Bollitics The Chilcot inquiry

[peterms]

Thanks for the reply Peter - I am sure that there is a severity of leaks but with something as contentious as this, I am amazed that more info (if it exists as this chappy is describing) has not made it into the public. That is in no way condoning people who leak documents, because I still maintain that its not their job to decide what is right and what is not for the public domain.

If we accept that the state should be the arbiter of moral judgements, we end up with the sort of state most of us wouldn't want to live in. Thank god for people like Clive Ponting et al.

[peterms]

Dr Kelly?

and your point is what exactly?

That when the state is seen to murder people who leak documents, it may go some way to explain why others are reticent about leaking.

[Awol]

Oh here comes Jon and his anti-Labour "bollox" (I am assuming that is allowed now to use that as a comment)

We're not kids so yeah, it's fine with me!

What, because he is warning the public that the establishment is witholding information that is critical to the inquiry then it prejudices any such information should it subsequently be released?

Pish.

Read the post will you rather than jumping with your size 12's. The info that this man is talking about he has been saying teh same for quite a while now and a quick google will show how he has said similar and presented evidence previously

I did. You said: surely now this prejudices any evidence that he is calling for as he is discussing this in the media?

I was replying to that directly and saying it is rubbish.

Labour 101: When in doubt, smear the man.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. What a frankly "bollox" little comment. What has this to do with Labour - other than an opportunity for you to spout out your deeply held prejudices?

I was referring to your comment: I wonder if he has a book to sell?

An attempt by you to smear the man because he is saying something inconvenient, a classic Labour tactic.

The point is simple, what is his motivation now for the comments?

Probably his frustration at the continued etsablishment cover-up of their illegal and disasterous adventure in Iraq, most likely.

Dr Kelly?

and your point is what exactly? Is that the stock answer that you give on any Iraq topic? Is it some sort of Pavlov's dog reply?

No, a slightly sarcastic reference to the lengths the British state will go to in order to silence it's critics.

I said was I was surprised that if they did exist in the way that he describes, I would have thought that they would have been "leaked" by now.

Turn it around, why would he lie?

[drat01]

I did. You said: surely now this prejudices any evidence that he is calling for as he is discussing this in the media?

I was replying to that directly and saying it is rubbish.

Jon that is pathetic - you read the next line that I wrote as you quoted it afterwards.

I was referring to your comment: I wonder if he has a book to sell?

An attempt by you to smear the man because he is saying something inconvenient, a classic Labour tactic.

Oh dear, another feeble attempt to justify bringing Labour into this. If you actually read anything about this man you will see that he is often talked about as the author of articles and books. So I am assuming by your flawed logic that all of these other web sites are "smearing" the man also? A "classic Labour tactic"? your hatred towards them is amazing. Just for you, I am not a Labour party spokesman, I do not represent the Labour party, I am not a member nor have I been one. And if you think that "bad mouthing" people is in some way a Labour party trait, I suspect you have not been looking and more importantly listening to any politician.

Probably his frustration at the continued etsablishment cover-up of their illegal and disasterous adventure in Iraq, most likely.

Illegal? why thank you Mr Clegg - even "your leader" had to bring his poodle to task over that comment :-). Maybe the chap does have continued frustrations, he has been saying so for a long time now.

No, a slightly sarcastic reference to the lengths the British state will go to in order to silence it's critics.

You think he was killed by the state, others don't - I am betting that is one that will never get an answer. I notice a ex-Russian spy today is "claiming" that he was "exterminated" - link from the Daily Mail - only the Mail running with this story it seems. The key phrase in that article is

A spokeswoman for Dominic Grieve said last night: ‘Mr Grieve expressed concerns about this issue when in opposition and has, since taking office as Attorney General, been exploring with ministerial colleagues any actions that may be taken.

‘No decisions have been made.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297444/MI5-agent-told-Kelly-exterminated.html#ixzz0ugYStnK8

We all know that Grieve would not miss an opportunity like this - lets wait and see, eh?

[Gringo]

I notice a ex-Russian spy today is "claiming" that he was "exterminated" - link from the Daily Mail - only the Mail running with this story it seems. The key phrase in that article is

A spokeswoman for Dominic Grieve said last night: ‘Mr Grieve expressed concerns about this issue when in opposition and has, since taking office as Attorney General, been exploring with ministerial colleagues any actions that may be taken.

