Skip to content

Those old fashioned Brits

Here in America, we have come to understand that the bigger the crime, the less justification for punishment. That means, for example, that starting an illegal war that results in the killing of tens of thousands of people (and, incidentally, lands the invaded country subject to the influence of another country with which you are at odds) is a consequence free crime, since you can’t do anything much more criminal. Institutionalized torture and endless imprisonment of mainly innocent people, inasmuch as they compound the crime, merely serve as further reasons to forget about the whole thing. We have learned these things, in our infinite wisdom, and have put the lessons learned to work. Never look back, we firmly believe, or you might learn something.

The British, on the other hand, have this quaint notion that maybe there should be consequences, if belated, for this sort of criminal activity, so they formed a commission to look into the whole Iraq invasion thing. Such a mistake, and, coming from a country with a proud imperial tradition of its own, a somewhat mystifying one.

But the British are certainly learning, for today the British government, after politely discussing the matter with Tony Blair, refused to hand over Tony Blair’s love letters to George Bush. We know that the British government has learned from ours because, according to the British government, there are several good and sound reasons to withhold the notes, all of which sound vaguely familiar:

The Cabinet Office said the refusal to allow Blair’s notes to be disclosed conformed to the inquiry’s protocols. Chilcot said recently the protocols were “put in place to protect national security, international relations and the personal security of individuals. They are not there to prevent embarrassment.”

As any American knows this statement can be translated roughly as follows: The protocols, as we choose to interpret them, have nothing to do with national security, international relations or the personal security of individuals. They are there to prevent embarrassment.”

You see, the only people who should be able to use these notes are people who will use them to continue to propagate the lies that led to the war in the first place. In their case, exposure of (portions) of the documents are perfectly appropriate:

[Inquiry leader Sir John Chilcot] refers to passages in memoirs, including Blair’s autobiography, A Journey, and disclosures by Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, and Alastair Campbell, his former head of communications. Those publications, and the refusal to disclose Blair’s notes, Chilcot said, “leads to the position that individuals may disclose privileged information (without sanction) whilst a committee of privy counsellors established by a former prime minister to review the issues, cannot”.

So, it appears that we can take comfort in the fact that the British people will remain as comfortably ignorant of the details of the criminal conspiracy as will we. We must give them credit for trying, but really, it’s hard to believe they could have been so naive as to think that crime on that scale should have consequences.


Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.