| Author |
Message |
    
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 201
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 11:28 pm: | |
'At Chilcot, Jack Straw claimed to have proposed supporting, but not joining, America in Iraq. As it was, his overt backing for the war was, he boasts, critical since "if I had refused, the UK's participation in the military action would not in practice have been possible". Given his doubts and the weight of legal advice coming his way, it is hard to see him as anything but a man who lacked the courage of his convictions.'
'Like all bad wars, those in Iraq and Afghanistan taint any who touch them. In the next few days, thousands of British troops will, yet again, have to fight to clear some Taliban for a while from some patch of Helmand. Ask the purpose of this fight and the answer makes no sense.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/11/miliband-mi5-terrorism-war-c hilcot |
devonboy
Member
Username: Morgan144
Post Number: 74
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 12:57 pm: | |
....and his justification for all this - "when I was at the Home Office, I did illegal things all the time, got taken to court and won!" It beggars belief, sometimes. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 196
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 12:47 pm: | |
On Tuesday, Sir Michael Wood, the chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office from 2001 to 2006, said he warned the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that invading Iraq without UN backing would ‘amount to the crime of aggression’ and could lead to the prosecution of British soldiers and politicians. Mr Straw rejected the warning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247407/Chilcot-War-Inquiry-Professor-la unch-Nuremberg-war-crimes-prosecution-Blair.html |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 189
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 11:35 am: | |
Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan:
'It is the most perverse of lies by Straw to argue that the fact that the Germans and French did not table their draft proved that 1441 authorised war, when we had told them not to table their draft because 1441 did not authorise war.
I read with enormous care and in real time every single word of the scores of telegrams on the effort to secure the second resolution. Not one word gave any hint at all that a second resolution might not be necessary to authorise war. There was absolutely no mention in telegrams to Embassies of the notion that UNSCR 1441 was a sufficient basis for war, and no second resolution needed, until many weeks after 1441 was passed, just before the invasion.
(...)
It's a small point, but Straw's lie that upset me most personally was:
"I don't in the least mind people disagreeing with me, indeed I encourage it, but I do ask them to be loyal, because, otherwise, you can't operate any kind of governmental system."
I disagreed with Straw, over the issue of the use of torture to gain intelligence in the "War on Terror". I was very loyal. I kept my disagreement entirely internal and argued it in top secret telegrams and internal policy meetings. As a result of my disagreeing, Straw attempted to have me framed on false charges, destroying my health in the process and leaking false accusations to the tabloids to ruin my reputation too. When my name was finally cleared, they had to give me six year's salary to settle.
I defy anyone to read Murder in Samarkand and say Straw is not a liar.'
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ |
|
