Chilcott
The following was not allowed to appear on the Guardian comments page.
I
wonder if the (necessarily) secret MI6 and its principals (and
principles for that matter!) get the attention they deserve?
Sir
Richard Dearlove was head of MI6 between 1999 and 2004, and Sir John
Scarlett was chairman of the joint intelligence committee from 2001
to 2004 and thereafter to 2009, head of Service. They are therefore
both in highly influential and central roles during the critical
period. Both have given evidence to Chilcott. Although both have
semi-public C.V.'s, their actual involvement and influence, is
shrouded, particularly as it relates to the co-ordination with other
agencies and the extent to which it was known the stated causes for
action were flimsy or false. This observation applies even more to
their colleagues and employees of the organisation, who beside a
couple of whistle-blowers, are not heard from at all.
Both
Dearlove and Scarlett have had long and glittering careers in the
Security Service, the former at one stage head of the Washington
Station and Scarlett head of the Moscow one. On the face of it, it
appears there may have been a degree of tension between the two
figures based upon Scarlett's close working relationship with
Alastair Campbell on the disputed "sexed-up" and fraudulent
"dossier", on which so much reliance was placed. Sir
Richard is on record as telling ministers in July 2002, that in the
US "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"
by which we may assume he thought the same was happening here. He has
apparently written a book on the subject that he proposes to publish
(if the government lets him!) after Chilcott reports, which might or
might not be another contributory factor to the delay in publication.
He is also on record as thinking the Muslim terrorist threat has been
over-stated and counter-productive in security terms.
Meanwhile
Sir John, now a Director of Times Newspapers, was reported by the
Guardian in 2011 as stating in a memo to Tony Blair's advisors at the
time, "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD
Iraq is not that exceptional". Of course this rather infers that
the story told to the public to justify invasion, was at the time,
known to be either unreliable or false.
(Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Scarlett
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dearlove
This talk by Annie Machon to the Cambridge Union in 2011 is also very revealing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECUfwTaq4mQ
Tim
Veater
This one was!
And
in this connection, as to the actions (or inactions) of our secret
security services a proper, independent, searching and swift inquiry
is still required into the small but related matter of the death of a
certain Mr Kelly, the London Tube Bombing of 7/7 (the relatives of
the bereaved are still waiting) and the suspicious death of Gareth
Williams employed by MI6 at the time (2010) And whilst they are at it
they might like to throw in the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher
(1984), the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, incorrectly
blamed on Gaddafi of course, the apparent suicide of Stephen Milligan
in 1994, the Chevaline Al Hilli killings, etc! not to mention all the
recent strange events in which we are implicated if only by virtue of
not objecting to the lies put out about them. We could in fact set up
a permanent department of inquiries. Perhaps this will be one of
Jeremy Corbyn's first acts on appointment.
Yes, I agree and that was implicit in this and an earlier comment regarding leading individuals in the security service that the Guardian (for some unexplained reason) have seen fit to delete. Strange as nothing in it wasn't already in the public domain. I am apparently considered worthy to have my comments "pre-moderated"! I don't know whether to take this as a compliment of a criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.