Forget the Mafia. Our Establishment covers up its crimes better than anyone
The British State protects its own. Whitehall does its utmost to safeguard former Cabinet ministers and senior civil servants from investigation by invoking the usually bogus defence of national security.
In this way, a curtain is drawn over past acts of carelessness or ineptitude in government. Skulduggery and lies are concealed. Official papers are not released for at least 20 years, and even then the more incriminating ones are held back.
The latest example of institutional cover-up concerns Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, and Sir Mark Allen, a former senior MI6 officer. Both men have reportedly said they cannot respond to allegations of conspiracy in the torture of a prominent Libyan dissident, pleading the need to keep official secrets.
The latest example of institutional cover-up concerns Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, pictured left, and Sir Mark Allen, a former senior MI6 officer, right. The two men deny doing anything unlawful
In March 2004, Islamist leader Abdel Hakim Belhadj and his wife were snatched in Malaysia by the CIA and flown to Libya, where they were both tortured by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's thugs
Their silence follows Whitehall’s refusal to release secret pre-Iraq War discussions between Tony Blair and President George W. Bush to the Chilcot Inquiry. Without such evidence Sir John Chilcot and his colleagues will be unable to produce a complete report on the Iraq War.
One would have hoped that Mr Straw and Sir Mark Allen would wish to co-operate in order to establish their innocence. In March 2004, Islamist leader Abdel Hakim Belhadj and his wife were snatched in Malaysia by the CIA and flown to Libya, where they were both tortured by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s thugs.
Whitehall has refused to release secret pre-Iraq War discussions between Tony Blair and President George W. Bush to the Chilcot Inquiry
MI6 was undoubtedly instrumental in
this act of so-called extraordinary rendition. (Note that the last
Labour government repeatedly denied any involvement in rendition.) In a
chummy letter dated March 18, 2004, Sir Mark congratulated Musa Kusa —
Gaddafi’s intelligence chief — on the ‘safe arrival’ of Belhadj in
A few days later, Tony Blair had his famous meeting with Gaddafi at his desert base. It was the first of many visits, and the beginning of a warm relationship between the two men. Britain’s delivery of Belhadj into the hands of his torturers was almost certainly Gaddafi’s precondition for talks.
The Chilcot Inquiry must address whether Mr Blair made private promises to the White House in 2002 to join military action before he had secured the agreement of either the Cabinet or Parliament
Isn’t that shameful? We should have
qualms enough about Mr Blair’s love-in with a genocidal monster, but at
least the defence of realpolitik might conceivably be entered. But
knowingly handing over a man to torture? There can be no defence.
Mr Belhadj is claiming compensation
from the British government and its intelligence agencies, as well as
from Mr Straw and Sir Mark. The two men deny doing anything unlawful.
Along with MI6, MI5, the Home Office and the Foreign Office, they
blankly refuse to explain their role in the affair.
Some might say what is being protected is not national security but the reputations of government departments, ministers and civil servants. Many will think that, by insisting on remaining silent in the face of such grave charges, these people and institutions are condemning themselves.
Tony Blair meeting Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi at his desert base outside Sirte south of Tripoli, one of many meetings the two leaders had together
Of course there should be a proper
investigation of Tony Blair’s relationship with Gaddafi, starting with
the torture of Mr Belhadj and his wife, though this would be undermined
by Whitehall, if the Chilcot Inquiry is anything to go by.
Set up in 2009, the Inquiry is now not expected to report until the end of this year or even the beginning of next. It has been beset by delays arising from continuing rows with the Government, which has been blocking the release of classified documents.
At the beginning of 2011, Britain’s then top mandarin, Gus O’Donnell, consulted Tony Blair before deciding not to release details of the former Prime Minister’s discussions with President Bush. Lord O’Donnell was appointed Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service when Mr Blair was in No 10.
Attorney General Dominic Grieve vetoed the release of papers to the Chilcot inquiry citing the privacy of Cabinet discussions
The key question that the Chilcot Inquiry must address is whether Mr Blair made private promises to the White House in 2002 to join military action before he had secured the agreement of either the Cabinet or Parliament. A transcript of his exchanges with the American President would very likely throw light on this matter.
