Outrage over secrecy, accusations of cover-up
by Chris Ames
Many of this morning’s papers cover the revelation – or otherwise – that the government was told that Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons had been disassembled. Quite a few pick up on Nick Clegg’s accusation that the government’s protocol for the release – or otherwise – of information is “suffocating” the Inquiry.
I first raised this issue three weeks ago and it’s good to see it taken seriously.
A Leader in the Daily Mail, Day Two of the Iraq inquiry and the cover up begins, says:
“…incredibly, as LibDem leader Nick Clegg has uncovered, civil servants and witnesses have been given nine separate grounds on which to block the publication of damaging information, with the abject agreement of inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot.
This means intelligence documents, crucial to the way the Government ’sexed up’ the case for war, may be kept under wraps.
It may even be possible for Ministers to block the release of papers about our troops’ inadequate equipment.
Doesn’t this make a mockery of the entire exercise?”
The Independent’s Andrew Grice talks of “The inquiry cover-up that will keep us in the dark”. He says:
“A previously undisclosed agreement between Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry and the Government gives Whitehall the final say on what information the investigation can release into the public domain. Mr Brown, who initially wanted the inquiry held in private, was forced to climb down earlier this year after an outcry and promised that most of its sessions would be heard in public. He said information would be withheld only when it would compromise national security.
“However, a protocol agreed by the inquiry and the Government includes nine wide-ranging reasons under which Whitehall departments can refuse to publish documents disclosed to the investigation. Crucially, disputes between Sir John and the Government over disclosures would be resolved by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell.”
Grice adds a new quote from Clegg: ‘This is tantamount to Whitehall putting a blindfold over the whole process. Chilcot and his colleagues have been completely rolled over and have allowed their hands to be bound before they have even started work. The Government will act as judge and jury on what will be disclosed. That is wholly unacceptable.’
And a further comment: “Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism laws and a Liberal Democrat, said: ‘The protocol has the potential of turning a tiger into a mouse.’ He said the reasons for withholding publication were so broad that ‘almost everything of interest’ could be blocked.”
Grice adds that: “Sources close to the Chilcot inquiry denied that it had been muzzled and said it was happy with the agreement with the Government. They insisted that the presumption was that information would be put in the public domain and that the protocol was designed to underline that. They said that they would ‘kick up a stink’ if they felt documents were being withheld unreasonably. If the Cabinet Office blocked publication, the inquiry could announced that this had happened and why.
“Inquiry sources stressed that the agreement would not stop its members having access to sensitive documents – only whether they could be published during the proceedings or in the final report.”
Whether documents will be released or blocked remains to be seen. But the Inquiry still doesn’t seem to understand that the protocol could stop it having access to “confidential” documents.
3 Responses to “Outrage over secrecy, accusations of cover-up”
Comment from andrewsimon
Time November 26, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Stan –
If there was more evidence that Iraq had possession of these weapons in 2002/03 why didn’t William Ehrman present this then? It looks like it was him who was dissembling, not us and the media.
Are you sure that there is any such ’sensitive information’ to be withheld (for any reason)?
Comment from CaliforniaGirl
Time November 26, 2009 at 3:48 pm
I have a very simple question; what, pray tell, or whom, is this Inquiry supposed to benefit? Why are you spending money, efforts and time on something that is over and done with? I mean, Iraq had a population of approximately twenty-two million in 2003 and the British forces consisted of about 4,000 when they went in. How can such a small army INVADE a country of that size? I think you British are making too much out of this. I think you make Tony Blair into someone much larger than the man actually is. All you did was help out the States, along with 25 to 27 other countries, in our endeavor to rid our country and the entire West of a real threat. This Inquiry stinks of a kangaroo court that seeks vengeance against their own. Vengeance for what? You have done nothing wrong. We have done nothing wrong. Let us get on with solving the real problems of the world like the economy, starvation and malaria. Let us be grateful for the democracy forged from the good works of our soldiers and our leaders. Let us keep helping Iraq to that end. Let us look to the future.
Comment from Stan Rosenthal
Time November 26, 2009 at 11:59 am
The way the dissembling of weapons evidence has been reported is typical of the cherry picking approach of the media and yourselves regarding points that fit their and your agenda. At the same hearing the Foreign Office official also made the point that this information was only one small part of the information coming in and that decisions had to be made on the totality of the evidence. This caveat was of course not reported.
This partisan approach of the media probably explains the decision to hold back sensitive information until the deliberations of the Inquiry have been concluded.
It is clear that any anti-war piece of evidence is going to be hyped up while any caveats or pro-war evidence will be ignored. In these circumstances fair treatment of what is being revealed is becoming impossible, as the Ban Blair-baiting petitioners anticipated.