Thursday, July 24, 2003
New Scientist - Dr David Kelly
Finally a puiblication without a political agenda asks the questions that matter. (reg reqd, but it is New Scientist, you should be reg'd already ffs).
New Scientist: "Three questions leap out. First, why does Kelly's testimony to the select committee differ from accounts given by BBC reporters of their discussions with him? By the time Kelly gave evidence, he had reportedly been questioned for five days by his employer (the Ministry of Defence), named in public by the MOD against his wishes, and kept in an MOD safe house. During all this time, had the MOD forced him into some kind of deal?
Could it be that BBC reporters manipulated Kelly's views for their own ends? For one journalist to do this is plausible. But it seems Kelly spoke to three and gave a similar account to all of them.
Finally, in two of the BBC reports there is a sense that Kelly speaks not only for himself but for 'people in intelligence'. This raises the question of whether he acted alone or with the approval of others.
Answering these questions may go some way to explaining why a man who survived confrontations with the vicious, secretive regime in Baghdad was finally destroyed by a supposedly free and open society."
New Scientist: "Three questions leap out. First, why does Kelly's testimony to the select committee differ from accounts given by BBC reporters of their discussions with him? By the time Kelly gave evidence, he had reportedly been questioned for five days by his employer (the Ministry of Defence), named in public by the MOD against his wishes, and kept in an MOD safe house. During all this time, had the MOD forced him into some kind of deal?
Could it be that BBC reporters manipulated Kelly's views for their own ends? For one journalist to do this is plausible. But it seems Kelly spoke to three and gave a similar account to all of them.
Finally, in two of the BBC reports there is a sense that Kelly speaks not only for himself but for 'people in intelligence'. This raises the question of whether he acted alone or with the approval of others.
Answering these questions may go some way to explaining why a man who survived confrontations with the vicious, secretive regime in Baghdad was finally destroyed by a supposedly free and open society."
