I am well aware that Members of the UK Parliament will be reluctant to open the "can of worms" which is UK spending for the purposes of terrorism in Afghanistan.
Accordingly, I'm posting a copy of the email here to put on public record that John Bercow and Kevin Barron have been asked to investigate the contempt of Parliament and to report to the Police the offences by civil servants in HM Treasury.
The text of my email follows:
Mr Bercow, Mr Barron,
I write to draw to your attention what I believe to be serious contempt of Parliament by HM Treasury and George Osborne MP. That contempt of Parliament was, I believe, designed to conceal from Parliament serious criminal offences by civil servants in HM Treasury and others.
In your respective roles as Speaker of the House of Commons and Chairman of the Standard and Privileges Select Committee, I ask you to take all practicable steps to investigate the contempt of Parliament that I believe to have taken place and to investigate the underlying criminal offences by HM Treasury civil servants and others that the Contempt of Parliament was intended to conceal.
In addition to the requested Parliamentary investigation, I request you to report these serious matters to the Police.
Specifically, in the recent statement about the Comprehensive Spending Review I can find no disclosure to Parliament that the Government is spending and proposes to continue spending public money on unlawful purposes in Afghanistan.
In particular, it was concealed from Parliament that the proposed spending in Afghanistan is contrary to Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrorism Act 2000, given the definition of "terrorism" in Subsections 1(1) to 1(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The effect of Mr Osborne's deception of Parliament is to conceal from Parliament (and the UK public) that some £20 billion has already been spent unlawfully in Iraq and Afghanistan (not all by the current Government) and that it is proposed unlawfully to spend a further £20-25 billion on "terrorism" (as defined in UK Law) in Afghanistan during the period 2010-2015.
I believe that such unlawful spending constitutes the largest financial crime in United Kingdom history, the spending on "terorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan variously being offences contrary to Sections 15 to 18 of the Terrrorism Act 2000.
It was further concealed from Parliament that there is a very real choice as to whether to spend £20-25 billion unlawfully in Afghanistan in the period 2010-2015, or spend that money on hospitals and schools.
Parliament has a right to be asked the question, "Do you want to spend £20-25 billion unlawfully on British military terrorism in Afghanistan in 2010-2015 or do you want to spend it on schools and hospitals in the United Kingdom?".
To assist you (or your legal advisers) to understand why I make such serious allegations I will direct your attention to the "General Definition" of "terrorism" in Subsections 1(1) to 1(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000.
I briefly describe the rationale behind the allegations in my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog here: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/02/use-off-armed-force-by-uk-military.html
You and your advisers may also find helpful the article entitled, An account of the illegality of of the UK military action in Afghanistan since 2001, http://shitgate.blogspot.com/2010/04/account-of-illegality-of-uk-military.html, where I describe UK Law in a context of the UN Security Council resolutions starting in 2001.
In that outline argument I do not attempt to examine all possible legal viewpoints regarding the matter. Suffice to say at the moment, is that in addition to the question of whether or not criminal offences have been committed by individual politicians, civil servants and military personnel there are important political questions, including the following.
1. Since Parliament was not informed in Autumn 2001 (or subsequently) that it was proposed to spend in Afghanistan public money on "terrorism" as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000, all spending of public funding in Afghanistan was unlawful (as was the spending on the Iraq War).
2. Parliament and the public was not informed that Tony Blair's so-called "war on terrorism" was itself "terrorism" in UK Law. Therefore any House of Commons authority for the Iraq War was obtained in false pretences.
3. British soldiers are dying in Afghanistan as "terrorists" (as defined in Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000) naively believing that they are fighting a war against terrorism. I believe that you, collectively and individually, have a moral duty to inform these soldiers that they are risking losing their lives and limbs as terrorists.
That HM Treasury were aware that concerns existed that their spending was unlawful and was funding "terrorism" (as defined in the Terrorism Act 2000) is relevant. I attach a copy of my "Cease and Desist Request" letter of 6th February 2010 addressed to the Permanent Secretary of HM Treasury.
I am copying this email to the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, to whom I recently wrote in connection with that Committee's Inquiry into the Comprehensive Spending Review.
In addition, I am copying this email individually to each member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, so serious is my concern about this matter.
The United States legislature had the integrity to investigate the Watergate scandal. I await with interest to find out whether the United Kingdom House of Commons and its institutions can act with equal integrity in the face of scandalous crimes by individuals and institutions close to the heart of some Members of Parliament.
Andrew Watt
P.S. Since I recognise that there are significant political drivers which are likely to lead towards a Parliamentary cover-up rather than honest investigation, I will post a copy of this email on my blog "Westminster's Cheating Us" shortly after I send it.
P.P.S.
Contact information:
[removed in this copy to prevent spam]
The text of the letter of 6th February 2010 attached in the original of the email is contained in this preceding post: Wilful contempt of Parliament by HM Treasury?.
No comments:
Post a Comment