|
|
 |
Downing Street was under fire last night after a senior intelligence official was sacked for daring to criticise Tony Blair over the war in Iraq. John Morrison - the former deputy chief of intelligence at the Ministry of Defence - spoke out in a BBC Panorama documentary about the intelligence which led Britain to arms. A week later he was axed from his job with Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee. In his Panorama interview he revealed the intelligence community's deep scepticism about Mr Blair's claims over Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Mr Morrison said the intelligence services were stunned when Mr Blair warned of Saddam Hussein's 'serious and current threat' to Britain in his foreword to the Downing Street dossier of September 2002. "When I heard him using those words I could almost hear the collective raspberry going up around Whitehall," he said. Despite the BBC appearance apparently being cleared by ISC chairman Ann Taylor, Mr Morrison's comments - just days before Lord Butler's damaging report - infuriated David Omand, Tony Blair's intelligence and security co-ordinator and permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office. He is understood to have held immediate talks with Mrs Taylor, a former Labour chief whip. Within days, Mr Morrison's five years of service were brought to a swift conclusion in a letter from the committee. The sacking angered Labour MP's opposed to the war. Veteran backbencher Alan Simpson said: "The only people who have paid the price for this mistaken war are those who have said what the country believes and knows to be true. But no amount of sackings - whether it's Andrew Gilligan, Greg Dyke or John Morrison - can hide the truth." The ISC was set up in 1994 to provide Parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services. Its work is among the most secretive in Whitehall and is overseen by the Cabinet Office. As the committee's investigator, Mr Morrison's role involved pursuing 'specific matters in greater detail'. Veteran BBC reporter John Ware, who made the Panorama programme, said: "I'm frankly astonished by this news. John Morrison was scrupulous in his approach to this interview. He insisted that we should make no reference to his work for the ISC precisely because he wanted to make it clear that he was giving a personal opinion. At no stage did he breach the Official Secrets Act." During his appearance, Mr Morrison also revealed how intelligence officers were put under pressure to lie about the effectiveness of earlier military strikes against Iraq - the British and American bombing raids during Operation Desert Fox in 1998. "We were being pressured to say that something had been effective when in the long run we decided that it hadn't been particularly effective," he told the programme. "That had never happened in my career before and I didn't like it very much." The Cabinet Office refused to comment on Mr Morrison's departure yesterday and instead issued a brief statement. "John Morrison is currently employed as a contractor by the Cabinet Office on behalf of the ISC as a part-time investigator. Mr Morrison has worked for the committee for over five years and his contract will end in October 2004. The committee - whilst continuing their current work - have no plans to employ a new investigator." Mr Morrison said he could not speak to the media. "I have no comment to make. My contract prevents me from talking to you," he said. He is the only person in Whitehall to have lost his job in the wake of the Butler Report. In contrast, Joint Intelligence Committee chairman, John Scarlett, who was criticised in the report for being influenced by his political masters, has been promoted to head MI6. The treatment of Mr Morrison was inevitably revive memories of how the government machine dealt with Dr David Kelly in the weeks before his suicide. Both man were acknowledged experts in their fields who had served their country with dignity for many years. And both felt compelled to speak out in protest at the way Downing Street moulded intelligence to fit the case for war. Mr Morrison first joined the defence intelligence staff in 1967 and played a key role in the search for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Blair must show more clarity and candourFrom Andrew Gilligan's now proven accusation that evidence for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was 'sexed-up', through to Dr David Kelly's tragic suicide and the despicable 'white-washing' Hutton Report, it is now clear that the British public have been taken for a dangerous ride. Al Queda gain dangerous momentum daily with photographic evidence of coalition forces humiliating and torturing muslims caught up in the chaos that is Iraq today. The
Hon Nicholas Soames MP, Shadow Defence Secretary, said: "It
is the Government's duty, in which it has been lamentably dilatory,
to lay out for the House of Commons and the British people, its
strategy for the future of Iraq. The continuing absence of clear
political strategy, coupled with the obvious confusion that has
existed at the heart of Government, has been the single most serious
and damaging failure of the Government's handling of the occupation
of Iraq. It must not become the defining feature of the post occupation
period too. The Conservative
Leader also condemned the Prime Minister's doctrine of secrecy
and warned that it is undermining public trust and confidence
in the Government's policy on Iraq. In a newspaper article,
Mr Howard made clear his continuing support for the Gulf war
to oust Saddam Hussein, and said that like Mr Blair, he believes
Britain and the United States must see it through. But
defending the right and duty of the Opposition to ask legitimate
questions about the conduct of events in Iraq now, Mr Howard criticised
the lack of clarity, competence and candour shown by Mr Blair
and his ministers, accused the Government of making policy on
the hoof, and targeted the Premier's refusal to disclose any detail
of his discussions with President Bush. It is high time for gloves to be taken off in our dealings with the Blair Government. We, the people, must demand and get straight answers to straight questions. Our representatives in Parliament, our MPs, must represent us, the people who elect them, not Blair's Government. John Scarlett, the man who 'tailored' Intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to deceive the nation at the behest of Blair, has recently been promoted to MI6 chief before another Inquiry - the Butler Inquiry into MI6 - has reported. Also read Rifkind on Blair and Air Marshal Sir John Walker, Chief of Defence Intelligence and a deputy chairman of the Defence Intelligence Committee from 1991 to 1994.
