h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=91

Discuss.

no name calling
no campaigning
no heckling
no slogans
and no spitting.


Thank you.

Owww... you taken all the fun out of it ~ is waterbombing and eggthrowing still allowed?

Weapons of Mass Destruction are not allowed on this thread either.

Did he fall, or was he pushed?. that is the question.......

Novo

Actually that question has been circling my head for the last few days - who is leaking all this stuff?

Firstly there was the leak of the letter with the six reservations, then yesterday came the extract from the March 7th advice which is the equivical version never shown to either Parliament of Cabinet prior to the vote on the war.

Someone has access to this material and is choosing to release it now.

Dear me what short memories we have. Isn't the style reminiscent of Taking Control of the Agenda. Isn't there a DNA running through it. Oh what a surprise, who was that lurking in the background of a recent TB televison clip. Why non other than everybody's favourite Press Secretary, sorry consultant, sorry sorry personal adviser Mr Alastiar Campbell.

well yes I quite agree. shortmemoryism is a danger. I hope I'm not falling into that particular trap.

I am often given to wondering if this is all part of the infamous masochism strategy - play up the significance of the war advice, and if anyone watching the news conference just now will know, build up the denial of the importance of the legal opinion only to concede the point when you are guranteed interest in it because (as TB argued) it proves his point that the iraq war was legal not the point of the oppostition not because the AG changed his mind (piffle no consequence he would say) but because he reached a conclusion and that conclusion is what informed government policy.

I was personally of the opinion that pressing for the full legal papers to be released was a bit of a fool's errand because it was a) until today unlikly to happen b) if it ever happened it was unlikely to show anything conclusive.

I personally feel that the vote in parliament to commit troops was predicated on unreliable informatino about WMD and legal opinion that while in conclusion decided that there was a legal basis for war, did not give up of any of the equivication that existed about the issue beforehand. The removal of caveats and weighed opions is a thread that runs through both the intelligence basis for war and the lgeal basis.

As for taking control of the agenda vis a vis the masochism straegy - the tend seems to be deny the tories have any purchase on the issue in contrast to labour since both parties supported the decision to go to war. The same is not true of the lib dems so they are nearly always excluded from mention on this point.

I also detect now the government "line" (see John Reid on today's Daily Politics) is that cabinet did not need to see the 07.03 document at the discussions because they had the AG at the cabinet meeting in person.

There he was quizzed - but what answers would he have given? Would they have been equivicating as the 07.03 was or would he have reiterrated his unequivical view that the war was legal?

I don't see how the AG's appearence at cabinet usurps the requirment for the cabinet and parliament to know of the AG's equivications.

and since Downing Street has now conceded that the advice can be published after all...

here it is in full and unabridged.

Happy reading.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_04_05_attorney_general.pdf

I suppose the big question now is will anybody prosecute the UK for going to war illegally. No wonder Bush was keen not to endorse the International Court.

DOES THE LAGALITY OF THE WAR REALLY MATTER ? WHAT MATTERS IS THAT THE WORLD WILL BE A SAFER PLACE FOR US TO BRING UP OUR CHILDREN WITHOUT THE LIKES OF SADDAM . ALSO THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS DONT REALLY CARE WE TEND TO CARE ABOUT THE STATE OF SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS THAT HAVE BENEFITTED FROM THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT

The modern civilised world is founded on a legal code that, in international terms, centres on the UN. Where do you draw the line. Lets invade France.

clam down WASSAJ no need to shout.

I can say now *finally* having read the AG's original legal advice that it is a dramatic turn of events in that it is clear why the army requested a firmer conclusion either for or against war becase as this document makes plain, the AG was to use the word of the moment 'equivicating' about whether the law had any legal grounds.

The focus will be on the summary between summary which was leaked yesterday - IMO the legal arguement is followable if one tries.

