Call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission

[IanFantom]

To: Dr Richard Dearlove, Master of Pembroke College, Pembroke College, Cambridge, CB2 1RF

2 November 2007
Dear Dr Dearlove,

Call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission

I would like to express my appreciation of the way in which you handled questions, following your public lecture on 31 October 2007 at the London School of Economics under the title “Intelligence and the Media: Can we trust journalists with public security”.

Had we been in the US, then I, for instance, could have been tasered for my question, as was the case of Andrew Meyer when he asked John Kerry whether he was in the same secret society as George Bush. Had we been in a Labour Party Conference, then I could have been manhandled, as was the case with Walter Wolfgang. Had we been in a meeting of Esperanto Association of Britain, then I could have been thrown out and been subject to a character assassination campaign by people whom you may or may not have known. Instead, in true British style, you just floundered, when there was really no credible answer to give.

You had stated that following the Iraq experience, you thought there was no case for an overhaul in procedures, on the grounds that that was a one-off, and unlikely to happen again. It was a case, you explained, in which intelligence was expected to support too great a weight in policy. You also conceded that the relationship between SIS and the press had suffered, because trust was compromised. You stated that there will always be a risk of overexposure when policy is determined by intelligence alone. There seem to me to be serious contradictions in your argument that Iraq was a one-off, and that there should therefore be no overhaul of procedures.

However, you then went on to say that we may be facing another situation in which intelligence may be preponderant, in Iran. When asked to explain, you had no explanation. Clearly, if trust is to be reestablished with the public, there has to be a proper inquiry and overhaul of procedures.

I was particularly concerned over your refusal to reply to a question put by former MI5 Intelligence Officer Annie Machon, on IOPS. IOPS, we were told, was a division for spreading disinformation in the press. Your refusal to deny the continued existence of IOPS appeared to contradict your previous statement that SIS doesn’t deliberately lie or mislead. Without an explanation of this point, I could not make sense of the title of your lecture.

Much concern was expressed amongst the audience regarding the attacks of 9/11. Whatever is or is not the truth on 9/11, there appears to be overwhelming evidence of a massive cover-up of the facts by the US administration, a fact that could hardly have escaped the attention of any decent military intelligence service in the UK. Your evasiveness on this issue would indicate at the very least a grave lack of awareness in matters of military intelligence concerning our main military ally, with which we are said to have a ‘special relationship’.

In response to one point, you stated that you had heard the point a hundred times before. In that case, you should have been well practised in replying to it. I have heard that means of evasion many, many times before.

Your statement that you don’t think that people in parliament intentionally make inaccurate statements evoked some incredulous laughter from the audience. Many, of course, would be thinking of IOPS and SIS itself as a source of disinformation, directed not at the enemy, but at our own people. Many, as you will be aware, think that SIS itself would have been complicit either in the attacks of 9/11 or in the subsequent cover-up. I think that in such circumstances the audience was commendably restrained.

As a result, public trust in the military intelligence services in the UK must have suffered considerable damage. Although it was clearly not your intention, you succeeded in making out a stronger case than any of those in your audience could ever have done for a radical reassessment of military intelligence services in this country.

Since becoming aware of the 9/11 issue in December 2006, I have been asking what happens when 50% of the US public believe that the US administration had a hand in 9/11. According to the latest opinion poll, we have now reached that stage. We are seeing repression and torture to a worrying extent, with people being tasered or hospitalised for no apparent reason other than that they question the authorities. My fear is that this will lead to widespread civil unrest, not only in the US, but also here in the UK. The Andrew Meyer case and the Walter Wolfgang case are clear indicators of this. So, too, is the reported penetration by the secret services of even tiny organisations which pose no threat to national security.

What we all need now is a way out of this predicament, which appears to be unparalleled since the 1930s, when Adolf Hitler assumed power in Germany with the help of right-wing elements connected with the current Bush administration, set fire to the Reichstag and blamed it on the other side – a small attack compared with 9/11 – and plunged the world into war.

I therefore call on you to support the idea of a South-African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which would give immunity of prosecution to people who committed criminal acts or acts of treason in the name of national security.

