Watchdog ruling - Iraq dossier was sexed up看門狗執政黨-伊拉克和諧社會是添油加醋
By Chris Ames |由Chris埃姆斯|
The government is attacked as “dodgy” after a ruling that criticises the way in which author of the September 2002 Iraq dossier has effectively been allowed anonymity.政府是攻擊為“ dodgy ”後裁決，批評以何種方式的作者2002年9月的伊拉克檔案，有效地被允許不願透露姓名的。
The Information Tribunal has today criticised the government for the absence of any audit trail showing the true authorship of its September 2002 dossier on “Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”.信息法庭今天批評政府沒有任何的審計線索，顯示真正的作者，其2002年9月的檔案，對“伊拉克的大規模殺傷性武器” 。 In a new ruling, the tribunal has accepted the Cabinet Office’s position that it has no record of which officials or spin doctors made “substantial changes” to the dossier’s executive summary.在一個新的裁決，該法庭已接受了內閣辦公室的立場，認為它沒有任何的紀錄，官員或自旋醫生作出了“很大的變化， ”到和諧社會的內容提要。 The Liberal Democrats have already condemned this position as “dodgy”.自由民主黨已經譴責了這一立場“ dodgy ” 。
The case represents another blow to the government’s claim that the dossier was the work of the intelligence services, following the publication in February of the first draft, written by Foreign Office spin doctor John Williams.這一案件是另一個打擊政府的索賠，該檔案是工作的情報服務，出版之後在2月的第一稿，寫的外事辦公室自旋醫生約翰威廉斯。 The existence of the Williams draft was first revealed in the New Statesman in November 2006.所存在的威廉斯草案首次透露，在新的政治家，在2006年11月。
In this latest freedom of information act case, I asked the Cabinet Office to state who re-wrote the dossier’s executive summary between the drafts of 10 and 16 September 2002.在這方面的最新資訊自由法的情況，我要求內閣辦公室向國家誰重新寫了和諧社會的內容提要之間的草稿， 10日和2002年9月16 。 It initially claimed that evidence to the Hutton Inquiry by Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) chairman John Scarlett covered this, but the Tribunal rejected that claim.它最初聲稱的證據，向赫頓調查由聯合情報委員會（ JIC為）主席John斯嘉麗所涵蓋的這一點，但法庭拒絕了這一要求。 Scarlett had told Hutton that he and his team of JIC assessments staff had been responsible for compiling the dossier but did not state that they had done all the drafting.斯佳麗曾告訴赫頓說，他和他的團隊的JIC為評估的工作人員一直負責編制卷宗，但沒有說明他們做了所有的起草工作。
The Tribunal stated that it is clear “that substantial changes were made” between the two drafts and suggested that it was common ground that officials outside the JIC “may have gone as far as proposing particular forms of words”.法庭指出，這是明確的“很大的變化，提出了”兩國之間的草稿，並建議，這是共同點，官員以外的JIC為“可能已經就建議，尤其是形式的話” 。 These officials included Williams and other spin doctors such as Alastair Campbell, the government’s former director of communications.這些官員包括威廉斯和其他自旋醫生如坎貝爾，政府的前主任通訊。
The dossier’s executive summary included “judgements”, which Tony Blair presented to Parliament as having been “made by the JIC alone”.案卷的內容提要，包括“判決” ，其中托尼布萊爾向議會提交過“所提出的JIC為單” 。 The judgements in the 10 September draft were themselves revealed to have originated in John Williams’ document.判決，在9月10日，草案本身顯示，有起源於約翰威廉斯的文件。 But the next version included a number of new ones.但在下一個版本包括了一些新的定居點。 The government’s inability to account for these changes raises the possibility that none of the judgements in the published dossier originated from within the JIC machinery.政府的無力帳戶，這些變化引起的可能性沒有判決在已公佈的卷宗源自內部JIC為機器。
