This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/7312757.stm
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Q&A: Iraq war inquiry | Q&A: Iraq war inquiry |
| (1 day later) | |
| The first public hearings in the Iraq War Inquiry begin this week with senior civil servants, intelligence officials and ex-military commanders set to give evidence: | The first public hearings in the Iraq War Inquiry begin this week with senior civil servants, intelligence officials and ex-military commanders set to give evidence: |
| What is the remit of the inquiry? | |
| It will look at events between 2001 and 2009, covering the decision to go to war, whether troops were properly prepared, how the conflict was conducted and what planning there was for its aftermath. Ministers say the terms of reference are unprecedented in their breadth and the inquiry will be free to apportion blame where it sees fit. But the opposition is unhappy the inquiry has taken so long to begin and that Parliament has had no say in its remit. It also wants more involvement from military figures and people with aid and reconstruction experience. | |
| Who are the first witnesses? | Who are the first witnesses? |
| Among those appearing in the first week of hearings, at the QEII Conference Centre in London, are Sir Christopher Meyer, UK ambassador to the United States between 1997 and 2003, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's ambassador to the United Nations at the time of the Iraq invasion, Sir Peter Ricketts, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee between 2000 and 2001, Sir Michael Wood, the Foreign Office's legal adviser between 1999 and 2006 and Sir William Ehrman, head of defence intelligence at the Foreign Office between 2002 and 2004. All played a key role in either advising ministers or developing government policy in the run-up to war in 2003. | |
| What will they be asked about? | What will they be asked about? |
| Areas that will be covered early on include the development of UK policy towards Iraq between 2001 and 2003 and UK-US relations over the period. Much of the focus will be on the intelligence available on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its influence on decisions taken by ministers as well as events at the UN in the run-up to war, including the negotiation of UN Security Resolution 1441. This found Iraq in breach of the terms of the ceasefire agreement which ended the First Gulf War and gave it a "final opportunity" to disarm and co-operate with weapons inspectors or face "serious consequences". | |
| Will the witnesses be testifying on oath? | |
| No they will not, leading some to question whether the merits of the inquiry. However, all those appearing will be required to sign a piece of paper saying they will give a "full and truthful" account of events. There is also controversy over the powers of the panel. There are no judges nor QCs on the body, leading many to question whether it has the expertise to question whether the war was legal. But the panel says it will call on relevant legal advice where needed. | |
| Where is the controversy likely to come? | Where is the controversy likely to come? |
| Critics of the Iraq war argue that the Bush administration had effectively decided to remove Saddam Hussein by force by the end of 2002, that the UK was aware of this and had offered its support. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has always denied this but Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's man in Washington at the time, is bound to be asked about what discussions the two governments had over the issue. Sir Jeremy Greenstock is likely to be quizzed about the unsuccessful attempt to pass a second UN resolution explicitly authorising military action against Iraq if it did not comply, a move backed by the UK but ultimately blocked by France and Russia. | Critics of the Iraq war argue that the Bush administration had effectively decided to remove Saddam Hussein by force by the end of 2002, that the UK was aware of this and had offered its support. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has always denied this but Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's man in Washington at the time, is bound to be asked about what discussions the two governments had over the issue. Sir Jeremy Greenstock is likely to be quizzed about the unsuccessful attempt to pass a second UN resolution explicitly authorising military action against Iraq if it did not comply, a move backed by the UK but ultimately blocked by France and Russia. |
| Who else will be appearing before the end of 2009? | Who else will be appearing before the end of 2009? |
| In its first few weeks, the Inquiry panel - headed by Sir John Chilcot - is focusing on policy decisions in the run-up to the invasion in 2003. Among key advisers set to appear are Sir John Scarlett, chair between 2001 and 2004 of the Joint Intelligence Committee, whose dossier on the threat posed by Iraq and its WMD capability caused such controversy before and after the war. Also set to appear are Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's Chief Foreign Policy Adviser at the time, Sir John Sawers, private secretary to Tony Blair between 1999 and 2001 and now head of MI6 and Admiral Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff between 2001 and 2003. Details of further witnesses are due to released later this month. | In its first few weeks, the Inquiry panel - headed by Sir John Chilcot - is focusing on policy decisions in the run-up to the invasion in 2003. Among key advisers set to appear are Sir John Scarlett, chair between 2001 and 2004 of the Joint Intelligence Committee, whose dossier on the threat posed by Iraq and its WMD capability caused such controversy before and after the war. Also set to appear are Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's Chief Foreign Policy Adviser at the time, Sir John Sawers, private secretary to Tony Blair between 1999 and 2001 and now head of MI6 and Admiral Lord Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff between 2001 and 2003. Details of further witnesses are due to released later this month. |
