/** Tools */

27 June 2006

July 7th Truth Campaign Guardian G2 Interview - UPDATED

''Where the state's own authorities are concerned we must be as sure as we can of the truth'' -- Prime Minister Tony Blair on the need for a full-scale judicial inquiry into the killing by the army of 13 civilians on ''Bloody Sunday'' in 1972

Since the events of July 7th 2005, The Antagonist has had precious little time for the dead-tree and airwave-occupier media but sometimes, just sometimes, they redeem themselves in some small part (see today's print edition for the G2 article in all its technicolour glory).

What is most curious about the Mark Honigsbaum article in today's Guardian, apart from the fact such an article questioning the official narrative actually appeared in any mainstream media journal, is perhaps the fact that a mainstream media organ has picked up on something that even the much vaunted vanguard of dissident bloggers hasn't yet picked up on to any great degree, save for one or two notable exceptions.

Of those that have highlighted the many questions raised by the campaigners demanding that the authorities RELEASE THE EVIDENCE that supports their narrative, the fall-back position is limited to a demand for a Public Inquiry under the much ignored Inquiries Act 2005, passed specifically to limit the scope, capabilities and independence of any such Public Inquiry.

The Hutton Inquiry, widely regarded as a whitewash of the highest order, set the precedent for all future inquiries and that was without recourse to the new legislation. Thus far, the government has stated there will be no Public Inquiry, even under the new legislation, into the events of July 7th, July 21st - the day the bombers had no bombs, or the extra-judicial killing of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station.

Given the diversity of people and organisations from which calls for a Public Inquiry/Enquiry into July 7th are being repeatedly launched, or even the calls for an Independent Inquiry/Enquiry to which the public would not be privy, it should be of great concern to anyone with even a passing interest in truth and justice that there has been precious little discussion about the Inquiries Act 2005, the framework under which such an inquiry would be conducted, should such a thing ever be granted.

The Inquiries Act 2005 was, in part, brought about in response to the call for a full and Independent Public Inquiry into the brutal murder of Pat Finucane. He was shot dead by two masked men on 12 February 1989 in front of his wife and his three children at their home in Belfast, Northern Ireland. He was shot 14 times, including at close range. In the aftermath of his killing, evidence emerged that police and military intelligence agents had colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries in his murder, as well as allegations of an official cover-up of such collusion.

Amnesty International has called for the boycott of all inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, specifically with regard to the Finucane case and demanded that the act be repealed:
Amnesty International calls on all judges, whether in the United Kingdom (UK) or in other jurisdictions, to decline appointments as chairs or panel members to any inquiry established under the recently enacted Inquiries Act 2005, including an inquiry into allegations of state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane. The organization is also urging the Act's repeal.

Amnesty International supports the call of Geraldine Finucane, Patrick Finucane's widow, to all senior judges in England, Wales and Scotland not to serve on an inquiry into her husband's case held under the new legislation.

"By proposing to hold an inquiry into the Finucane case under the Inquiries Act 2005, the UK government is trying to eliminate independent scrutiny of the actions of its agents. Any judge sitting on such an inquiry would be presiding over a sham," Amnesty International said.

If The State will go to such great lengths to prevent an inquiry into one brutal killing 16 years ago, it may be sensible to consider to what lengths the state will go to prevent further inquiry into the brutal murders of 56 in London on July 7th 2005.


Update 01: The Guardian offered the July 7th Truth Campaign a right to reply to the Mark Honigsbaum J7 article, read it on Comment is Free.

Update 02: Home Secretary, Dr John Reid, admits that the Official Report of the London Bombings is wrong, before going on to rewrite history without missing a beat. Ananova runs with confirmation from Scotland Yard Polis HQ that the Home Office didn't get the wrong train time from them, or even any train time at all.

Sir Walter Scott said it best when he said:
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive....”


Anonymous said...

Great post - what a frustrating world we live in. I have a hope that the truth will eventually come to light...

Daithí said...

Two Khans, Four Bombs & Many Questions


The Antagonist said...

Thanks, Dave. No good hoping, methinks, we've all got to DO SOMETHING!

Researching the Finucane case a little further, I found this:

Ms. Finucane has written personally to every senior judge in England, Wales and Scotland urging them to decline participation in any inquiry into her husband’s death held under the Inquiries Act. To date, the UK government has not been able to identify any judge willing to take on the inquiry under the flawed terms of the Inquiries Act.

Using the call for truly independent public inquiry into the Finucane killing as the precedent, even if The State were to grant a Public Inquiry into 7/7 - which, conveniently enough under the Inquiries Act 2005, its not obliged to do - it's highly unlikely that any judge worth their salt would be willing to take on the inquiry.