Campbell later had a further “judgement” added to the summary, after the JIC’s oversight of the document had ended.坎貝爾後來進行了進一步的“判決”添加到概要，後專營的監督，該文件已經結束。 This was the claim that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction against his own Shia population.這是聲稱薩達姆會使用大規模殺傷性武器對付自己的什葉派人口。
The Tribunal accepted the Cabinet Office’s case that it had no record either of who had drafted the summary or who had made changes to it.法庭接受了內閣辦公室的情況下，它已沒有記錄無論是誰，已經起草了簡易程序或誰作出了更改。 But in doing so, it criticised the absence of a proper audit trail, particularly given the significance of the dossier.但在這樣做，它批評缺乏適當的審計線索，尤其是考慮到意義的和諧社會。 In its ruling it observed: “we are not very impressed by the quality of the record keeping… this was on any view an extremely important document and we would have expected, or hoped for, some audit trail revealing who had drafted what.”在其執政的，它指出： “我們不是非常深刻的印象高質量的備存紀錄…這是從任何角度來看一個非常重要的文件和我們本來期望，或希望的程度，一些審計線索，揭示了誰起草了什麼” 。
The dossier formed the basis of the government’s case to Parliament for invading Iraq.案卷形成的基礎上，政府的情況下向議會入侵伊拉克。 It subsequently emerged that Iraq did not have WMD at that time and that the dossier’s claims were expressed with significantly more certainty than the intelligence on which they were said to be based.後來出現了，伊拉克並沒有大規模殺傷性武器在那個時間，並認為和諧社會的主張表示了顯著更大的確定性，比情報，他們說是基於。
The new judgements included the claim that Iraq could deploy WMD within 45 minutes and another false claim that it was continuing to produce chemical and biological agents.新的判決，包括聲稱伊拉克大規模殺傷性武器可以部署在45分鐘內和另一虛假聲稱，這是繼續生產化學和生物製劑。 Both were opposed by intelligence experts at the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS).都反對由情報專家在國防情報工作人員（ DIS ）的。 The Butler Inquiry later criticised the government’s failure to make the intelligence behind the latter claim available to the DIS: “The fact that it was not shown to them resulted in a stronger assessment in the dossier in relation to Iraqi chemical weapons production than was justified by the available intelligence.”該巴特勒調查後，批評政府的失敗，使情報的背後，後者要求提供給存款保險計劃： “事實上，這並非表明他們產生了一個強大的評估，在和諧社會在有關伊拉克化學武器生產比理由是現有的情報“ 。
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Ed Davey told the New Statesman: “The absence of any audit trail for the substantial changes to the Iraq dossier is perhaps not surprising.自由民主黨外交事務發言人，教育署•達維說，新政治家說： “沒有任何的審計線索，為很大的變化，向伊拉克和諧社會是也許並不奇怪。 The government’s spin doctors must have known what they were doing was dodgy and would not be approved by the intelligence experts.政府的自旋醫生必須知道什麼，他們這樣做是dodgy ，並會不獲批准，由情報專家。 No wonder they left no fingerprints.”怪不得他們沒有留下指紋“ 。
NewStatesman newstatesman source 來源
See More: 看到更多的： Iraq 伊拉克 UK News 英國新聞Have Your Say: Watchdog ruling - Iraq dossier was sexed up 你說：看門狗執政黨-伊拉克和諧社會是添油加醋
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
2 Responses to “Watchdog ruling - Iraq dossier was sexed up” 2反應“看門狗執政黨-伊拉克和諧社會是添油加醋”
steve k 史蒂夫k
Posted: Apr 25th, 2008 at 4:27 am | 發布時間： 2008年4月25日在上午04時27分| Link to this 鏈接到本steve k 史蒂夫k
