Chairwoman Dutch parliament committee ” DSB will not answer any more questions on MH17″

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Update January 29:

The DSB will despite previous statements answer questions of the Commission of Foreign Affairs on the MH17 final report. Answers will be given at February 2, 16:00 during a public hearing.

————————————-

During a meeting of the Dutch parliament Foreign Affairs Committee at January 14 the chairwoman Angelien Eijsink told the Foreign Affairs representatives of all political parties of Parliament that Dutch Safety Board is not willing to answer any additional questions on the final report published by DSB at October 13, 2015!

A couple of representatives attending that meeting like Pieter Omtzigt and Michiel Servaes were amazed by that saying.

Asking DSB for comment, spokeswoman Sara Vernooij stated:

” Regulary DSB provides an explanation on request of the Dutch parliament about  reports. DSB provided an explanation twice in the case of MH17, right after publication and during an  extensive meeting at November 26 2015. During these meetings we explained the investigation and answered questions. In the ‘ Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid’  is stated that the DSB as finalization of its investigation will prepare a report. The DSB provides accountability using these raports over its investigation. Information obtained during the investigation which is not documented in the report, is not public. This is the reason DSB can only explain what is documented in the report and cannot answer questions outside what is documented in the report”

My personal interpretation of this statement is: DSB went twice to the Dutch Parliament to explain the report. They did all they could but do not see any motive to futher explain what has been written in the report.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

1 Comment on Chairwoman Dutch parliament committee ” DSB will not answer any more questions on MH17″

  1. Normally, authors are eager and proud to defend their report. Of course we all understand the paradigm change from DSB to JIT which leads to secrecy. But remember, that’s another fault of this procedure, DSB and JIT must keep their separate responsibilities for the duration of this drama.

    It cannot be DSB is saved by the bell by JIT. Since if JIT draws incomprehensible conclusions from a fossilized DSB report, nobody can hold DSB accountable. Imagine for court, if DSB refuses to answer questions because they already twice have done this before. That would be silly. But why would the Dutch parliament be less than court?

    [Regularly DSB provides an explanation on request of the Dutch parliament about reports. DSB provided an explanation twice in the case of MH17, right after publication and during an extensive meeting at November 26 2015. During these meetings we explained the investigation and answered questions.]

    Rijkswet Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (National Law Dutch Safety Board):

    http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0017613/geldigheidsdatum_21-01-2016

    In this law is not stated explicitly that DSB is bound to a maximum of two explanations per report in parliament.

    [The DSB provides accountability using these raports over its investigation. Information obtained during the investigation which is not documented in the report, is not public. This is the reason DSB can only explain what is documented in the report and cannot answer questions outside what is documented in the report”]

    This must be a joke if not circular reasoning, since information obtained during the investigation which is not documented in the report, still is integral part of the investigation. Unpublished information plays a role to determine published information.

    Although this information has not been published DSB still must be held accountable for information they left out of the report.

    But how is the law?

    Artikel 57

    De raad neemt eveneens door hem vergaarde informatie niet in het rapport op voorzover het belang daarvan niet opweegt tegen de volgende belangen:

    a. de betrekkingen van het Koninkrijk of de landen van het Koninkrijk met andere staten of met internationale organisaties;
    b. de economische of financiële belangen van het Koninkrijk, van de publiekrechtelijke lichamen van de landen van het Koninkrijk, of van de in artikel 1a, onderdeel c en d, van de Wet openbaarheid van bestuur bedoelde bestuursorganen;
    c. de opsporing en vervolging van strafbare feiten;

    Artice 57:

    The board does not report about gathered information, which is not worthy to report in relation to its importance to the following interests:

    a. the relations of the Kingdom or the countries of the Kingdom with other States or international organizations;
    b. economic or financial interests of the Kingdom, of the public bodies of the countries of the Kingdom, or in Article 1a, c and d of the Open Government Act provided for administrative bodies;
    c. the investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses;

    That settles the matter and this is why Chicago rules must be changed.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*