Revealed: the Rush to War:Attorney General 'Warned Blair

[cal04]

Revealed: the rush to war
The full picture of how the government manipulated the legal justification for war, and political pressure placed on its most senior law officer, is revealed in the Guardian today. The Guardian can also disclose that in her letter of resignation in protest against the war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime of aggression"
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1423341,00.html


Attorney General 'Warned Blair Iraq War Could Be Illegal'
The Government came under fresh pressure today to explain the legal advice on which it committed British forces to the Iraq war. Ministers faced a new claim that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith QC, warned Prime Minister Tony Blair less than two weeks before the invasion that military action could be deemed illegal.

According to The Guardian, the Government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted that it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court. The paper also reported that a Parliamentary answer issued days before the war in the name of Lord Goldsmith was actually drawn up in Downing Street. The paper based its claims on a book called Lawless World by Philippe Sands, a QC in Cherie Blair’s Matrix chambers and professor of international law at University College, London. Lord Goldsmith is said to have warned Mr Blair in a document on March 7, 2003 that the use of force against Iraq could be illegal.

Lord Goldsmith is said to have warned Mr Blair in a document on March 7, 2003 that the use of force against Iraq could be illegal. Mr Sands wrote: “So concerned was the Government about the possibility of such a case that it took steps to put together a legal team to prepare for possible international litigation.” The Government has refused to publish the March 7 document.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4167332

[Skip Intro]

1. Gee, attacking a nation, unprovoked and knowingly based on lies, might be

illegal?

What rediculous charade blair and bush (and his obedient, anti-patriot drones) wants everyone to play along with just so they can maintain some delusional bubble in which they are heroes.

F them both (and the entire bloody-handed bush regime).

[KoKo]

2. I remember some discussion about this about a year ago...but it didn't

go anywhere. This article was confusing to me, because I didn't see what was new about it. Has Goldsmith definitely said "I did not sign off on Invading Iraq...or is it just more evasion. :shrug:

Is Blair in trouble with this? Will the Liberal Democrats get more support from this revelation in the coming election if it's revealed that it wasn't clear cut that Blair had the authority? Or, is it just some "posturing?" I'm very fond of Charles Kennedy, but some DU Brits said he has a "drinking problem" and will never be "PM." :-(

[cal04]

3. The law and the war

Mr Sands makes fresh claims and poses new questions about one of the most controversial aspects of the decision to go to war - the attorney general's advice to ministers and service chiefs that the attack on Iraq was legal. If Mr Sands is right, the advice was even more finely balanced than has previously been acknowledged and the use to which it was put more dubious.

The attorney's legal advice was pivotal in the decision to make war. Its key assertion was that Iraq had failed to comply fully with UN resolution 1441 and was thus in material breach of its international obligations following the Gulf war. In Lord Goldsmith's opinion, Iraq's continuing failure to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction created the legal basis for war. A summary of his views was put before the cabinet on two sides of A4 and was then published as a parliamentary written answer. The following day, its claim that Iraq's material breach had "revived" the authority to use force was a crucial link in the formal war resolution on which MPs voted. During his speech, the prime minister could not have been clearer: "I have never put the justification for action as regime change," he said. "We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441 - that is our legal base." In other words, if the attorney general had said that the use of force was legally dubious, Britain could not have attacked Iraq.

But, according to Mr Sands, this is precisely what the attorney general did say. In his full 13-page advice to the prime minister, dated March 7 - a document that has never been published and which was not shown to the cabinet either - Lord Goldsmith apparently said that the use of force on the basis of resolution 1441 "could be found to be illegal".

It would therefore be much safer to get a second UN resolution to authorise force, he advised. So concerned was the government that it put together a legal team to defend itself against international litigation. So concerned were the service chiefs that they demanded a less ambiguous statement, so that soldiers would not risk being "put through the mill", as the chief of the defence staff Lord Boyce put it.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1423038,00.html

[KoKo]

5. Thanks, but I actually did use the link and read the whole article...

Still...I don't see what the fuss is about. It's done...Blair/Bush invaded and Goldsmith didn't intervene at the last minute... That was why I found the article "old news" even though Sands says "wait a minute ,here..."


But, according to Mr Sands, this is precisely what the attorney general did say. In his full 13-page advice to the prime minister, dated March 7 - a document that has never been published and which was not shown to the cabinet either - Lord Goldsmith apparently said that the use of force on the basis of resolution 1441 "could be found to be illegal".

[primavera]

4. They've been taking pointers from the shrub

"So what if it's illegal? Just issue a few terror warnings and wave the flag alot, nobody'll care what you do."

No great shock here, our government's been breaking more laws than I even knew had been written and they seem to do it with every expectation that they'll get away with it scott free, so why should Britain be any different?

[Zerex71]

6. Duh.

You don't need a law degree to know this.