Chilcot report delayed until after election

The inquiry into the Iraq war was begun in 2009 and heard its last evidence in 2011.

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot is expected to confirm in a letter to David Cameron that it will be delayed until after May's poll.

It is currently undergoing a process whereby people criticised in the report get to moan, bleat, delay and obscucate respond to any allegations.

Open and transparent eh?

This is basically the base for my trusting politicians thread.

Even when they release this report, it will be very edited, basic and won't give is anything like the truth.

Basically, Tony Blair is a war criminal and so is Bush. They should both be behind bars & bush should be sentenced to death!

Abhorrent bunch of power hungry terrorists! Nothing more. The fact that they are allowed to pull the wool over our eyes like this is a disgrace.

In this case it took a lot more than two to tango (Bush/Blair). There will be lots implicated and even more complicit in it and it was inevitable that efforts would be made to block and/or censor it on both sides of the Atlantic. We can only assume that 5 1/2 years means there must be a lot to cover up and people should remember that, and the millions of ruined/taken lives and the increased terror threat, when they come to vote in May.

We should also remember that although this smells bad it is only in a (relatively) free country where any such independent report ever be commissioned, let alone published. We should think about how much worse it would be in a country that did not allow the challenge of free speech or was ruled by a theocracy where challenge is labelled blasphemy? Let's remember that whenever people argue to give ground on principles of freedom in order to avoid offending the religious.

This is basically the base for my trusting politicians thread.

 

Even when they release this report, it will be very edited, basic and won't give is anything like the truth.

 

Basically, Tony Blair is a war criminal and so is Bush. They should both be behind bars & bush should be sentenced to death!

 

Abhorrent bunch of power hungry terrorists! Nothing more. The fact that they are allowed to pull the wool over our eyes like this is a disgrace.

To be honest Bush and Blair don't fit any definition of war criminals but I can understand the desperation of some people to try and nail them, especially before an election - Neither of which intend to stand for election. (Might have to check that)

If you're trying to score political points to try and influence the general election, I wonder why the headlines are not about the tories and Operation Fernbridge being delayed?

To be honest Bush and Blair don't fit any definition of war criminals but I can understand the desperation of some people to try and nail them, especially before an election - Neither of which intend to stand for election. (Might have to check that)

I don't suppose you thought to find out what the definition of a 'war crime' was before offering an opinion on whether they met the criteria? If it transpires that they conspired and plotted to wage war against a sovereign country (that had not attacked and did not threaten them) then that would be a 'crime against peace' and a war crime.

I don't suppose you thought to find out what the definition of a 'war crime' was before offering an opinion on whether they met the criteria?

Don't be silly. Mecky's idea of a criminal is someone who wears a blue rosette,

I don't suppose you thought to find out what the definition of a 'war crime' was before offering an opinion on whether they met the criteria? If it transpires that they conspired and plotted to wage war against a sovereign country (that had not attacked and did not threaten them) then that would be a 'crime against peace' and a war crime.

Military action against another country does not constitute a war crime, as much as I dislike Blair I have seen no evidence which would support the idea that he is a war criminal.

We could always go the route of the Americans.

http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/articlesofimpeachment/

It makes very good reading and if you talk to many of right wing southern Americans you will discover that the Civil War was not lost, the battle goes on.

I don't suppose you thought to find out what the definition of a 'war crime' was before offering an opinion on whether they met the criteria? If it transpires that they conspired and plotted to wage war against a sovereign country (that had not attacked and did not threaten them) then that would be a 'crime against peace' and a war crime.

Yes, I have as sometimes it's a part of my job, as is the definition of terrorism, why?

Military action against another country does not constitute a war crime, as much as I dislike Blair I have seen no evidence which would support the idea that he is a war criminal.

You think that because you are like Mecky and don't know what a war crime is... it isn't a subjective definition that you make up for yourself.

Military action against a sovereign country when it is not an act of self-defence and hasn't been sanctioned by the UN, is a crime against peace and therefore a war crime. If it transpires that Blair and Bush agreed to go to war and then went about manufacturing and misrepresenting evidence to pretend it was a preemptive act of self-defence, then they are guilty of a war crime. If it transpires that they saw what they wanted to see in the evidence and then decide to go to war then it more a case of gross incompetence. We need to know when the decision was taken and I can't think of any reason people would want to delay, block or censor the report if the decision came after the evidence can you?

---------- Post added 21-01-2015 at 09:10 ----------

Yes, I have as sometimes it's a part of my job, as is the definition of terrorism, why?

All evidence to the contrary.

You think that because you are like Mecky and don't know what a war crime is... it isn't a subjective definition that you make up for yourself.

 

Military action against a sovereign country when it is not an act of self-defence and hasn't been sanctioned by the UN, is a crime against peace and therefore a war crime. If it transpires that Blair and Bush agreed to go to war and then went about manufacturing and misrepresenting evidence to pretend it was a preemptive act of self-defence, then they are guilty of a war crime. If it transpires that they saw what they wanted to see in the evidence and then decide to go to war then it more a case of gross incompetence. We need to know when the decision was taken and I can't think of any reason people would want to delay, block or censor the report if the decision came after the evidence can you?

 

All evidence to the contrary.

There is nothing in the Geneva convention that would suggest that military action against another country can be defined as a war crime, war crimes can be committed during a war but the act of starting a war is not a war crime.

There is nothing in the Geneva convention that would suggest that military action against another country can be defined as a war crime, war crimes can be committed during a war but the act of starting a war is not a war crime.

If you're a government. If I started a war, I'd be a terrorist.