Lord O’Donnell justified his refusal
to release these papers on the grounds that Britain’s relations with the
U.S. might be damaged. Even if this were true, the need to explain why
Britain entered a possibly illegal — and certainly bloody and costly —
war is surely paramount.
Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, has effectively endorsed Lord
O’Donnell’s actions by vetoing the release of Cabinet papers from the
days leading up to the Iraq War. Mr Grieve said holding back the papers
was necessary to protect the privacy of Cabinet discussions.
You might have thought this Tory-dominated Government would be happy to expose the shenanigans of its predecessor, but Whitehall’s love of secrecy persists from one administration to the next. Its greatest loyalty is to itself.
Will Chilcot be able to enlighten us about what really happened? I doubt it. As a result of Whitehall’s practised obfuscations, I don’t suppose Mr Blair will ever be asked to answer for his actions, any more than he will be required to explain his improperly close relations with Gaddafi, or Britain’s connivance in torture.
Nor do I imagine that his unrepentant sidekick, the thuggish Alastair Campbell, will be made to confront the enormity of his wrongdoing in confecting a bogus dossier in February 2003 which sought to make the case for war while using, without attribution, already published and, in some instances, highly tendentious material.
More from Stephen Glover for the Daily Mail...
- Enough of all this Brexit gloom! The EU's in turmoil - and we've some aces up our sleeves 29/11/16
- STEPHEN GLOVER: Why DO Left wing 'comics' think it's so hilarious to make filthy jokes about the Queen 24/11/16
- STEPHEN GLOVER: The Supreme Court judge's speech that makes me fear Brexit could be bogged down for years 17/11/16
- Twisted justice: As the Left's pin-up Assange STILL evades extradition, how grotesque we're sending a young Briton with Asperger's to the US...to face up to 99 years in jail, says STEPHEN GLOVER 16/11/16
- Why Trump's row with Nato will make Britain stronger: President's pledge to cut military support will force EU states to take back control of their own defence, writes STEPHEN GLOVER 11/11/16
- Debasing of public life: A sordid, disgraced MP voted onto the Justice Committee. A depraved tycoon funding the state's Press regulator. No wonder Britons hold the ruling class in such utter contempt, writes STEPHEN GLOVER 03/11/16
- Project Fear, untruths on migration, dishonesty by BOTH presidential hopefuls and Blair deceiving us again: How politicians have always perverted the truth but never on this scale 28/10/16
- Posturing luvvies and a Labour party that STILL doesn't get it on migration 27/10/16
- The annuities debacle and how five million Britons (including STEPHEN GLOVER) have been ripped off - and now betrayed 20/10/16
- VIEW FULL ARCHIVE
Statesmen and civil servants are on the receiving end of the most serious allegations — including lying to Parliament, torture, and taking this country to war on false pretences — and yet are allowed to take refuge in Whitehall’s vow of silence. The Mafia have a word for it: omerta.
I trust I am not being paranoid, but it is impossible not to register the starkly contrasting treatment being meted out to journalists and policemen for what mostly seem relatively trivial offences, and in some cases not offences at all.
Two senior policemen have been arrested at dawn in their homes for leaking stories to journalists, though in neither case is there any suggestion that money changed hands. Their alleged misdemeanour may be to do the very thing Whitehall abhors: passing on truthful information.
Scores of journalists have been arrested — their homes sometimes ransacked — because they have received information from the police. There is no defence if payment was made, though many people will judge such behaviour less egregious than the skulduggery that Whitehall strives to conceal.
Isn’t there a grotesque imbalance here? If you are an ex-Cabinet minister or former Prime Minister or ex-MI6 big cheese you can evade accountability by summoning up that indispensable catch-all, national security.
I am not talking about the pardonable mistakes that politicians are bound to make. Nor do I dispute that some matters of state must be kept secret.
But the State will not be rocked to its foundations if the chicanery of ministers and senior civil servants is revealed. On the contrary. We would all benefit from more honest and open government.
As it is, we have a secretive State that thrives on double standards. There is one law for most of us.
And, it would seem, there is sometimes no law at all for those telling us what to do.
The comments below have not been moderated.
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
We are no longer accepting comments on this article.