Secret Courts (Iraq Enquiry)

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Secret Courts (Iraq Enquiry)
« on: March 13, 2013, 10:10:08 PM »

It now seems certain that as soon as Kenneth Clarke QC MP has his Secret Courts in place, they will abandon the Iraq Inquiry.
 In particular those Tory ministers who signed Public Interest Immunity Certificates back in 1992 at time of the Matrix-Churchill trial so as not to let the cat out of the bag over the nukes getting lost / stolen back
 Also the private investors in that deal to buy the three atomic boms from Armscor, and prior to shipment to Oman.
 They included ....Ken Clarke QC MP, Peter Lilley MP, Michael Heseltine MP...Malcolm Rifkind MP...Geoffrey Howe MP. mentioned in Gerald James' book...In the Public Interest.
 Lord McAlpine.....David Wilshire MP...Asil Nadir....Mark Thatcher.....Al-Fayed (Dodi's Dad)....
 Possibly Lord Patten....Lord Archer as well...
 ...and certainly Margaret Thatcher
 On 28th Nov 1990 she was tricked in signing the Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) for the UK Government to buy three 'cylinders' after delivery to Oman.
 She had no idea that each 'cylinder' was to be an atomic bomb.
 Those Tory grandees all made a lot of money after the payout by the Bank of England to Astra , and after the three 'cylinders; had been delivered to Oman just before the first Gulf War..
 The DTI/MoD tasked Dr. David Kelly to oversee the shipments from Pelindaba to Durban to Oman.
 In July 2003 that became his fatal secret.

Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:37 AM
 Subject: How soon will Ken Clarke be able to have his first Secret Court?.... and implement Jacob's Law

 Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent-

Lib Dem peer attacks 'fairweather friends' who quit over secret courts

 Lord Lester condemns spate of resignations from party among those who oppose justice and security bill ,

Tuesday 12 March 2013 19.58 GMT

 The vote on 26 March, however, coincides with the Jewish religious festival of Passover when a number of peers will be absent, including some key opponents of the bill in its current form.
 If with the above careful stage-management this goes through the House of Lords to plan.....
 How soon after 26th March will Ken Clarke QC MP be able to set-up his first Secret Court?
 Presumably thereafter Sir John Chilcott will be able to announce the abandonment of his Iraq Inquiry....and let a Secret Court take over ? in November 1992 when they abandoned the Matrix-Churchill trial with its infamous Public Information Immunity (PII) certificates,....
 ....... and replaced it with the Scott Inquiry.
 The whole thing seems to be following 'Jacob's Law' as spelt out on 4th Nov 2010 in our local weekly Somerset Guardian.
 In short, those that get in our way we can still have arrested and shipped out.
 Then Jacob Rees-Mogg MP wrote:-

 When Security is at Odds with Liberty

   The debate between the needs of security and the liberties of a free people is once again central to political life.

   Several times in  British history rights have been sacrificed for security.

   During the Napoleonic  wars  Habeas Corpus (which limits the time somebody may be imprisoned without trial) was suspended .

   This ensured potential French spies could be locked up. Equally in World War-2 Regulation 18b was introduced which allowed for Nazi sympathisers to be interned.

  In the current battle against terrorism there are ?control orders?  which allow dangerous terror suspects to be kept under a form of house arrest. All of these offend a basic principle of Magna Carta but equally are proportionate to the threat we do or have faced.

   However, the law that allowed the police to stop anyone at random and led to hundreds of thousands of searches but not for terrorism failed.

   The proposed Identity Card was equally pointless. Both of these measures could even have proved counter-productive as effective law enforcement requires consent as well as force. Neither could be as useful as a tough immigration policy that would keep dangerous people out.

   Perhaps all policy decisions are a matter of balance but it is particularly true in this field . I am a great believer in our historic liberties and fear that the terrorist win when we limit them. Nonetheless, sometimes emergency measures are suitable and better protect our liberties in the long term.

   I am confident that the Government is getting it right at the moment.
 In my opinion after all of this, there are still some other angles on this that they may well find then that they have overlooked?
 It could drag o till after the general election in 2015?
 One must also not forget what Michael Heseltine wrote in his book....Life in the Jungle ...and in particular the way that he attacked  the late Lord William Rees-Mogg and his opposition to those PIIs.
 see below.

 In his book, Heseltine wrote:-

 The account of all of this hit the headlines when the trial itself collapsed in November 1992 because Alan Clark, the ex-MP and former DTI  (= Dept of Trade & Industry) Minister changed his testimony.  I was appalled that information, of a cover-up, of being willing to see innocent men go to jail, as the press would have it. All this was precisely what I had refused to do. I explained my position at length and under detailed cross-examination on the Newsnight programme of BBC2. It made not a blind bit of difference. From the heavyweight Fleet Street commentators, such as Lord Rees-Mogg, down to the usual Fleet Street rabble the lies were repeated and repeated. There was no protection for ministers.

 That same month John Major appointed Sir Richard Scott to conduct an examination into the wider question of the whole ?arms to Iraq? affair and whether or not the export conditions had been changed without notifying Parliament. Until that examination was concluded, we had to sit and take whatever the Opposition dished out to us. Robin Cook, the Shadow Trade and Industry spokesman, took particular delight in constantly repeating for the next three years the wholly misleading phrase ?gagging orders? to describe PII certificates. He knew full well that we could not reply until Sir Richard concluded his investigation. Indeed, we were the ones who were gagged.


 In the event the Inquiry ultimately revealed the truth of my position as I have recorded it here. Sir Richard was generous in referring to me in his Report, which was finally published in February 1966: ?It is plain from Mr Heseltine?s written and oral evidence that he formed the view that the documents ought to be disclosed for use by the defence and that he expected the Court so to be informed.? In conclusion, he said ?Mr Heseltine?s reluctance to sign the PII Certificate in case he thereby deprived the defendants of access to material documents evidenced an instinct for the requirements of justice that was fully justified and corresponded in my opinion, with the legal principles correctly understood.?


 The publication of the Report, or rather the long delay before its publication, caused further headaches for the government,    however.

 It is frequently the fate of an administration to live under the shadow of an inquiry which it has itself created ? and that was certainly our experience with the Scott investigation. I doubt if anyone at the start thought that Sir Richard Scott would take as long as he did to conduct hearings (mostly in public) and to produce his Report. It took over 3 years- which we had had to endure in silence ? before it was finally published and the government was able to make its own comments on the learned judge?s findings. In delivering the Commons statement on the result of the Inquiry on behalf of the government Ian Lang, my successor at the DTI, (= Dept of Trade & Industry) did extremely well and we were able to survive even a bravura performance from the shadow Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook. One week later we squeezed home by one vote on a full-dress censure motion put down by the Opposition.


 By the time the Scott Inquiry reported I had become Deputy Prime Minister. I had also kept press cuttings. I took legal opinion as to the advisability of suing a number of newspapers for libel.  The redoubtable George Carman QC was consulted. To my dismay, he told me that it is not enough for a minister to show that what has been said about him is untrue. He has also to prove that it was said with malice. On that count there was no way I could make progress in the courts of law. Politics is a rough old game.

Source--Tony Gosling via  "Marlborough Research Group"                             

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk