During the celebrated Gdansk shipyard dispute, the negotiations between the Solidarnosc union delegates and the shipyard management were relayed by loudspeaker from the meeting room to the crowds of shipyard workers surrounding the building. This is what's known as transparency and democracy in action. There are no good reasons why all such discussions should not be conducted in this way.
Now listen to the weasle Jack Straw, explaining his refusal to publish the minutes of ministerial discussions about the 2003 Iraq invasion.
{1}Confidentiality serves to promote thorough decision-making.
{2}There is a balance to be struck between openess and maintaining aspects of our structure of democratic government.
{3}Disclosure of the Cabinet minutes in this case jeopardises that space for thought and debate at precisely the point where it has its greatest utility.
Read them again.
Straw already sounds Prime Ministerial.
Bearing in mind that the deliberations concerned were about undertaking an act of aggression, involving widespread death and destruction, which was opposed by the majority of British and World opinion, in what way did secrecy serve thorough decision-making?
There was nothing thorough about the cabinet's Iraq war deliberations. Clearly, Blair already had the date for the invasion from the Cheney/Bush cabal, and it was going to go ahead - 'legal' or otherwise. There was no point in any discussions.
What's needed, since no Public Inquiry worth shite will ever be forthcoming from New Labour or the Tories, is an independent war crimes commission along the lines of the Sartre - Russell hearings after the Vietnam war. It would be a start.
Now listen to the weasle Jack Straw, explaining his refusal to publish the minutes of ministerial discussions about the 2003 Iraq invasion.
{1}Confidentiality serves to promote thorough decision-making.
{2}There is a balance to be struck between openess and maintaining aspects of our structure of democratic government.
{3}Disclosure of the Cabinet minutes in this case jeopardises that space for thought and debate at precisely the point where it has its greatest utility.
Read them again.
Straw already sounds Prime Ministerial.
Bearing in mind that the deliberations concerned were about undertaking an act of aggression, involving widespread death and destruction, which was opposed by the majority of British and World opinion, in what way did secrecy serve thorough decision-making?
There was nothing thorough about the cabinet's Iraq war deliberations. Clearly, Blair already had the date for the invasion from the Cheney/Bush cabal, and it was going to go ahead - 'legal' or otherwise. There was no point in any discussions.
What's needed, since no Public Inquiry worth shite will ever be forthcoming from New Labour or the Tories, is an independent war crimes commission along the lines of the Sartre - Russell hearings after the Vietnam war. It would be a start.
Powered by ScribeFire.
|
0 Reply to "Glasnost"
Leave a Comment