‘No decisions have been made.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297444/MI5-agent-told-Kelly-exterminated.html#ixzz0ugYStnK8

We all know that Grieve would not miss an opportunity like this - lets wait and see, eh?

It is rather unlikely that the state will grass itself up as you seem to think yourself.

You think he was killed by the state, others don't - I am betting that is one that will never get an answer.

The blue tories won't grass up the red tories as they don't want the red tories doing the same to them next time they swap seats.

This can be demonstrated by call me dave's somewhat reluctance to open up an inquiry to the BP-Libya-Megrahi stitch up. They won't try to make political capital out of something that will win few votes yet would cause a lot of disruption to the state machine.

[snowychap]

Thanks for the reply Peter - I am sure that there is a severity of leaks but with something as contentious as this, I am amazed that more info (if it exists as this chappy is describing) has not made it into the public. That is in no way condoning people who leak documents, because I still maintain that its not their job to decide what is right and what is not for the public domain.

If we accept that the state should be the arbiter of moral judgements, we end up with the sort of state most of us wouldn't want to live in. Thank god for people like Clive Ponting et al.

Indeed.

[snowychap]

This can be demonstrated by call me dave's somewhat reluctance to open up an inquiry to the BP-Libya-Megrahi stitch up.

And Blair with the BAe SFO case.

The state remains the state whoever is temporarily at the wheel.

[drat01]

Why also do the cynic in me think that if a lot of these papers did exist in the way that he is claiming they would have been leaked anyway?

The policy is to pursue leakers aggressively and to be vindictive in dealing with them. Generally, I think people leak the more highly classified things either when as you say they have a book to sell and are feeling out of the reach of the government (Peter Wright, Spycatcher), or else when they feel the degree of wrongdoing they have witnessed is so extreme that they have to take a stand even if they are likely to get caught (Clive Ponting, Belgrano; Sarah Tisdall, cruise missiles; Cathy Massiter, illegal bugging of politicians).

The way these people have been treated has sent a strong message to others that they can expect no mercy if they expose the illegal and immoral activities of the state, and I'm sure that consideration weighs heavily with other potential leakers, as it is intended to.

Interesting that this story comes out after we had this conversation

'Hidden US Afghan war details' revealed by Wikileaks

More than 90,000 leaked US military records have been published on the website Wikileaks, reportedly revealing hidden details of the Afghanistan war.

Three major news publications which have been shown the documents say they include unreported killings of Afghan civilians.

The huge cache of classified papers is described as one of the biggest leaks in US military history. .........

[peterms]

Interesting that this story comes out after we had this conversation

'Hidden US Afghan war details' revealed by Wikileaks

Yes, add Julian Assange to the list of people who will stand up for our right to know the truth.

[Awol]

Interesting that this story comes out after we had this conversation

'Hidden US Afghan war details' revealed by Wikileaks

Yes, add Julian Assange to the list of people who will stand up for our right to know the truth.

Or add the leaker to a bonfire for compromising operational security in an ongoing war. Releasing documents pertinent to Iraq in what amounts to an after action review - Chilcot - is entirely different from compromising operational details while we are still up to our necks in it in Afghanistan.

I'm not having a pop at Assange though because wikileaks has done some great stuff in the past, but this thing is a whole different order of magnitude and the leaker (a US soldier as I understand) needs executing.

[peterms]

Interesting that this story comes out after we had this conversation

'Hidden US Afghan war details' revealed by Wikileaks

Yes, add Julian Assange to the list of people who will stand up for our right to know the truth.

Or add the leaker to a bonfire for compromising operational security in an ongoing war. Releasing documents pertinent to Iraq in what amounts to an after action review - Chilcot - is entirely different from compromising operational details while we are still up to our necks in it in Afghanistan.

I'm not having a pop at Assange though because wikileaks has done some great stuff in the past, but this thing is a whole different order of magnitude and the leaker (a US soldier as I understand) needs executing.

Compromising operational security? I wonder. In the reaction so far, there seems to have been two main themes: it's nothing new, and it will place in danger those still in the front line.

I would be more inclined to believe the second claim if it were explained a bit more, with specific examples of how it will do that. At the moment, as just a sweeping claim without explanation or example, it sounds like bluster.