| What about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? | What about Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? |
| Senior members of the government who committed UK troops to war, including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Jack Straw, are set to be called to give evidence next year. All have indicated that they will be willing to appear. The panel has said it will begin to examine the highly controversial issue of whether the invasion was legal - which may turn out to be the focal point of the whole inquiry - in January. | Senior members of the government who committed UK troops to war, including Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Jack Straw, are set to be called to give evidence next year. All have indicated that they will be willing to appear. The panel has said it will begin to examine the highly controversial issue of whether the invasion was legal - which may turn out to be the focal point of the whole inquiry - in January. |
| What has already happened? | What has already happened? |
| The inquiry officially began in July. Since then, Sir John and the four other panel members have met some of the families of the 179 UK personnel killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 as well as former and current serving personnel. During the meetings, several relatives of those killed criticised the decision to go to war, saying the British people had been lied to about the threat posed by Iraq. Sir John said the meetings would inform how he proceeds with its investigation and what areas he would focus on when questioning witnesses. Sir John and his fellow panel members have also been spending their time examining thousands of relevant documents from across government. | The inquiry officially began in July. Since then, Sir John and the four other panel members have met some of the families of the 179 UK personnel killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009 as well as former and current serving personnel. During the meetings, several relatives of those killed criticised the decision to go to war, saying the British people had been lied to about the threat posed by Iraq. Sir John said the meetings would inform how he proceeds with its investigation and what areas he would focus on when questioning witnesses. Sir John and his fellow panel members have also been spending their time examining thousands of relevant documents from across government. |
| Will the public be able to see the hearings? | Will the public be able to see the hearings? |
| Sir John has said it is "essential" that as much of the inquiry as possible is held in public. Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for initially suggesting it would mainly take place in private, for national security reasons. In what critics said was an embarrassing U-turn, he later said it was up to Sir John to decide how it should proceed. As it stands, hearings will take place in public unless there are compelling reasons of national security not to do so or because witnesses feel they will not be able to speak candidly under the gaze of the cameras. | Sir John has said it is "essential" that as much of the inquiry as possible is held in public. Gordon Brown was heavily criticised for initially suggesting it would mainly take place in private, for national security reasons. In what critics said was an embarrassing U-turn, he later said it was up to Sir John to decide how it should proceed. As it stands, hearings will take place in public unless there are compelling reasons of national security not to do so or because witnesses feel they will not be able to speak candidly under the gaze of the cameras. |
| This is not the first inquiry into Iraq, is it? | This is not the first inquiry into Iraq, is it? |
| No. There have already been four separate inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict. In 2003, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee both looked into the intelligence used to justify the war. The Hutton inquiry, in January 2004, examined the circumstances surrounding the death of scientist and weapons adviser Dr David Kelly as well as allegations No 10 knew that its claims that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes were probably false. The Butler inquiry, in July 2004, looked once again at the intelligence which was used to justify the war. | No. There have already been four separate inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict. In 2003, the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee both looked into the intelligence used to justify the war. The Hutton inquiry, in January 2004, examined the circumstances surrounding the death of scientist and weapons adviser Dr David Kelly as well as allegations No 10 knew that its claims that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes were probably false. The Butler inquiry, in July 2004, looked once again at the intelligence which was used to justify the war. |
| How long will the latest probe take? | How long will the latest probe take? |
| Due to the number of hearings planned and the amount of documents to be considered, the Inquiry says it may not publish its findings before 2011. The opposition is angry it will not report before the general election, which must be held by next June. It has called for an interim report to be published by then, a request which is being considered. | Due to the number of hearings planned and the amount of documents to be considered, the Inquiry says it may not publish its findings before 2011. The opposition is angry it will not report before the general election, which must be held by next June. It has called for an interim report to be published by then, a request which is being considered. |