It reads as dividing the case for war between the so called "revivial argument" from previous military engagements with Iraq to justify breaking the ceasefire agreed to after the first gulf war, and the view contested between notably the US and France over whether elements agreed in 1441 automatically gave an assent to war; further to this whether that judgement was to be reached in another council debate or whether individual member states, in the absense of agreement, could make that judgement on their own on so called "objective facts."

For my money hower it is the final paragraph relating to proportionality that is the most interesting as it states specifically that removing saddam from power would be legitimate **IF** this were necessary and proportional to secure disarmament. Regime Change alone, the AG is quite specific, is not a valid military objective.

In short, no threat from WMD was ever proven, removing saddam may be proclaimed as a good thing rightly or wrongly - the point is that on its own that is no case for removing him. Speaking personally whether someone has or has not benefitted from one government or another is an entirely personal decision, as too the issue(s) on which they decide to accord one politcal party or one particular candidate their vote. MY issue is Iraq - it is my opportunity to hold that decision, and the parties who took it, to account. For that decision, countless thousands lie dead.

So yes, it really does matter.

well i still think people should be more concerned with local matters

Hell Wassaj

You wouldn't say that if you or your family had been on the receiving end of what we and the coalition have done in Iraq. I find your lack of any apparent concern as appalling as our PM's.

Novo

Some views being expresed on R4 at lunchtime that this is the last straw for TB and he might resign after the election.

Cobblers!

The world is no safer now than it was when Saddam was in power ( note the world, not Iraq). 911 was not perpertrated by him. The real target should have been Osama Bin Laden and his acolytes, but with all the available technology we haven't been able to round them up. So it's OK to kill thousands of innocents as an alternative is it?

Novo

To prevent confusion folks ,my post 17 was in reply to post 11
Novo
Still

Understood.

The Question Time debate should be interesting this evening.

In fact thinking about that has led me back to wondering about who is the leak.

The Labour party finally published the full AG's advice, seemingly on a whim. It has until today been entirely reticent about doing so, insisting that parliamentary convention forbade them any need to release the document. The leaks over the weekend of the 3 page summary drawn from within the full advice, soon put pay to that and so presumably the government saw little or no point in retaining the remainder of the document. To do so would have been a little redundant.

However, come Question Time tonight TB will no longer have the charge haning over him of 'publish and be damned' he can and I predict he will say something along the lines of, ' I have published and I have been exhonerated'.

That in itself is an exageration. If he chooses to go down that route however, in one swoop it cuts of the primary line of attack over the secrecy - it does however open up new flanks about the facts of the legal advice and there Blair is of firmer ground because although the 07.03 document is chock full of caveats and cautious debate it also lacks a full conclusion. Whereas the full legal advice as presented to Cabinet and Parliament though it omitted of no such equivication, it does contain the AG's final conclusion - which is that the war was legal. Blair can therefore maintain, despite the differences between the two documents, that on 07.03 the AG did not reach a firm conclusion and therefore he did not subsequently "change his mind" about the legal status of the war between then and the 17th, and that the war was legal because the AG concluded that it was.

The specific charges he will have to defend against are: What was it that met the AG's concerns about proving Saddam was in material breach - Downing Street provided him with the evidence he sought which we know now was itself faulty and of questionable merit. There is a sort of double-feeback where the legal advice that sures up the intelligence case is itself informed by the intelligence.

On a wider point, TB will have to defend the events where if Cabinet or Parliament had been aware of the caveats preceeding the information in the dossiers AND of the opinion of the Attoney General - would the vote in the House have been cast in favour of war, or would the ammendment saying the case was not yet proven have been carried instead?

Can't see TB saying anything on Question Time he didn't say on the ITV news last night "The worlds a better place with Saddam Hussein in jail" and "i won't apologise for the war.A decision had to be made"etc
Much as i'd like to think a prime minister would actually answer questions and give specific reasons for what happened and why decisions were made.There's no way i'll be holding my breathe.
I hope someone asks him about the story which says the decision to go to war was made in 2002 by Bush and Blair.