This would seem to render the calls for an Independent Public Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 null and void because, even if it were to be granted, no decent judges would be prepared to participate, leaving the whole thing right back at square one.

Obviously some other solution is going to be required here.

Creative suggestions welcome.

Anonymous said...

worth noting that veteran 9/11 (now 7/7) researcher nafeez ahmed is calling for an 'independent' public inquiry. his tone suggests he means something that should have nothing to do with the govt. don't know if it's feasible tho in this climate.

you should see the recommendations he makes at the end of his new book on the london bombings, bloody amazing. he says we need new legislation to decrease state powers, open up the intelligence services to public scrutiny, and end put an end to the unlimited secrecy of the secret services!! the book website is here www.independentinquiry.co.uk, happy (or rather disturbing) reading.

Anonymous said...

Rachel North is one of the most prominent advocates of a public enquiry.

I attempted to post a comment on her blog in which I asked the question whether she would be satisfied with a public enquiry under the terms of the 2005 Public Inquiries Act. My comment was polite and provided a link to the Amnesty International statement.

However my comment did not pass through her comment moderation.

Anonymous said...

Sorry I got the link wrong in the previous comment.

It should have been Rachel North.

The Antagonist said...

Would this be the same 'Rachel North' who stated dismissively:

"I tell you what. I don't give a stuff how the bombers got to Kings Ctross"

Stef said...

I'm finding it really difficult to follow Rachel North's line of reasoning on that one.

Sure, I didn't miraculously survive a bomb blast seven feet away from me that killed 26 other people


As a Londoner I feel a victim of what happened that day, and what may happen in future days, as well.

I don't have any shrapnel in my arm but the people who set those bombs were targeting every Londoner and I damn well want to know what happened.

and that includes how the bombs were delivered

I doubt very much if I would be less interested if I had happened to be standing seven foot away from one of them. Quite the opposite

So, like I said, I'm finding it very difficult to understand where she is coming from

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, Nafeez Ahmmed is a disinformation merchant, what ya doing reading him, are you not interested in the TRUTH

fjl said...

..an enquiry into the bombings has precious little to do with enquries into agents, silly twit. a) individual agents are never the subject of public enquiries b) individual assassinations do not require the same scope re investigation and c) the perpetrators of the bombings ARE WELL KNOWN AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR POTTY OBSESSION WITH PAT FINUCANE.

North dismissed the matter of the bombers' actions prior to the event a) because she was pointing out that your priorities are all wrong, AND ALSO, DAFT, and b) because she thinks she's the only one who's got a point about anything.

None of you would have a vocation without this socalled public enquiry, the integrity of which you insist would be doubtful.

Bridget said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Stef said...

re. inquiries, their priorities, their integrity and peoples' vocations

any half-decent inquiry will seek to answer the questions who? how? why?

right now our government is carrying on as if there is no significant doubt as to the answers to any of these questions

laws are being changed and people are being locked up and killed, here and overseas, on the basis of assertions that have not been subject to any form of critical scrutiny

I don't think that's very good.

Sure, any inquiry will have its flaws but at the very least it will drag more of the supposed evidence into the light and force some thought about the whys of 7/7 and debate about what we can do to prevent another one.

The thing is, in a peculiar way, it doesn't really matter who carried out the bombings. Be it jihadists or spooks, they carried out the bombing to generate a reaction and our government and media obliged by playing along in a very predictable way.

If we, as nation, responded in a mature and intelligent way to acts of terrorism there wouldn't be any point in carrying them out.

Arguments and disputes between people calling for an inquiry serve no other purpose than to waste energy, divide resources and impede the progress of the campaign calling for one.

This is an old game based on teasing out the differences, real or manufactured, between people rather than emphasising what they have in common. Personally, I'm tired of crap like that

fjl said...

Stef, no teasing, I voice my thoughts. I genuinely think there's no hope of an enquiry, and that this is a good thing.

The resources matter is real. They've got a fight on their hands, and an enquiry would use a huge amount of it.

Do you want resources wasted?

It is real I tell you.

Stef said...

I'll let you in on a secret...

There never will be enough resources

Our government could lock things down as tight as a drum and it won't make any real difference. In fact, the more repressive the measures the more likely they are to generate the issues that lead to terrorism.

I can cite plenty of examples from history and the present to back that assertion up

And I can't help shaking the suspicion that our government, security forces and media know that very well. It's that or they're plain dumb

So, application of a little resource now to clarify the who/ how/ why of 7/7 would be resource well spent IMHO

Stef said...

or let me put it another way

I regularly discuss these matters with a serving officer in the US army who has seen duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. He buys into the 'official' War on Terror paradigm. I do not. However, I have no reason to doubt his integrity. He just sees the world in a different way

He frequently expresses irritation at instances where people like him have to fight the War on Terror with, how he sees it, one armed tied behind his back due to the influence of 'Liberals' and other dissident pressure groups.