Pressure on spymasters for 'misleading'written by David Hughes, Political Editor, Daily Mail, July 16, 2004Britain's two top spy chiefs were accused yesterday of misleading both the Hutton Inquiry and a Parliamentary committee about the quality of Iraqi intelligence.The sensational charges, in a BBC report, were levelled against Sir Richard Dearlove, recently-retired head of MI6, and John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who is about to succeed him. Both men gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry last August in which they defended the quality of the intelligence that lay behind the September 2002 dossier.Sir Richard and Mr Scarlett said they both stood full-square behind it. They gave similar evidence to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee at about the same time. Yet the Butler Report published on Wednesday (July 14, 2004) revealed that the month before they testified MI6 had withdrawn two intelligence reports, one of which had been crucial to the weapons dossier, because the source had been 'discredited'.The revelation plunged the intelligence services, already damaged by Lord Butler's verdict that the intelligence in the dossier was flawed, into fresh turmoil. It triggered renewed calls for heads to roll over the whole Iraq intelligence fiasco.Sir Richard, who has never been photographed, gave evidence to the Hutton Inquiry via a sound link to protect his identity. Questioned about the quality of the intelligence behind the dossier, Sir Richard described it as 'a piece of well-sourced intelligence.'On August 23 (2003) Mr Scarlett was asked at the Hutton Inquiry: "The text (of the dossier) now reflects as fully and accurately as possible the intelligence picture on Saddam's mass destruction weapons?"Mr Scarlett replied: "Yes."Asked if that remained his conclusion, he replied: "That remains my conclusion as to the intelligence picture on the basis of intelligence we had at the time."Yet neither man sought to tell Lord Hutton that in the previous month, according to Lord Butler, the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) had withdrawn two intelligence reports because the source had been discredited. One of the reports 'which was important in the closing stages of the production of the Government's September (2002) dossier, must now be treated as unsafe'.It also emerged that Sir Richard had warned Tony Blair personally a week before the dossier was published that the intelligence in question was 'unproven'. That did not stop the PM saying after the dossier was published that they had established 'beyond doubt' that Saddam was still producing chemical and biological weapons. More on Blair here.With Sir Richard having already retired as head of MI6, pressure grew last night on his successor, Mr Scarlett, to quit. Former Tory leader, Iain Duncan-Smith called on him to resign from his new post. Mr Duncan-smith, who was given confidential briefings by Mr Scarlett in the run-up to the invasion, said the spy chief's credibility had been damaged by the Butler Report. Meanwhile, government headhunters have started trawling Whitehall for a senior mandarin - without ambition - to take over the chairmanship of the Joint Intelligence Committee from Mr Scarlett, who was criticised in Lord Butler's report for being too close to Downing Street. Lord Butler called for a new recruitment policy to ensure that his successor does not get sucked into the Number 10 spin machine. "We see a strong case for the post of chairman of the JIC being held by someone with experience of dealing with Ministers in a very senior role, and who is demonstrably beyond influence, and thus probably in his last post," the report said. Defence experts also said Mr Scarlett should have quit over the flawed September 2002 dossier. "It's clear from what Butler says that the JIC were anxious about some of the claims that were being made, but that those anxieties weren't recorded in the dossier, which nevertheless went out in the name of the JIC," said Anthony Glees, of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies. "That seems to me to say that Scarlett should resign."
Spy Chief 'must go' over new spin claim by David Hughes, Political Editor, Daily Mail, August 2, 2004 Tony Blair was under pressure last night to sack Britain's top spymaster. John Scarlett, who takes over today as head of MI6, has been accused of trying to distort a second report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. He was the central figure in allegations that Downing street sexed up the notorious dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme. Now, the distinguished former BBC Panorama reporter Tom Mangold has unearthed astonishing evidence that Mr Scarlett tried to insert dubious intelligence material into a report being prepared by the Iraq Survey Group. For more than a year, the ISG has been searching Iraq without success for any sign of Saddam's WMD. According to Mangold's bombshell revelation in yesterday's Mail on Sunday, Mr Scarlett made a brazen attempt to inject 'golden nuggets' into the ISG's report to give the appearance that Saddam had posed a threat. They included the claim that Iraq was developing a smallpox programme for use in biological warfare; that Saddam was developing a nuclear programme; and Iraq had mobile chemical weapons labs. None of this 'intelligence' was sound, according to Mangold. He quotes an ISG source as saying: "Inclusion of Scarlett's nuggets would have been grossly manipulative of the truth - in fact, let's face it, he wanted us to include lies." It is a devastating charge against the man taking over as the most senior figure in British intelligence. Amazingly, the foreign Office - the Whitehall department responsible for MI6 - did not deny the allegations last night. A spokesman said: "The Iraq Survey Group is an independent body. Any questions about the contents of its report should be addressed to them." The Tories seized on the revelations last night. Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram said: "If John Scarlett cannot provide answers to those questions then Tony Blair should remove him from his post." Mr Scarlett was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee leading up to the Iraq war and was the pivotal figure in the storm that erupted over the September 2002 dossier on Iraq WMDs. In March this year, Mangold reveals, Mr Scarlett sent an e-mail to the new head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, asking him to include ten 'nuggets of gold' in his report to show that Saddam did in fact have weapons of mass destruction. Duelfer and Scarlett later spoke in a live video conference and Mr Scarlett asked the ISG chief which of the nuggets he would include. Mangold reports that Mr Duelfer said the nuggets might prove to be 'fool's gold' - and asked Mr Scarlett which ones he would include. Mr Scarlett allegedly replied it was Mr Duelfer's call, not his - and the matter was left at that.
Current and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running for election could share a platform at public forums in every constituency. They would be presented with the results of polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that constituency. The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters. Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged and the results published on this web site. Here is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote. This example deals with the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty. Your letters would end: "If you do not answer this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election. Here's an example;
Download a printable version of this letter to your Labour MP Or why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above). Download a printable example of the questionnaire. It is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in their own constituency, even if this means going against their personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency, they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view of those who elect them. It will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy. We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy. Most important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be the result. Contact your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005. You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected by your representative in that assembly.
If you have suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster. |
|
