The ghost of David Kelley continues to haunt

There was a Parliamentary debate on the dossier on March 18 last year following which the British Government decided unequivocally to join forces with the United States in taking military action against Saddam Hussein, which both sides described as pre-emptive strike. Now consider Mr Tony Blair's admission during the Commons debate of February 4 on the Hutton Inquiry -- barely a week after the Commission's report absolved him and Downing Street of any wrong-doing in the David Kelley affair -- that he did not know the claim that Iraq could deploy WMD within 45 minutes referred only to short-range battlefield arms. "I have already indicated exactly when this came to my attention," he said: "It was not before the debate on March 18 last year." As a result of that debate, MPs voted in favour of war and on March 20 British and American troops invaded Iraq. So what Mr Blair was now saying is that on the eve of the war he did not know that the so-called weapons of mass destruction were no more than battlefield weapons of short-range deployability. The Tory leader Michael Howard lost no time in seizing upon Mr Blair's remark, accusing him of a "serious dereliction of duty" over the war in Iraq as he had deliberately chosen not to ask the "simple and obvious question" to establish exactly what kind of weapons were referred to in the Government dossier on Saddam Hussein's arsenal. "If I were Prime Minister and had failed to ask this basic question," he added: "I would seriously be considering my position." However, although Mr Howard's claim that the Prime Minister's admission provided ample grounds for demanding his resignation may sound like political rhetoric, the words of the former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon also raise new question marks over Mr Blair's claim to have been unaware of the true nature of Iraqi weapons when the Commons voted for war last year. Mr Cook told the Commons that he was "surprised" by Mr Blair's claim of ignorance of the nature of the weapons. He asserted that he had known the facts early last March and he had told Mr Blair what he had learnt from the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee who must have, at some point between the publication of the September 2002 dossier and the March 2003 debate, explained to the Prime Minister the "crucial distinction" between battlefield weapons and so-called WMDs. Using language that came as close as Parliamentary rules allow to calling Mr Blair a liar, Mr Cook -- who resigned as Commons Leader over the Iraq war -- said: "I find it very difficult to reconcile what I knew and what I am sure the Prime Minister knew at the time we had the vote in March."

The Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, on the other hand, contradicted himself more than once. Asked by the Commons Defence Committee to explain how he knew the truth about the 45-minute claim while Mr Blair did not, he replied: "We both had access to the same intelligence." Then last summer he told the Hutton Inquiry that he had read newspaper headlines reporting the 45-minute warning the day after the Iraq dossier was published. But on the day after the Commons debate on February 4 this year he claimed that he had not seen any newspaper reports on the dossier, released on September 25, 2002. Asked about the front-page headline "45 MINUTES FROM DOOM" in the next morning's edition of a popular tabloid he said: "I did not actually see that newspaper or indeed any other newspaper referring to that issue at the time," claiming he had been away on a government trip to Eastern Europe. He also caused widespread astonishment by saying that as far as he was concerned "the question of what kind of weapons system could deliver weapons of mass destruction was not something of any great debate publicly in September 2002."

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

But a veteran Labour MP and prominent anti-war activist has come up with a more direct attack accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the Commons, a Parliamentary offence of the gravest nature. Not mincing words, he has said: "I fear the awful truth is that Blair did jolly well know on March 18 that any weapons of mass destruction were battlefield weapons -- and suppressed the information from the House of Commons before the crucial vote. Had it not been suppressed, more Labour MPs would have joined us in voting against the war and maybe enough to stop the war."

Lord Hutton's report -- which I cannot help feeling is astonishingly naive -- failed to take into account and sort out the contradictions in the statements of both the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary. I do not understand why, being the highly experienced and competent legist he is generally regarded to be. But although his report vindicates Mr Blair and directly criticises the BBC for falling short of the editorial responsibility expected of it, I cannot agree more with the Corporation's erstwhile Director General Greg Dyke that despite his widely believed expertise in legal matters, Lord Hutton does not quite understand the purport of the laws concerning the media. His report has not done his own reputation much good, and although it has earned the Prime Minister a temporary reprieve it has failed to ensure that he is comfortably out of the woods. The ghost of Dr David Kelley is still out haunting, and a really strong dose of exorcism will be needed to put his tormented soul to rest.

Tougher anti-terror laws
BRITISH Home Secretary David Blunkett's proposal for a major extension of the existing anti-terrorist legislation in order to enable the authorities to take pre-emptive action against British terror suspects has been condemned by community leaders and civil rights lawyers all over the UK. The Home Secretary is legally obliged to revisit the counter-terrorism legislation currently in place by 2006. But he believes that in the light of the "new global suicide terrorism" it has become imperative to address these issues long before that. During his recent six-day tour of the Indian sub-continent, he revealed some of the plans he is considering, which include keeping sensitive evidence secret even from British defendants and their lawyers in order to protect intelligence sources and secret trials before vetted judges. The measures could mean the arrest of a suicide bomber before the act is committed. "We have to have prevention under a new category," said Mr Blunkett: "which is to intervene before the act is committed, rather than do so by due process of after the act is committed when it is too late."

But representatives of ethnic minority communities have reacted angrily to the Home Secretary's remarks. A spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The (proposed) new laws are draconian and a total over-reaction -- all they will do is instil fear into the Muslim community. There is already a considerable amount of fear and disquiet in the Muslim community about existing legislation.... Why when there has been no attacks of any form here, are these laws being rushed in?" A lawyer who represents a British terror suspect currently in detention in Camp Zero at Guantanamo Bay said that Mr Blunkett's attitude was "extremely disappointing" for those who were fighting unlawful detention by the US. Another senior lawyer has been even more scathing in her condemnation of the Home Secretary's proposals: "It is as if David Blunket takes his lessons on jurisprudence from Robert Mugabe," said Baroness Kennedy: "He really is a shameless authoritarian". It really is an affront to the rule of law."

The Home Secretary, however, is unrelenting. He is determined to extend the scope of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 so that prosecutors can take action against suspected British extremists even though the evidence may not be strong enough to win a conviction under existing laws. This may mean lowering the burden of proof in such cases from "beyond reasonable doubt" to "the balance of probabilities". Mr Blunkett says he will welcome a nationwide debate on that issue: "It is about the threshold of evidence and the nature of those involved being accredited and trusted not to reveal the sources."