Is Chilcot protecting Gordon Brown on the basis of "sensitive information"?

One of the baseline documents produced by the Iraq Inquiry is a description of how Chilcot and his colleagues will act with respect to Sensitive Information.

This document makes it clear that guidelines have been agreed between the Iraq Inquiry and the Government about when information might be withheld from the public.

Isn't Chilcot supposed to be independent, you might ask.

Chilcot is supposed to create the impression that the Iraq Inquiry is independent but the reality may be signficantly different.

As discussed previously, The Chilcot Inquiry: Questions related to these "Privy Counsellors", all five members of the Iraq Inquiry are Privy Counsellors. And Privy Counsellors are bound by an oath of secrecy. Four of the five memebers of the Iraq Inquiry were made Privy Counsellors around the time of being appointed to this "independent" inquiry. The effect was to ensure that those four members would like the Chairman be bound by the Privy Counsellors' oath of secrecy.

The Sensitive Information document adds further concerns regarding the Iraq Inquiry's openness and honesty.

Let's look at what the Sensitive Information says:

Those procedures are intended to avoid the release of anything the disclosure of which would, or would be likely to:

...

b. endanger the life of an individual or otherwise risk serious harm to an individual;

We know that public disclosure of the offences I believe Gordon Brown has committed, for example Gordon Brown's offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are the largest financial crimes in UK history, could readily be argued to risk "serious harm" to Gordon Brown.

I can't imagine anyone suggesting that Gordon Brown is likely to enjoy being imprisoned for life for offences contrary to Sections 15 and 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Sir John Chilcot might argue that Gordon Brown's mental health might be seriously harmed by life imprisonment. Who could reasonably argue with any certainty that it won't be?

Is this the pretext that Sir John Chilcot will hide behind if he continues to illegitimately protect Gordon Brown by sustained failure to ask Gordon Brown about his criminal actions with respect to the Iraq War?

Gordon Brown's criminal offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrrorism Act 2000

I've added an article, Gordon Brown's offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are the largest financial crimes in UK history, to my Westminster's Cheating Us blog.

I believe that Gordon Brown's offences contrary to Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000 are the largest financial crimes in the history of the United Kingdom.

The scale of Gordon Brown's crimes highlights just how appalling it is that Chilcot's Cheating Us, to the degree that he is.

My New Blog on State Hidden International Terrorism

In some respects things may go quiet in the Chilcot world until after the General Election is over.

Today I've started a new blog on issues relating to terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq by the United Kingdom and its Armed Forces.

I use the term State Hidden International Terrorism for such British military terrorism.

Yes, the SHITgate blog, has moments of scatological humour but I'm also in process of adding some much more substantive material on the UK's international terrorism which isn't appropriate for the Chilcot's Cheating Us blog since it doesn't directly (or solely) apply to the British terrorism in Iraq that Chilcot is tasked with looking at.

A recent pretty substantial article, An account of the illegality of the UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001, is hot off the press.

The Chilcot Inquiry: Questions related to these "Privy Counsellors"

The Iraq Inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot has five members:

1. Sir John Chilcot
2. Sir Lawrence Freedman
   
3. Sir Martin Gilbert
4. Sir Roderick Lyne
5. Baroness Usha Prashar

When the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced to Parliament the creation of the Iraq Inquiry he made the seemingly innocuous comment regarding the inquiry's membership, "I can announce that the committee of inquiry will be chaired by Sir John Chilcot and it will include Baroness Usha Prashar, Sir Roderick Lyne, Sir Lawrence Freedman and Sir Martin Gilbert. All are, or will become, Privy Counsellors."

The year in which an individual becomes a Privy Counsellor is one of the few items of information provided about individuals in the List of Privy Council Members.

If we take the time to examine the year in which the five members of the Iraq Inquiry were made Privy Counsellors, an interesting pattern emerges:

1. Sir John Chilcot - 2004
   
2. Sir Lawrence Freedman - 2009
   
3. Sir Martin Gilbert - 2009
   
4. Sir Roderick Lyne - 2009
   
5. Baroness Usha Prashar - 2009
   

Were four of the five members of the Iraq Inquiry made Privy Counsellors at, or around, the time that they were appointed as members of the Iraq Inquiry?

It looks very likely that the answer to the preceding question is "Yes".

Does membership of the Privy Council impose on members any difficulties in conducting an "independent" inquiry into wrongdoing by the Crown?

The answer to that question too is "Yes".

The reason for those difficulties lies in the wording of the Privy Council Oath.

Each of the five members of the Iraq Inquiry is so impeded in conducting an independent and open inquiry.

Four of the five members had this impediment imposed on them at, or around, the time they were appointed as members of the Iraq Inquiry.