I think the real problem for our security forces and government is that the material illustrates how poorly the whole thing has been planned and how unlikely it is that the stated aims of this action will succeed. Also, of course, the information on civilian deaths (which is not news to the military or the Taliban or the Afghanis, just to us) gives some insight into how operational blunders are undermining the "hearts and minds" campaign we are supposed to be waging. This undermines the political justification for the war, not operational security; it is an embarrassment to those prosecuting the war, not a danger to those fighting it.

Are there other details which might endanger soldiers on the ground? Maybe, but I've yet to hear a cogent description of what they are and how they have this effect. Until I hear one, I will remain unconvinced.

[Awol]

Interesting that this story comes out after we had this conversation

'Hidden US Afghan war details' revealed by Wikileaks

Yes, add Julian Assange to the list of people who will stand up for our right to know the truth.

Or add the leaker to a bonfire for compromising operational security in an ongoing war. Releasing documents pertinent to Iraq in what amounts to an after action review - Chilcot - is entirely different from compromising operational details while we are still up to our necks in it in Afghanistan.

I'm not having a pop at Assange though because wikileaks has done some great stuff in the past, but this thing is a whole different order of magnitude and the leaker (a US soldier as I understand) needs executing.

Compromising operational security? I wonder.

That is what everyone is wondering at the moment and the Pentagon are still sifting the material that has been leaked.

If - as I've heard - the material involves large numbers of after action reports (which are basically post engagement narratives and reviews) it is a data mine which can be used by the other team's analysts to try and fill in the blanks in their own intelligence. This will help them adapt their own tactics and strategy to the detriment of coailition forces. In that respect the leak may well place those serving there in greater danger.

I think the real problem for our security forces and government is that the material illustrates how poorly the whole thing has been planned and how unlikely it is that the stated aims of this action will succeed.

That is something that has been known for a long time in fairness. The political brief to the British military (at least in 2006) amounted to 'go forth and do stuff'. Our entry into Helmand acted like a magnet to insurgents and when it became clear in Whitehall quite how bad it was, they sought to shut down the media's ability to report it while pretending all was well. That's how we ended up with several Alamo/Rorkes Drift situations where massacres were avoided only by a combination of grit, air power and sheer luck.

Senior military were just as guilty for protecting their pensions and knighthoods before speaking truth to power and if required, resigning. Some more junior Generals did so but not enough to force the Government into action, the result being lie after lie told in Parliament by Des Browne, D Miliband and El Gordo.

The problem is there has never been a clearly defined political strategy and a military orrientated alternative has by necessity filled that void. They quite literally made it up as they went along in the absence of political comand. All ultimately to back up Karzai who is the most corrupt and venal little shithead you could wish for.

Also, of course, the information on civilian deaths (which is not news to the military or the Taliban or the Afghanis, just to us) gives some insight into how operational blunders are undermining the "hearts and minds" campaign we are supposed to be waging.

I take a different view of this. The Afghan campaign is a counter-insurgency but it's a war nonetheless. It is simply not possible to militarily confront the Taliban (which is the only way they can be physically confronted) without civilians being hurt or killed, precisely because they fight from amongst the population. I know for a fact that great lengths are taken and considerable personal risk accepted by coalition forces in order to avoid civilian casualties, but it's simply not always possible.

As to our public's perception of the war I'd say this: Since GW1 western peoples have had the perception that because of the precision bombing capabilities we saw on our TV news, all wars could be fought this way with a minimum of civilian casualties. The public could henceforth have their consciences untroubled by the prospects of 'clean' war in which only the baddies would die. Kosovo reinforced this false impression.

When a conventional force comes up against an irregular force these advantages are negligable at best and the civilian casualties inevitably mount up. Both civil and military authorities know this to be the case and therefore try to restrict information about these casualties - and even those suffered by our own forces - because they don't think that the public can stomach it. That's not a defence but an attempt at explanation.

The hearts and minds campaign is being lost because from day one the political will to deploy sufficient forces to secure the population was absent. When you spread a small force very thinly they end up fighting for their lives and using every means at their disposal to stay alive. For example, when that entails calling down airstrikes inside a town to prevent a small garrison being overrun, civilians will get killed.