Posted: Apr 25th, 2008 at 4:41 am | 發布時間： 2008年4月25日在上午04時41分| Link to this 鏈接到本Reply回复This in my opinion is no accident as the war in iraq is ILLEGAL as a country cannot attack a soverign nation for the purposes of a regime change unless that country has posed a direct and provable threat and even then it needs the full backing of the UN security council for the direct purpose of said regime change and as neither of these happened the government at the time came up with the sexed-up dossier with WMD as an excuse to attack with the express purpose of regime change in iraq .這在我認為是沒有發生意外，因為在伊拉克戰爭是非法的作為一個國家不能攻擊一個主權國家為目的，一個政權改變，除非該國已構成了直接威脅，並證明即使如此，它需要的全力支持聯合國安理會的直接目的說，制度的變化和作為都沒有這些事，政府在時間來與添油加醋的後續和諧社會與大規模殺傷性武器為藉口，攻擊與表達的目的，改變政權在伊拉克。 Therefore it is no supprise to me that there is no direct paper trail of said dossier or too how and why it went through so many changes!因此，這是沒有supprise我認為是沒有直接的文件線索的說，和諧社會或過於如何以及為什麼它經歷了這麼多的變化！ . 。 I feel that the full truth of said dossier will never be fully explained !我覺得充分的真相，說，和諧社會絕不會加以充分解釋！ . 。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- UK in Israel WMD cover up英國在以色列的大規模殺傷性武器的掩飾
- More WMD lies exposed更多的大規模殺傷性武器的謊言暴露
- It’s official: Blair’s government set out to deceive us它的官方：布萊爾的政府列出來欺騙我們
- Troops accused of Iraq ‘executions’部隊指控伊拉克'處決'
- Ex-MI6 chief: Too much weight on Iraq intelligence前軍情6處行政：太多的重量對伊拉克情報
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Libya releases ‘disappeared’ dissident, says rights group利比亞新聞稿'失踪'持不同政見者說，人權組織
- The ‘War Crimes File’ '戰爭罪行檔案'
- White House fed war propaganda to a “complicit” media白宮美聯儲戰爭宣傳，以“共犯”媒體
- The last Briton in Guantanamo faces death penalty過去英國人在關塔那摩面臨死刑
- UK Police Harrass Youths英國警方harrass青年
- Autism Risk Linked to Distance From Power Plants自閉症的風險聯繫在一起的距離發電廠
- How McCain Has Supported Bush如何麥凱恩支持布什
- UN chief “shocked” over Zimbabwe’s murdered activists聯合國行政“震驚”超過津巴布韋的活躍分子殺害
- The Genealogy of Torture and Democracy該族譜的酷刑和民主
- Lecturers defy government over ID cards講師違抗政府的身份證
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔
This is deciet at its very worst it just proves that the UK government cannot be trusted as they knew fair well that too attack irag was ILLEGAL as one government cannot attack any country for the purpose of a regime change unless that country has directly posed a threat too the opposing country , and it needs a full agreement from the UN SECURITY COUNCIL for the direct purpose of a regime change and as neither happened the war in iraq is ILLEGAL .這是deciet在其最糟糕的很，只是證明，英國政府不能信任，因為他們知道，公平，以及過於攻擊irag是非法的，作為一個政府不能攻擊任何國家為目的的一個政權改變，除非該國已直接構成了威脅太反對的國家，它需要一個全面協議，由聯合國安理會的直接目的，一個政權的變化和作為既不是發生在伊拉克戰爭是非法的。 So in my opinion the false sexed up claim of the dossier that SADDAM had WMD gave a ligitimacy to a war that was HIGHLY ILLEGAL and in effect could be classed as A WAR CRIME IN DIRECT BREACH OF THE UN POLICY !因此，我覺得虛假添油加醋的索賠的案卷說，薩達姆大規模殺傷性武器了ligitimacy ，以一場戰爭，這是高度非法和在作用可被歸類為一種戰爭罪行，直接違反了聯合國的政策！ . 。 Thats why in my opinion it is no mistake that there is no direct paper trail as the government in power at the time knew what they were doing and one day would be called too account !這就是為什麼在我認為，這是沒有錯，有沒有直接的文件線索，由於政府在權力，在什麼時間知道他們正在做的和一天會被要求過於帳戶！ . 。