The point he is overlooking is that this opposition is an integral part of the freedoms he believes that he is defending.

If democracy is to work it has to be based on the informed consent of the people. It's not optional and not something that can be dispensed with on the basis of some kind of cost argument.

Of course, I'd be the first person to admit that many of my fellow citizens and their leaders have forgotten that, or never understood or cared for that principle in the first place

fjl said...

Stef, you are right about the liberty principle.

But the resources issue is real in this instance. Maybe there often isn't much to go round. Who can you name who's bright enough to be an agent? Apart from your dear friend FJL ;-)

When I was working there last summer I saw first hand how they were bringing extra people in to research the bombings. People from outside. There aren't people to spare. It is real.

Anonymous said...

Rachel North has now accepted my question.

The Antagonist said...

The July 7th Truth Campaign has issued an Open Letter to all organisations and individuals calling for a Public Inquiry into the events of July 7th. For further details, see here.

On the day before the anniversary of July 7th 2005, Hasib Hussain's father, as quoted in today's Daily Mirror, states:

"I don't believe Hasib did it. No one has shown me any evidence that he did it. I have seen nothing, no DNA no evidence. When there is a crime you have to have evidence. I have seen no evidence."

Whatever you think of what happened in London on July 7th 2005, Mr Hussain is right. His son is innocent until proven guilty and a trial by media will not stand.

We have long known there is no evidence in the public domain to support the suppositions and allegations in the many stories of the last year, nor the official Home Office narrative of events. The Daily Mirror today confirms that, not only does this evidence not exist in the public domain, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE BEREAVED FAMILIES OF THE ACCUSED.

The Independent is running with the following:

The Hussains' struggle to accept that Hasib blew up the bus has been compounded by telephone conversations they have had in the past 12 months with conspiracy theorists who claim the London attacks were a "black psy-ops" mission organised by the security services to test London's defences, or to foment anti-Muslim feeling.

The Hussains have clung to those theories - and have been prepared to discuss little else during several lengthy conversations with The Independent
. Mr Hussain clearly craves more contact with the police who broke the news of his son's death a year ago. He told Mr Ali that he has asked police family liaison officers for permission to approach the victims' families but has been refused. "They told us, 'No one wants to talk with you'," he said.

"We are grieving for the relatives of the 52 victims as well," he concluded.

Which all goes to show, Blogging can make a real difference, look what we've started!

Numeral said...

It has gone very quiet. Only the BBC, The Mirror and Channel 4 News (Ananova) is reporting the train time correction.

There is a meeting tonight.

Before & After 7/7: Interrogating British ‘Security’ Policies
Why did the 7/7 terrorist attack happen?
Like the 11 September 2001 attack, was this a ‘blowback’ effect of government policy?
What is being protected by British ‘security’ policies? What alternative policies could protect us?
6.30pm Wednesday 12 July
Committee Room 3, House of Lords, Westminster, SW1
Hosted by Lord Rea
Nafeez Ahmed, author of The War on Freedom and The War on Truth and the new book
London Bombings – An Independent Inquiry, http://www.independentinquiry.co.uk
Milan Rai, co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness UK; author of Chomsky's Politics;
War Plan Iraq; Regime Unchanged; and 7/7: The London Bombings, Islam and the Iraq War
Gareth Peirce, human rights lawyer
Asad Rehman, Chair of Newham Monitoring Project
Representative of Charles de Menezes Family Campaign
Saghir Hussain, lawyer and Stop Political Terror
Prof. Bill Bowring, Human Rights & Social Justice Research Institute
Les Levidow, CAMPACC
The meeting has been called by CAMPACC (Campaign Against Criminalising Communities)

The Antagonist said...

What an interesting collection of panellists, including one who made a book out of unchecked newspaper reports and another who wrote:

"I can shoot. I'm quite a good shot. But I have never wanted to shoot someone in the face, or to laugh as I jabbed her with my weapon, or to fire a shot in pride or anger. I try, but I can't get there, to that place of semi-madness. I can't make the leap. I don't want to try any more."

Which begs the question, "Why try in the first place?"

Anyway, I wonder if anyone will dare to mention the ongoing boycott by judges of any inquiry conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005?

If inquiries under IA2005 have been boycotted by judges asked to participate in an inquiry into the brutal murder of one man nearly twenty years ago, should it really be sufficient grounds for any inquiry into the brutal murders of 56 in London on 7th July 2005?