to worry about what kind of legal opinion they give, either.

Carte blanche. (Even better than carte d'or.)




The cost of a legal opinion? A federal salary.


Getting away with war crimes? Priceless.

[24601]

6. The day we criminalize anyone's Opinion, the 1st Amendment

is dead, period, end of story. n/t

[shraby]

7. That's not criminalizing anyone's Opinion. Read your

constitution..constitutional laws were broken and that's not opinion. The Geneva Conventions were violated and as a treaty, that's a part of our constitution. Broken law #1
Outing a CIA agent..Broken law #2
Agressive war..Broken law #3

I could go on and on and none of these are opinions, but broken laws.

[Mechatanketra]

8. Bullhockey.

Legal advice given to a government official is not an "opinion" in the same fashion as, say, "Taxes should be lower" or "Pink is pretty." If an official asks for advice, it's reasonable to assume that advice may be acted upon; if the advice one gives is a recommendation to commit other crimes, then one is culpable for those crimes — you are a co-conspirator.

To illustrate: Boss Caponi has heard Joey the Snitch is snitching on him. He calls up his lawyer Sal. "Sal, I think Joey's been snitching on me -- I tell you, I wanna kill that sumbitch."

Sal says "Speaking as you're lawyer, Boss, you can totally do that. No jury would convict you, the sumbitch has it coming."

Then Caponi goes out and orders Joey whacked.

Now, the Washington reasoning is, Sal's just giving a "legal opinion", so he can't be prosecuted. And Caponi is only doing what his lawyer told him was legal, so he can't be held accountable.

This logic would make the entire concept of criminal law dead, period, end of story. Nobody's guilty of anything if their lawyer said it was OK!

[24601]

10. Double Bull Hockey

Look at your own example....

"No jury would convict you" is totally different than, "It's legal to whack him." And in your scenario, the lawyer never said it was legal. The jury may find that as a matter of FACT that Sal really did not believe what he is saying, and thus he is a conspirator rather than a legal adviser. However; if he did believe his bad advice, there isn't a law that criminalizes his opinion.

I never said that relying on bad legal advice exempts you from the law. I am only saying that giving an opinion that you believe to be the truth cannot be prosecuted.

If you can, please cite the US Code that makes it so. Without a constitutionally valid criminal law, the act cannot be criminal, period.

And a treaty may enable a government to pass laws; however, it does not by itself create criminal code nor does it guarantee their constitutionality.

If it's your job to give advice - you might get fired for bad advice honestly rendered, but not jailed.

If you have a USSC case to the contrary, cite it.

[tomm2thumbs]

12. well put - reasonable thinking and puts reactionary nay-sayers in their place

great analogy for folks who need it presented 'on their level' too. (snicker)

[aquart]

3. Wish it was ours.

So ashamed it isn't ours.

By not distracting them and using up their energy defending themselves against prosecution, we gave them the idea that we could be walked on like planks.

[tomm2thumbs]

26. exactly - we have lost the higher ground and losing more footing on other things day by day

sad, really

[avaistheone1]

4. Truth and justice on these issues doesn't seem to have too many

fans on this side of the pond.


But, I do applaud Great Britain efforts. I hope the floodgates open and all the info about that Iraq fraud comes out.

[winyanstaz]

5. I wish them every success.....

I guess England still believes in the laws.
Too bad we have lost our way here.

[fascisthunter]

9. .

[DavidDvorkin]

11. Oh, boy

This could be really big.

On the other hand, I've thought that often before and been disappointed.

[Wilms]

13. .

[Enrique]

14. UK Iraq inquiry turns to Bush officials

Source: Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020802785.html

LONDON -- Britain's inquiry into the Iraq war will seek meetings with former members of the Bush administration after taking evidence from Tony Blair and other key British officials, the panel's chairman said Monday.

John Chilcot, head of the inquiry, confirmed that he hopes to obtain evidence from officials in the United States, but did not name specific individuals, or specify if his panel hopes to put questions to former President George W. Bush himself.

"We cannot take formal evidence as such from foreign nationals, but we can of course have discussions with them," Chilcot said, bringing to a close the inquiry's first set of public evidence sessions.

The hearings began in November and have seen Blair, current MI6 intelligence agency chief John Sawers, the head of Britain's military Jock Stirrup and a host of ministers and government officials offer testimony.

(...)

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020802785.html

---

As if any of them will be bothered to participate.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

15. UK to war criminals... you might be above your law, but you are

not above international law.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. Where are the international lawmakers?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

22. Yes, where indeed??? Their site looks impressive but just who

is on their fair game list?
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC?lan=en-GB

[Solly Mack]

16. k/r

[rfranklin]

17. Ha-ha! They expect to get the truth out of those cockroaches?

They should be in the docket at the International Criminal Court.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. the untouchables!

[tanyev]

18. Sorry, but former President Bush is much too busy speaking at

Get Motivated! Business Seminars and the 2010 National Grocers Association Convention to fly to a country that doesn't have decent barbecue and have discussions with a bunch of people who talk funny. (Bangers? Heh, heh, heh)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. he should be behind bars!

[libodem]

23. Hope they are expecting to be lied to

They can not possibly think any one from that crew would tell the truth without being waterboarded 87 times. Get on it!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. another whitewash

[Vidar]

25. Kudos to Britain for going after its war criminals.