Yours very sincerely,


Ian Fantom.

[spiv]

Ian, your final paragraph is puzzling. Are you meaning immunity of prosecution for "whistleblowers", or are you meaning immunity of prosecution for these criminals, including Dearlove?

The former I would support, the latter, never!!

[IanFantom]

Ian, your final paragraph is puzzling. Are you meaning immunity of prosecution for "whistleblowers", or are you meaning immunity of prosecution for these criminals, including Dearlove?

The former I would support, the latter, never!!

I understand that. Implied is, of course, in exchange for them telling the whole truth about their part in the events.

Let's just talk about it

Regards, Ian.

[xmasdale]

Ian, your final paragraph is puzzling. Are you meaning immunity of prosecution for "whistleblowers", or are you meaning immunity of prosecution for these criminals, including Dearlove?

The former I would support, the latter, never!!

I think Ian's is an exellent letter.

In the case of South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission offered immunity from prosecution to both whistleblowers and those accused of implementing the oppression of apartheid. Without such immunity for both, the truth could not have come out. Those accused of complicity will not reveal truths if so doing puts their life or liberty in danger.

Which is more important to achieve: truth or revenge?

[spiv]

What is needed is, in my own opinion, a Nuremberg style World public trial - admittedly one day in the future - immunity to "whistleblowers" (witnesses) and full prosecution for those who have lied and been responsible for 911 (and maybe other "terrorist" murders as well in other parts of the World), illegal acts of invasion and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those accused to be tried and sentenced if found guilty. That's not revenge, that's justice. And if those who are one day accused have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear!!

Without any accountability, what will deter criminals in the future? And Ian's letter is excellent, I just have some issues with the final paragraph.

[outsider]

@ Ian Fantom
What we all need now is a way out of this predicament, which appears to be unparalleled since the 1930s, when Adolf Hitler assumed power in Germany with the help of right-wing elements connected with the current Bush administration, set fire to the Reichstag and blamed it on the other side – a small attack compared with 9/11 – and plunged the world into war.

Nit-picking, but the Reichstag fire was used to clamp down on internal dissent; the fake attacks on German bases was used to attack Poland.

[David WJ Sherlock]

Very well done Ian. Although the anarchists in the movement may find your immunity statement abhorrent. I think they know who they are. I think it is a very good approach. If we have a tribunal to convict these guys as "War Criminals" they will never come out.

[spiv]

Gosh David, are you referring to me as an "anarchist"? How exciting, as I'm in reality a pretty dull chap approaching my mid-50's, never had a criminal conviction - not even a parking or speeding ticket - and am qualified in a pretty dull profession. So to be labelled an "anarchist" makes me feel like a teenager again .

He-he, but nevertheless, even though I think Ian's letter is great, I still cannot agree with his last paragraph. Imagine allowing Hitler to be immune from a war crimes prosecution. I can certainly imagine some of his henchmen who could give damning evidence being granted immunity, but not the main men (& women)!!

An anarchist, well, I've been called many a name in my long years, but that has to be the best .

[outsider]

Gosh David, are you referring to me as an "anarchist"? How exciting, as I'm in reality a pretty dull chap approaching my mid-50's, never had a criminal conviction - not even a parking or speeding ticket - and am qualified in a pretty dull profession. So to be labelled an "anarchist" makes me feel like a teenager again .

He-he, but nevertheless, even though I think Ian's letter is great, I still cannot agree with his last paragraph. Imagine allowing Hitler to be immune from a war crimes prosecution. I can certainly imagine some of his henchmen who could give damning evidence being granted immunity, but not the main men (& women)!!

An anarchist, well, I've been called many a name in my long years, but that has to be the best .

Make you right, spiv. Best we should do is offer them immunity from Capital Punishment, which is a damn sight more than 'butcher' Bush has done to innumerable death row people.

[Cruise4]

I propose we advocate a truth and reconciliation commitee, and afterwards do them all anyway! They have got away with far too much... and thats how the trouble is perpetuated. Crimes against the Universe is more apt than crimes against man.