We still don't have nearly enough men on the ground to secure the population and Afghanistan has nothing like the political leadership necessary to impose a centralised state model onto the country. Neither of those things will change, so eventually we will lose/declare victory and run away.

[peterms]

Also, of course, the information on civilian deaths (which is not news to the military or the Taliban or the Afghanis, just to us) gives some insight into how operational blunders are undermining the "hearts and minds" campaign we are supposed to be waging.

I take a different view of this. The Afghan campaign is a counter-insurgency but it's a war nonetheless. It is simply not possible to militarily confront the Taliban (which is the only way they can be physically confronted) without civilians being hurt or killed, precisely because they fight from amongst the population. I know for a fact that great lengths are taken and considerable personal risk accepted by coalition forces in order to avoid civilian casualties, but it's simply not always possible.

As to our public's perception of the war I'd say this: Since GW1 western peoples have had the perception that because of the precision bombing capabilities we saw on our TV news, all wars could be fought this way with a minimum of civilian casualties. The public could henceforth have their consciences untroubled by the prospects of 'clean' war in which only the baddies would die. Kosovo reinforced this false impression.

When a conventional force comes up against an irregular force these advantages are negligable at best and the civilian casualties inevitably mount up. Both civil and military authorities know this to be the case and therefore try to restrict information about these casualties - and even those suffered by our own forces - because they don't think that the public can stomach it. That's not a defence but an attempt at explanation.

The hearts and minds campaign is being lost because from day one the political will to deploy sufficient forces to secure the population was absent. When you spread a small force very thinly they end up fighting for their lives and using every means at their disposal to stay alive. For example, when that entails calling down airstrikes inside a town to prevent a small garrison being overrun, civilians will get killed.

We still don't have nearly enough men on the ground to secure the population and Afghanistan has nothing like the political leadership necessary to impose a centralised state model onto the country. Neither of those things will change, so eventually we will lose/declare victory and run away.

Civilian deaths are important for two reasons. The first, which you address, is that it's morally wrong to kill them, to sit in a plane 5000 feet up and drop 500lb bombs on and around a house where a target may or may not be sheltering but which is certainly surrounded by civilians.

The second, which you don't, is that it's self-defeating. Mao wrote that in guerilla warfare, defeat was certain without the active and continuing support of the population among whom the guerillas operate. The strategy therefore has to be to undermine this support, which is where the hearts and minds campaign comes in. Indiscriminate (though targetted) bombing, panic shootings of civilians and claiming that it was a "ricochet" from a "warning shot", reprisal attacks on villagers following IED incidents, and the rape and murder of Afghani women by coalition forces, all undercut the strategy and build support for the opposition.

I suppose our military leaders have read Mao, haven't they?

[Awol]

Civilian deaths are important for two reasons. The first, which you address, is that it's morally wrong to kill them, to sit in a plane 5000 feet up and drop 500lb bombs on and around a house where a target may or may not be sheltering but which is certainly surrounded by civilians.

Yes it's horrible but if a regional taliban comander is sheltering in a house with his family and the only way to take him out is with an airstrike, then I'm sorry but it's a no brainer and he's getting the good news.

The second, which you don't, is that it's self-defeating. Mao wrote that in guerilla warfare, defeat was certain without the active and continuing support of the population among whom the guerillas operate. The strategy therefore has to be to undermine this support, which is where the hearts and minds campaign comes in.

Quite and to achieve that you need numbers which our political masters have never been willing to commit to. They are trying to will the ends without supplying the means.

The Indiscriminate (though targetted) bombing [indescriminate and targetted aren't really terms that logically sit together imo], panic shootings of civilians and claiming that it was a "ricochet" from a "warning shot", reprisal attacks on villagers following IED incidents, and the rape and murder of Afghani women by coalition forces, all undercut the strategy and build support for the opposition.

I think you may be mixing up a few isolated incidents with US troops in Iraq with the campaign in Afghanistan. I've heard nothing about any rapes and deliberate murders being carried out in nine years. Plenty by Taliban forces mind you, but not our blokes. Yes civilian casualties have been concealed for reasons of Information Operations (propaganda to you and me) but those casualties aren't caused deliberately, unless they are directly related to the striking of a very high value target. Even then some strikes are scrubbed because the potential civilian cost is considered to high.

