Meet Lord Hutton

Apparently, Tony Blair knew exactly who to pick to head up his little inquiry, according to a January 28 contribution to Indymedia UK.

Upon his resignation as BBC chairman Gavyn Davies commented on the irreconcilable contradictions between Hutton's "bald conclusions" and the balance of evidence presented to the actual Inquiry.

Even BBC political editor Andrew Marr comments on Hutton's underlying assumptions and background, making him more likely to believe and trust certain social groups: "again and again, he comes down on the side of politicians and officials."

So who is Hutton, and what is in his background to come to these extraordinary conclusions?

Lord Hutton, formerly Brian Hutton QC, apparently has a long history of being on what many of us would regard as the wrong side of justice. For example, he served on the notorious "Diplock Courts" in Northern Ireland, condemned by human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for allowing

a lower standard of admissibility for confession evidence than in the criminal courts; the admissibility of statements by a senior police officer coupled with a suspect's remaining silent as evidence that a suspect belonged to an illegal organization (for example, a paramilitary group); and police and army powers of arrest, entry, search, and seizure without a warrant.

In addition, he helped to exonerate British soldiers who killed 14 unarmed protesters in the notorious "Bloody Sunday" incident in Northern Ireland in 1972. In that case, he again swallowed whole a government claim, this one that the protesters shot first, despite more than ample evidence to the contrary. That incident became so very notorious that a couple of years ago, a new inquiry into it began (that one is still sitting).

He's probably best known in the UK, however, for his role in resisting the extradition of Augusto Pinochet from the UK to Chile in 1999. Another senior judge, Lord Hoffman, issued the order and Hutton argued that "public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice would be shaken" if the ruling was not overturned. Why? Because Hoffman had "failed to reveal" having connections to - wait for it - Amnesty International.

Apparently being involved in a group pursuing human rights makes you ineligible to make any judgments involving human rights. Such, it would seem, is Hutton's logic.

Yeah, Blair knew what he was doing.

Footnote: Thanks to the IndyLaborChurch (email: Indylaborchurch@yahoo.com) for the link to the article.