|現在地 HOME > 掲示板 > 戦争３８ > 350.html ★阿修羅♪||
The Hutton Inquiry
The inquiry into the death of the weapons scientist Dr David Kelly is being conducted by Lord Hutton at the Royal Courts of Justice in London
* Click here for the inquiry's official website.
SEVEN DAYS' COVERAGE
MoD: 'Kelly broke rules when he met Gilligan'
Hutton Inquiry: list of witnesses
Call for personal apology by Blair on Kelly
Dr Kelly buried in the quiet of a country churchyard
Family reclaims Dr Kelly from glare of publicity
THE INQUIRY: A GUIDE
This is not a trial, says law lord
by Tom Baldwin
The leak of Andrew Gilligan's evidence to MPs, and Lord Hutton's disclosure of David Kelly's letter tipped the scales slightly in favour of the Government
Hutton inquiry outline: main points
The questions on Kelly that must be answered
Judge is no stranger to the intelligence world
Downing Street; How the protaganists are preparing their cases
The BBC; How the protaganists are preparing their cases
The MoD;How the protagonists are preparing their cases
The Hutton Inquiry
July 23, 2003
The questions on Kelly that must be answered
By Philip Webster, David Charter, Michael Evans and Tom Baldwin
Questions the media have to answer
Were parts of the media too willing to take at face value the BBC's claim that Downing Street had "sexed up" the Iraqi intelligence dossier? Was that because the media have become over-cynical about politics?
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, is being pilloried for allowing Dr Kelly's name to be confirmed, but was not every newspaper bombarding the Ministry of Defence and Downing Street for information about his identity?
Were not some newspapers that are now accusing the Ministry of Defence of hounding Dr Kelly also pursuing him?
Did newspapers display sufficient scepticism over the 45-minute claim when it appeared in the dossier of September last year?
Questions the BBC has to answer
Why did Andrew Gilligan and Richard Sambrook, the two people at the BBC who knew the identity of Dr Kelly, suggest that he was an "intelligence source" or a "senior and credible source in the intelligence services"? And why did Mr Gilligan insist that Dr Kelly was one of the senior officials involved in drawing up the September dossier?
If it was so keen to protect Dr Kelly, why did the BBC give so many clues about the identity of its source, including saying that he was weapons of mass destruction expert and hinting that he had recently been in Iraq?
Did Mr Gilligan exaggerate, distort or conflate the information Dr Kelly gave him? Dr Kelly said Mr Gilligan's story did not represent his views, so is it right to stand by the veracity of Mr Gilligan's notes and imply that Dr Kelly was lying in his evidence of MPs?
Even if Mr Gilligan's reports were an accurate record of what he had been told, should he not have known that Dr Kelly was not in a position to make these allegations?
Did the BBC Board of Governors act properly in backing the story without checking the facts? And why did its statement of July 6 imply that the story came from a senior intelligence source?
Why did the BBC gamble its global reputation for honesty and impartiality on a battle with Downing Street about one story filed by one journalist based on one source?
Questions Parliament has to answer
Why was it necessary for the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (FAC) to reconvene to call Dr Kelly when he was due to give evidence in private to the Intelligence and Security Committee? Should the two parliamentary inquiries have been merged to prevent duplication of evidence or witnesses possibly changing their evidence?
Was the FAC right to subject Dr Kelly to such an adversarial hearing in public?
Did the FAC allow its remit to become coloured or overtaken by the row between Alastair Campbell and the BBC? Was the FAC too divided on political lines to conduct a balanced inquiry?
Did the chairman allow members to lead Dr Kelly to the public conclusion that he was not the main source when he was? Why were they so quick to accept Dr Kelly's view that he could not have been Mr Gilligan's source?
Should MPs' select committees be changed to hold more discursive inquiries or employ a barrister to pursue questions? Should they allow witnesses to make damaging allegations under parliamentary privilege without evidence or known sources?
Questions Downing Street has to answer
Should Tony Blair have given a clear government order either to prevent the naming of Dr Kelly, or to have published it as soon as he came forward, rather than have it to drip into the press by a process of elimination?
Should Mr Blair have stopped Mr Campbell allowing the row to escalate into a personal battle with the BBC?
Did Mr Campbell's demand for an apology for what he regarded as personal injustice push the BBC into a corner, preventing it from backing down because of the need to maintain independence?
Should Mr Blair have conceded a judicial inquiry earlier rather than being forced into one by Dr Kelly's death?
Does the affair not raise questions about the quality of the intelligence upon which Mr Blair relied? Has the standing of the intelligence agencies been damaged by Mr Blair bringing them into a highly-charged political dispute?
Should Downing Street have taken more personal care of Dr Kelly?
Questions Geoff Hoon and the MoD have to answer
Why did Mr Hoon and Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD's Permanent Secretary, decide on a policy under which the identity of Dr Kelly as the BBC source could be confirmed if a journalist came up with his name? Did Mr Hoon or Sir Kevin or anyone else at the meeting on July 9 that decided the "agreed position", argue for Dr Kelly's name to be kept strictly confidential?
Did Mr Hoon fail to fulfil his obligations as a minister to show a duty of care to one of his own civil servants?
Did Mr Hoon take the action he did because he expected Dr Kelly's name to become known at some stage anyway, or because he hoped that his identity would be exposed to undermine the BBC's claims.
Why did Mr Hoon state on BBC News 24 on Saturday, July 19, that "we made great efforts to ensure Dr Kelly's anonymity" when he agreed on July 9 to confirm his name and to provide further background information on the scientist?
Was it Mr Hoon's intention, and that of Downing Street, to have Dr Kelly's name identified in order for him to be summoned before the FAC?
Section 3, paragraph 41(b) of Whitehall's code on officials appearing before select committees states: "It has been agreed that it is not the role of select committees to act as disciplinary tribunals. A Minister will therefore wish to consider carefully a Committee's request to take evidence from a named official where this is likely to expose the individual concerned to questioning about their personal responsibility or the allocation of blame." Did Mr Hoon take this into account before he allowed Dr Kelly to appear before the FAC?
Did Mr Hoon and Sir Kevin decide on the "confirmation" policy because they were convinced that Dr Kelly was the source for the Today report of May 29, and that Mr Gilligan had embellished whatever the scientist had told him?