"No national security issue says agency." An intriguing update to this story. By David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor and Rob Evans in The Guardian, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
Britain's secret intelligence service, MI6, has challenged the government's claim that a major corruption inquiry into Saudi Arabian arms deals was threatening national security.The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, told parliament before Christmas that the intelligence agencies "agreed with the assessment" of Tony Blair that national security was in jeopardy because the Saudis intended to pull out of intelligence cooperation with Britain. But John Scarlett, the head of MI6, has now refused to sign up to a government dossier which says MI6 endorses this view.
Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that the statement to the Lords was incorrect. MI6 and MI5 possessed no intelligence that the Saudis intended to sever security links. The intelligence agencies had been merely asked whether it would be damaging to UK national security if such a breach did happen. They replied that naturally it would.
The issue has now come to a head because ministers are under pressure at an international meeting today to justify why they terminated an important corruption investigation into the arms company BAE Systems.
In a controversial move last month, Tony Blair ordered the Serious Fraud Office inquiry to be halted, and said he took the responsibility for doing so, after BAE lobbied him that it might otherwise lose a lucrative Saudi order for more arms sales. The decision was condemned by MPs and anti-corruption campaigners, and is now the subject of an inquiry by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for rooting out corruption around the world. Britain signed up to its anti-bribery convention which made the payment of bribes a specific criminal offence under UK law in 2002.
"that it might otherwise lose a lucrative Saudi order for more arms sales."
....I think it is a shame when governments value the dollar/euro of arms sales more than they value the cost of life those weapons will incur. Even more sad is that weapons sold to Muslims eventually find their way into the hands of Muslims who use them to kill American and British soldiers (not to forget Muslims kill many others).
We should cease this stupid policy of selling arms to Muslims...small arms...munitions..artillery...missiles...rockets.airplanes...ships...radar...military communication equipment...military clothing...and anything with a military purpose...
For decades we have been selling arms to Muslims and it is a failed policy......
The threat to national security exists alright -- in the form of "if you prosecute us, we'll give some of the sleeper cells we have ensconced in your midst the go-ahead".
With pals like the Saudis one doesn't need any enemies. Dealing with them is like getting cozy with rattlesnakes.
Perhaps revelations of Saudi influence with the muslim masses attending 'moderate' mosques in England - depicted in the Channel 4 Dispatches "Undercover Mosque" (posted on JW in three parts)will rattle some cages. Here are links to the extended version:
Channel 4 Dispatches "Undercover Mosque"
Part ONE
Part TWO
Part THREE
Part FOUR
Part FIVE
Part SIX
The issue has now come to a head because ministers are under pressure at an international meeting today to justify why they terminated an important corruption investigation into the arms company BAE Systems.
So is Tony on the $audi payroll yet; or is he just doing a non-paid internship hoping for a lucrative vendor slot after he leaves office?
($270 million sales price per jet) minus ($50 million list price per jet) equals a whole lot of spare parts and 'training'.
That being said, manned aircraft in 2007 are the battleships of 1935. Next generation UAVs will be able to take them all out for pennies on the dollar. Take the money and run.
Have to note that all the weapons sold to the Shah ended up in Khomeini's hands.
Who's hands will the Saudi weaponry end up in?