I suppose our military leaders have read Mao, haven't they?

Yes, but the Treasury haven't and the military's ability to operate successfully is still hamstrung by bean counters. If you don't have the resources you need to operate the way you'd like to - and know you should - but you still have to try and achieve a mission then what can you do?

[peterms]

I think you may be mixing up a few isolated incidents with US troops in Iraq with the campaign in Afghanistan.

Yes, you're right, I was.

:oops:

[blandy]

link

....Afghans know all too well that US-led death squads have long been arbitrarily killing suspected Taliban, along with anybody else who got in their way.

The fact that more Afghan civilians were being gunned down at checkpoints or killed by ill-directed air strikes than was officially admitted will come as no surprise to Afghans who have been at the receiving end of coalition firepower.

It has been difficult hitherto to convey what words like "brutality" and "corruption" mean in their Afghan context. But some of the incidents now go a long way to explaining why so many ordinary Afghans are driven into the hands of the Taliban.

For instance, in Balkh province in northern Afghanistan, a report was made on 11 October 2009 about soldiers and police mistreating local people who refused to cooperate in a search. A district police chief raped a 16-year-old girl and when a civilian protested, the police chief ordered his bodyguard to shoot him. The bodyguard refused and was himself killed by the police chief.

[tonyh29]

Blair has been called back to give evidence again due to him being more confused than a chameleon in a packet of skittles whilst giving his last statement ..

next stop The Hague ??

[Condimentalist]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but related, from Michael Meacher's blog:

Thye Chilcot Inquiry seems to be getting near the truth about the lead-up to the Iraq War (nearly 8 years on after the event), but there are certain profound constitutional questions which even it may not answer, perhaps not even raise. The most profound is: how should the State hold to account a Prime Minister whose performance and decision-making in matters of supreme national interest fall far short of the honesty and integrity expected of any holder of such high office? A classic Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? question (Who will guard the guards themselves?), but in terms of power the most important question of all. It has arisen now because the full extent to which Blair played fast and loose with the truth, with Parliament and with his colleagues is at last becoming unambiguouslyclear.

We now know that the Peter Goldsmith, the Attorney General, despite the fact that his professional view was crucial, was excluded from the decision-making process for months because his judgement about the need for a second UN Resolution didn’t fit either with Blair’s determination to proceed or with his prior commitment to Bush to support the US invasion. We now know too that when Chilcot sought to make available to the public record the assurances that Blair gave to Bush, it was blocked by the Cabinet Secretary after consulting Blair himself. We also know about Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’ dressed up and exaggerated to justify a decision to go to war taken on wholly different (secret) grounds, about his cmmitments to parliament squarely falsified by later evidence, and his claim repeatedly thrown about to evade further inquiry up to the very eve of war that no decision had yet been taken.

What should be the constitutional reaction to concealment, subterfuge and lies at the very point in the power structure on which a democratic State relies for honesty, truth and transparency? It has already been agreed in retrospect that no decision to go to war shall be taken in future without the full rationale being presented for debate and vote in Parliament well before the time that events had made it inevitable. But that is limited to war situations – albeit that they are of course the most grave and momentous of all – but the question of proper accountability of the Prime Minister goes wider than that.

Blair’s behaviour in running what his own office dubbed a ‘Napoleonic regime’, beyond check either by a cowed Cabinet or by a supine Parliament, makes the case forcibly for a constitutional innovation – an elected President, with carefully prescribed powers but not beholden to the government of the day, with the right and authority to call the Prime Minister publicly to account where the latter has manifestly acted in a manner contrary to the highest standards of honesty and integrity that form the foundation of any properly functioning democratic State.

link

[peterms]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but related, from Michael Meacher's blog:

Thye Chilcot Inquiry seems to be getting near the truth about the lead-up to the Iraq War (nearly 8 years on after the event), but there are certain profound constitutional questions which even it may not answer, perhaps not even raise. The most profound is: how should the State hold to account a Prime Minister whose performance and decision-making in matters of supreme national interest fall far short of the honesty and integrity expected of any holder of such high office? A classic Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? question (Who will guard the guards themselves?), but in terms of power the most important question of all. It has arisen now because the full extent to which Blair played fast and loose with the truth, with Parliament and with his colleagues is at last becoming unambiguouslyclear.

