Wednesday 21 October 2009
Tony's General Lord Guthrie and PC Soldiering
It appears that Lord Guthrie has stepped in and attacked the BNP.
No surprise there - Lord Guthrie has long been an advocate of the insane doctrine of exporting 'democracy' , which in reality means the free market and global corporations, through the use of force.
This theory of pre-emptive strike has of course has led to over a million deaths in Iraq alone.
In The Sun, Lord General Guthrie (who used his old military titles in the article) attacks the BNP.
Lets take a look at his declared interests ;
GUTHRIE OF CRAIGIEBANK, Lord
*12(d) Non-parliamentary consultant
Consultant, BioDefense Corporation (an American company)
*12(e) Remunerated directorships
Non-executive Director, N M Rothschild & Sons Ltd
*12(f) Regular remunerated employment
Member of the International Advisory Board of Thorium Power (a US Company)
Visit to Oman (5-7 January 2007) as an Advisor - paid for by the Government of Oman
Visit to Oman (5-6 January 2008) as an Advisor - paid for by the Government of Oman
So we can see that Lord Guthrie is a paid director for Rothschilds Banks (what a surprise) and also a paid director of an American defense company and has been paid to visit Oman.
So oil, banking, US nuclear power corporations and US and UK defence contracts are all linked together with Lord Guthrie at the centre.
Add in the fact that he is a night of Malta, and is a Christian Fundamentalist, then we can see the links join up.
Sounds like George Bush.
" There may be a reason why Lord Guthrie is cagey about faith. He is vice president of the Sovereign Order of Malta, a humanitarian organisation with an image problem, having been founded in Jerusalem in 1050. The order says it "had to become military to protect the pilgrims and the sick and to defend the Christian territories in the Holy Land". That stopped 200 years ago, but it still requires those who become knights – by invitation only – to swear to defend the faith. So he's a knight in the order. And he's written a book about just war. And he was head of the armed forces. How does he think that sounds to Muslims who accuse Britain of being drawn into a new crusade?
"Well," says Lord Guthrie, "I... I suppose you could interpret it that way. I've never noticed it or... I've never really thought about it, really." He thinks for a moment. "I've never discussed having more crusades, or anything like that."
Bio-Defence Corporation that Lord Guthrie is paid to work for is currently under investigation for illegal activities in America ;
It also appears that Bio-Defence also employed Lord Guthrie to try and gain contracts in the UK, presumably with the MOD ;
'United Kingdom Needs to Wake Up to Threat of Bioterrorism,' Says UK Board Member General Lord Guthrie.
" BOSTON, April 22 /PRNewswire/ -- biodefense Corp., the only company in the world to develop and deploy technology that can neutralize and destroy a biohazardous substance while maintaining the integrity of the tainted materials, today announced it has partnered with General Lord Guthrie, former chief of the British Defense Staff, to establish new security markets for the biodefense MailDefender(R) in the United Kingdom. "
So it appears that Lord Guthrie was hired by Bio-Defence to assist them to peddle their wares to the MOD.
But hey, thats not cashing in on the Army and Military is it !
Hie is also a director of Colt Defence, another US arms company that makes the weapons being used by US troops around the world ;
Colt Defense was split off from Colt's Manufacturing Company in 2002 in order to focus on the military, law enforcement and security markets.
* M16 rifle
* M4 Carbine
* M203 grenade launcher
So yet again Guthrie is profiting from the Iraq War and Afghan War.
Lord Guthrie was also known as Tonys General and the main supporter of his insane Five Wars ;
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It was wrong to say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair was selective about the intelligence reports, preferring those that told him what he already believed. These things may seem self-evident, four years into a violent and chaotic war, but coming from Lord Guthrie they have an impact approaching shock and awe.
"I felt it was right at the time," the former head of the armed forces says of the decision to attack Saddam to stop him attacking us. "Now I'm not so sure. In fact I think it was probably wrong."
The occupation has been a disaster, he says. But this is the man widely credited – or blamed – for encouraging fresh-faced new PM Tony Blair to become a hawk willing to send British troops to die in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. As Chief of the Defence Staff from 1997 to 2001, Charles Guthrie struck up a close relationship with the then Prime Minister and became known as Mr Blair's favourite general. Even after retirement he was close to the PM, acting as his envoy to Pakistan. So what is he up to now, publicly admitting doubts and regrets in a way that would have been impossible back then? "
Was there just cause? Lord Guthrie, still close to Tony Blair, told the House of Lords in 2002 that Saddam posed "a serious threat" that would endanger "the security of our own citizens". That wasn't true, was it? "It's very easy to be wise after the event but everybody – the Americans the British, even the French – believed he had weapons of mass destruction."
Not everybody. Not the million or so people who marched through the streets of London. "He behaved as though he had weapons of mass destruction," insists Lord Guthrie. "Now whether that was a good enough reason to try to remove him, I don't know."
He believed Saddam had nuclear weapons and action was needed to prevent an attack. "What I was told, and all the intelligence agencies were saying, was exactly what I have just said. I felt it was right at the time. Now I'm not so sure. In fact I think it was probably wrong."
Lord Guthrie is another PC General who is quite happy for the BRITISH Army to become a PC International Army of international volunteer mercenaries.
He wants the BRITISH Army to become the US-UK Army, or the EU-UK Army or the PC UK Army which is staffed with foreign recruits who own no loyalty to Britain, to the British people, to British culture and to the Crown and who simply are loyal to whoever pays them the most money.
