On the day that the not-suitably-qualified Iraq Inquiry start to consider the legal aspects of the conflict, we get this ludicrous article from George Monbiot.
Shall we remind ourselves what the Iraq Inquiry has been set up to do:
Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.
It is not a court of law, none of the committee members are lawyers (two are out of their depth) and so the question that needs asking is:
Why are they considering the legal basis of going to war?
The Iraq Inquiry is no better qualified to do so than George Monbiot, a zoologist, or the many others that would like to believe they are legal experts but aren't.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment