Andy Rowell, 26 March 2008 

Five years after the American and British governments launched the most ill-conceived and fundamentally flawed war of the modern era; the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has finally promised a full-scale inquiry into the war.

Although the Labour government has held four political “Inquiries” before, this is the first time that a British Prime Minister has acknowledged that a full public inquiry is necessary to unpick the disastrous lessons of the conflict. His admission is in direct contrast to Tony Blair who said in 2005: “We have had inquiry after inquiry we do not need to go back over this again and again.”

So what would a public inquiry find? It would have to hear evidence as to whether the war was legal, and would most likely conclude it was not. One key witness would be Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who was deputy legal adviser to the British Foreign Office before the war.

Wilmshurst resigned the day the war started. She argued that without a second resolution at the UN Security Council authorizing force, the war was illegal. Her resignation letter said she could not “in conscience go along with advice” of then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, as he changed his view to try and fudge the facts to say war was justified.

20 March 2008

Bingle got the opportunity to make his case during the latest inquiry session. He was called to give evidence alongside lobbyist Mike Granatt of Luther Pendragon, both as representatives of lobbying firms opposed to greater transparency and the disclosure of clients. In a separate session, MPs also heard from Eben Black, a lobbyist with law firm DLA Piper and Richard Schofield of the Law Society.

For lobbyists opposed to greater regulation, Bingle and Granatt made a good case for the introduction of transparency rules. 

David Morrison, 20 March 2008

Is there a causal link between British military intervention in the Muslim world and terrorism by Muslims in Britain?  That is a vital question. After all, the Government is never done telling us that it is the first duty of government to keep us safe.

Yet, the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to admit the existence of such a link, even though the British intelligence services say:

“We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.”

18 March 2008 
"Utter nonsense" is how the Government described recent accusations that it colluded with airport operator BAA over the expansion of Heathrow. Harriet Harman responded to a call for a proper debate over the plans by saying that "all decisions on adding capacity at Heathrow will be taken independently by BAA."

Many would argue that the decision should be taken independently of BAA. But still, the idea of independence between the Government and the aviation industry, notably BAA and British Airways, becomes nonsensical when you look at the number of key people moving through the revolving door.

17 March, 2008

If the scientists are right climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity. Hardly a day goes by without a dire warning of rising temperatures, increased drought, more violent weather, and melting ice-caps.

One of the criticisms of the mainstream media is that, when it comes to ecological issues, they might preach others to change their ways, but are unable to do so themselves. Editorially they may take a progressive stance on climate change, but their paper is still filled with offers for cheap flights and planes.

Sometimes the irony is just too much: Take the front page of Sunday’s Observer . The paper ran the headline “Glaciers melt ‘at fastest rate in past 5,000 years”. To accompany the news piece there was a link to the feature article “Lost glaciers start countdown to climate chaos”. Underneath was an advert for Ryanair offering: “1 million free seats: No Taxes, fees or charges”.

The Observer warns us about climate chaos, but continues to take advertising from companies that are directly responsible for the coming chaos.

David Miller and William Dinan, 13 March 2008

Neo-liberalism was not introduced in the US and UK by accident or as a result only of the much vaunted hidden hand of the market.  It had to be argued for, written about, and put into place by concrete actions.  These involved the political figureheads of Thatcher and Reagan (and later Clinton and Blair) but the impetus, the planning and the action came from corporate interests and their hirelings.  In our new book – A Century of Spin - we tell the story of the rise of neo-liberalism, or as we prefer to describe it, the progressive abolition of even the limited gains of ‘bourgeois democracy’.  The story is a long one and it is not pretty.  The roots of neo-liberalism go back a long way and they do not consist simply of winning the battle of hearts and minds.  Although we argue that ideas are more important in moving history than some on the left have credited, we emphasise that this does not happen in isolation from concrete actions legitimated by and able to put in place both market reform and official repression. 

David Morrison, 13 March 2008

On 18 February 2008, the British Government was forced to release a draft dossier on Iraq’s so-called “weapons of mass destruction” under the Freedom of Information Act.  But it succeeded in persuading a Freedom of Information Tribunal to allow a handwritten reference to Israel in the margin of the document to be suppressed.

The Foreign Office sought this redaction because the person who wrote “Israel” in the margin of the document was implying that Israel was on a par with Iraq in its pursuit of “weapons of mass destruction”.  Since the author must have been a high ranking official in the Foreign Office in order to have access to the draft dossier, the Foreign Office argued that UK relations with Israel would be damaged if the document was published intact and, as a consequence, the Israeli government became aware of the existence of such an outlandish opinion in the senior ranks of the Foreign Office.

Michael Barker, 10 March 2008

A Critical Look at Pro Publica (Part 3 of 3)

Embedded Boardroom

Having introduced the key people who are managing the day to day affairs of Pro Publica, this section will now turn to examine the four members of their board of directors to see if this might suggest any further clues as to the values that Pro Publica cherishes and upholds. These directors are Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Alberto Ibargüen, James A. Leach, and Rebecca Rimel. In the same manner as before, rather than just uncritically listing their biographical details, the ensuing biographical sketches will critically examine each director’s links to various democracy manipulating organizations.