We now know that the Peter Goldsmith, the Attorney General, despite the fact that his professional view was crucial, was excluded from the decision-making process for months because his judgement about the need for a second UN Resolution didn’t fit either with Blair’s determination to proceed or with his prior commitment to Bush to support the US invasion. We now know too that when Chilcot sought to make available to the public record the assurances that Blair gave to Bush, it was blocked by the Cabinet Secretary after consulting Blair himself. We also know about Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’ dressed up and exaggerated to justify a decision to go to war taken on wholly different (secret) grounds, about his cmmitments to parliament squarely falsified by later evidence, and his claim repeatedly thrown about to evade further inquiry up to the very eve of war that no decision had yet been taken.

What should be the constitutional reaction to concealment, subterfuge and lies at the very point in the power structure on which a democratic State relies for honesty, truth and transparency? It has already been agreed in retrospect that no decision to go to war shall be taken in future without the full rationale being presented for debate and vote in Parliament well before the time that events had made it inevitable. But that is limited to war situations – albeit that they are of course the most grave and momentous of all – but the question of proper accountability of the Prime Minister goes wider than that.

Blair’s behaviour in running what his own office dubbed a ‘Napoleonic regime’, beyond check either by a cowed Cabinet or by a supine Parliament, makes the case forcibly for a constitutional innovation – an elected President, with carefully prescribed powers but not beholden to the government of the day, with the right and authority to call the Prime Minister publicly to account where the latter has manifestly acted in a manner contrary to the highest standards of honesty and integrity that form the foundation of any properly functioning democratic State.

link

That sums it up very neatly. Mr B's behaviour has raised issues not only of personal integrity and political accountability, but also constitutional importance. Still, he was just doing god's will, so that's ok.

[blandy]

In my paper this morning

What an eel he is. You can't keep a hold of him.

Oh, but the energy of the fellow, the memory, the capacity, the capability, the survival instinct. And the hands! They should be set to music, the way he uses them; the gestures are so big you want to shout at him: "I'm not deaf!" He's got a new big forefinger – as he wags it at us, it quivers slightly with certainty and sincerity.

He can contradict himself with such solidity it's hard to see the sleight involved. He's asked whether he agrees with a proposition that he probably doesn't. "Absolutely," he says, "in this sense." That's called keeping your options open. He likes to do that. It means you can do something or its opposite and still have a clear conscience.

He rested his legal case for war on the novel idea of being able to ignore "an unreasonable veto" at the UN. Asked how that worked, he said it wasn't a legal point he was making but a political one. You catch an eel by the tail but it can still bite your face.

His arguments are powerful, interlinked and interlocked. And when they're not it doesn't matter. Then he produces an entirely unrelated series of facts, assertions or a medley of previous hits.

Chilcot asked whether he was aware that Goldsmith "felt discouraged" about giving his legal advice that the existing UN Resolution 1441 wasn't enough to go to war on.

Eventually his reply got to the words: "I should say something about my relationship with the Attorney General's office: 20 or 30 years ago..." But by then no one remembered the question he'd been asked. He is never going to give short answers by choice – he will never behave like a man in the dock. The inquiry hasn't found a way to deal with that.

He does seem to be mainstreaming his account a little more these days. He is free with talk of regime change now in a way he never was at the time.

Maybe in a decade he will be able to give his nothing-new-here account of the death of David Kelly.

It's on the subject of Iran that he can make his critics short of breath. "At some point," he said, "the West has got to get out of its wretched posture of apology." Oh yes, our lie-down-and-take-it-up-the-tailpipe attitude. It was almost as though we hadn't killed half a million Middle Eastern Muslims in the past decade.

He said that al-Qa'ida was deliberately destabilising Iraq (what cheaters they are). The appetite for terror and war goes deeper into Islam than people will admit – he said – and it has to be confronted. Or... Or what? It's unsayable yet, but when the time comes, it'll be unspeakable.

He stands by every word, every action, every impulse. So he has to attack the future on the same premises as the past. To do anything else would be an admission of guilt, or error. That is something he's never done.

But to go through life never doing anything wrong – for that to work, you have to adjust the whole world around you to keep yourself in the right. That way madness lies.