John Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 http://www.iomtoday.co.im/latest-national-...utes.5010462.jp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't think there is a person in the UK who does not think that Government was manipulated by Blair and his cronies into going to war on very shaky legal and moral grounds. If democracy was a thing to celebrate in this decision then the minutes would be released. I think it is a real insult added to injury for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't think there is a person in the UK who does not think that Government was manipulated by Blair and his cronies into going to war on very shaky legal and moral grounds. If democracy was a thing to celebrate in this decision then the minutes would be released. I think it is a real insult added to injury for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I think in general that cabinet minutes shouldn't be released until after the protagonists have left the stage. If ministers believe that everything said will pop up in the public domain everything said will be said with that in mind. Controversial options won't be considered nor will views that dissent from Govt policy. All discussion will move off the record and will be lost to posterity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 A government can only go to war with the agreement of the people, no-one was forced to go to Iraq or Afghanistan As Declan wrote, cabinet would be stifled if everything was released. At that level the decisions are very complex and information is gained from agencies that rely on secrecy to be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The government has ackowledged a need for an public enquiry - I think that is the place for all these documents to be analysed - it would be a very poor enquiry if they didn't look into such things as the alleged Attorney General's doubts are central to the whole decision to go to war. I will just about accept their arguments about cabinet government at the moment, but think Brown has to create a commission in this parliament - in my mind it is right for it to be set up under the current administration rather than after an election where there are risks that it would be seen as a witch hunt if the Tories get back in. The enquiry must have a wide remit and be headed by an influential figure - Brown, if he's any balls, should robustly set it up and make it a positive contribution to his re-election campaign. If he doesn't do that I fully expect and want the Tories to show up his unwillingness to justify the most controversial decision made in a cabinet he was a central figure in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 A government can only go to war with the agreement of the people, no-one was forced to go to Iraq or AfghanistanAs Declan wrote, cabinet would be stifled if everything was released. At that level the decisions are very complex and information is gained from agencies that rely on secrecy to be effective. Not sure about agreement of the people as they were never asked ! however what these minutes are about is how that "agreement" was obtained, I do acknowledge that there are secrecy issues within a government but I think everyone appreciates that the issue here is how Blair obtained legal consent and cabinet backing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I see the DTL are into this freedom of information lark, I've just had an advert from Villa Gaiety with about 1000 other email addresses CC'd in it ! ffs, don't they teach people blind copy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I see the DTL are into this freedom of information lark, I've just had an advert from Villa Gaiety with about 1000 other email addresses CC'd in it ! ffs, don't they teach people blind copy You should report it to the Data Protection Registrar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I see the DTL are into this freedom of information lark, I've just had an advert from Villa Gaiety with about 1000 other email addresses CC'd in it ! ffs, don't they teach people blind copy You should report it to the Data Protection Registrar. I have, and I hope the other 999 do as well (unfortunately there are a quantity of errors in the email addresses which doesn't let it send a cc to all the list) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Justice Secretary Jack Straw said he could not permit the release of records from 2003 discussions over the invasion of Iraq because it would cause too much "damage" to democracy. Allowing publication to go ahead would cause "serious damage to Cabinet government, an essential principle of British democracy". Ah yes, the difference between democracy and British democracy. I really do not see why this information should be guarded. I wonder how much these minutes could exonerate a government which has embarked on terrorism and aggression in Iraq if they had good reason. They would love to demostrate how right they were if they had the opportunity. But I do accept that in British democracy, those in government never feel that they should adequately explain themselves to the public. A government can only go to war with the agreement of the people, no-one was forced to go to Iraq or Afghanistan How so? They was not a referendum or any direct decisionmaking by the people. At that level the decisions are very complex and information is gained from agencies that rely on secrecy to be effective. I don't think decisionmaking over Iraq were complex. I think in general that cabinet minutes shouldn't be released until after the protagonists have left the stage. If ministers believe that everything said will pop up in the public domain everything said will be said with that in mind. Hmm, maybe given the gravity of the war the minutes should be released specifically for the Iraq War. Is this practical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ermo Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 A government can only go to war with the agreement of the people, no-one was forced to go to Iraq or AfghanistanAs Declan wrote, cabinet would be stifled if everything was released. At that level the decisions are very complex and information is gained from agencies that rely on secrecy to be effective. The Queen has the final say so doesn't she (via Privy Council etc) - The Armed Forces take an oath to her not the Government The information you talk about was wrong and proved to be wrong in the most public way possible so isn't it like bolting the door once the horse has fled? They're probably more uncomfortable about the information on the pro-war lobbying groups being made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I reluctantly agree with the decision - cabinet minutes should remain sealed until well after the event. Such records may rightly be exempted from release under the FOI Act: http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance/index.htm For once I will side with the Tories - while I agree with the decision regarding disclosure of these documents, I absolutely believe that the decision to go to war should be the subject of a formal inquiry: the inquiry that, due to its terms of reference, Hutton was not allowed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I reluctantly agree with the decision - cabinet minutes should remain sealed until well after the event. Why is that? I don't think I understand your and other posters points of view on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I don't think there is a person in the UK who does not think that Government was manipulated by Blair and his cronies into going to war on very shaky legal and moral grounds. If democracy was a thing to celebrate in this decision then the minutes would be released. I think it is a real insult added to injury for those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. So the vote in the House of Commons on the 18 th March 2003 which went: For - 412 Agin - 149 was all a smoke and mirrors job or like the mornings when I wake up next to a Cheerleader from the Dallas Cowboys?????? I would really like one of the long-haired, crusty, dope-smoking, tree-hugging, degenerate, god-damned commie pinko hippies on here to explain how it is that Dominic Grieve QC MP Conservative Shadow Attorney General and Shadow Home Secretary got up on his hind legs yesterday and said "We accept that the Secretary of State's decision is the right one". Let me help you here. Those of us living in Reality Land know that there are times when those in The Cabinet have to make very difficult decisions to get hard, ugly things done. Not because they want to, but because they have to - otherwise nothing changes. Decisions like that get impossibly difficult if you have a monkey on your back hence Grieve's backing Jack Straw - which must have really hurt him - hahahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.