He just wants a foreign army to allow us to continue to fight foreign wars, the same foreign wars that he supported when he was Tony's General and allowed Blair to fight his Five Wars and at the same time train Islamic terrorists like the KLA who he ordered the SAS to train so they could kill innocent men, women and children in Serbia ;
So Lord Guthrie ordered the SAS to train Islamist terrorists who then used murder and terrorism to drive Serbia out of Kosovo.
I think Lord Guthrie should keep out of politics with a disgusting record of military strategic stupidity as long as his.
If you doubt Britain needs a written constitution, listen to the strangely unbalanced discussion broadcast by the BBC last Friday. The Today programme asked Lord Guthrie, formerly chief of the defence staff, and Sir Kevin Tebbit, until recently the senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, if parliament should decide whether or not the country goes to war. The discussion was a terrifying exposure of the privileges of unaccountable power. It explained as well as anything I have heard how Britain became party to a crime that may have killed a million people.
Guthrie argued that parliamentary approval would mean intelligence had to be shared with MPs; that the other side could not be taken by surprise ("do you want to warn the enemy you are going to do it?"), and that commanders should have "a choice about when to attack and when not to attack". Tebbit maintained that "no prime minister would be able to deploy forces without being able to command a parliamentary majority. In that sense, the executive is already accountable to parliament". Once the prime minister has his majority, in other words, MPs become redundant.
Let me dwell for a moment on what Guthrie said, for he appears to advocate that we retain the right to commit war crimes. States in dispute with each other, the UN charter says, must first seek to solve their differences by "peaceful means" (article 33). If these fail, they should refer the matter to the security council (article 37), which decides what measures should be taken (article 39). Taking the enemy by surprise is a useful tactic in battle, and encounters can be won only if commanders are able to make decisions quickly. But either Guthrie does not understand the difference between a battle and a war - which is unlikely in view of his 44 years of service - or he does not understand the most basic point in international law. Launching a surprise war is forbidden by the charter.
It has become fashionable to scoff at these rules and to dismiss those who support them as pedants and prigs, but they are all that stand between us and the greatest crimes in history. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that "to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime". The tribunal's charter placed "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression" at the top of the list of war crimes.
If Britain's most prominent retired general does not understand this, it can only be because he has never been forced to understand it. In September 2002, he argued in the Lords that "the time is approaching when we may have to join the US in operations against Iraq ... Strike soon, and the threat will be less and easier to handle. If the UN route fails, I support the second option." No one in the chamber warned him that he was proposing the supreme international crime. In another Lords debate, Guthrie argued that it was "unthinkable for British servicemen and women to be sent to the International Criminal Court", regardless of what they might have done. He demanded a guarantee from the government that this would not be allowed to happen, and proposed that the British forces should be allowed to opt out of the European convention on human rights. The grey heads murmured their agreement.
Perhaps it is unfair to single out the noble and gallant lord. The British establishment's exceptionalism is almost universal. According to the government, both the Commons public administration committee and the Lords constitution committee recognise that decision-making should "provide sufficient flexibility for deployments which need to be made without prior parliamentary approval for reasons of urgency or necessary operational secrecy". You cannot keep an operation secret from parliament unless you are also keeping it secret from the UN.
Tebbit appears to have a general aversion to disclosure. In 2003, the Guardian obtained letters showing he had prevented the fraud squad at the MoD from investigating allegations of corruption against the arms manufacturer BAE, that he tipped off the BAE chairman about the contents of a confidential letter the Serious Fraud Office had sent him, and that he failed to tell his minister about the SFO's warnings. In October 2003, under cross-examination during the Hutton inquiry into the death of the government scientist David Kelly, he revealed the decision to name Kelly was made in a "meeting chaired by the prime minister". That could have been the end of Tony Blair, but a week later Tebbit sent Lord Hutton a written retraction of his evidence. No one bothered to tell parliament or the press; the retraction was made public only when the Hutton report was published, three months later. Blair knew all along, and the secret gave him a crushing advantage.
The discussion also reveals that Guthrie and Tebbit appear to have learned nothing from the disaster in Iraq. They are not alone. Just before he stepped down last year, Blair wrote an article for the Economist headlined "What I've Learned". He had discovered, he claimed, that his critics were both wrong and dangerous and that his decisions, based on "freedom, democracy, responsibility to others, but also justice and fairness", were difficult but invariably right. He called his article "a very short synopsis of what I have learned". I could think of an even shorter one.
We have yet to hear one word of regret or remorse from any of the main architects - Blair, Brown, Straw, Hoon, Campbell and their principal advisers - of Britain's participation in the supreme international crime. The press and parliament appear to have heeded Blair's plea that we all "move on" from Iraq. The British establishment has a unique capacity to move on, and then to repeat its mistakes. What other former empire knows so little of its own atrocities?
When people call our unwritten constitution a "gentleman's agreement", they reveal more than they intend. It allows the unelected gentlemen who advise the prime minister to act without reference to the proles. Britain went to war in Iraq because the public and parliament were not allowed to know when the decision was made, what the intelligence reports said, and what the attorney general wrote about the its legality. Had the truth not been suppressed, Britain could never have attacked Iraq.
Real constitutional reform requires much more than the timid proposals in the green paper on the governance of Britain, which are likely to appear in a bill in a few weeks' time. Yes, parliament should be allowed to vote on whether to go to war, yes the royal prerogative should be rolled back. But the prime minister, his diplomats, civil servants and generals would still decide which wars parliament needs to know about, which crimes could be secretly committed in our name. Real constitutional reform means not only handing power to parliament but also confronting the power of the hard, unaccountable people who act as if it is their birthright.