Guardian: Revealed: the rush to war

[muriel_volestrangler]

(mods: since this is the front page story in the Guardian, and has new details of the legal advice the UK government got, I think this is LBN, but I'm happy for it to be moved to Editorials if you think that's better)

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned less than two weeks before the invasion of Iraq that military action could be ruled illegal.

The government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court.

And a parliamentary answer issued days before the war in the name of Lord Goldsmith - but presented by ministers as his official opinion before the crucial Commons vote - was drawn up in Downing Street, not in the attorney general's chambers.
...
It appears that Lord Goldsmith never wrote an unequivocal formal legal opinion that the invasion was lawful, as demanded by Lord Boyce, chief of defence staff at the time.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1423216,00.html

[Jacobin]

1. But the "dossier was never sexed up" so stop saying that

And Blair can 'prove it' because he had some guys at the BBC fired for suggesting there was an unnecessary rush to war.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Nope....it was just after 40 years that Iraq allofasuddenlike became

an immediate threat. There was no avoiding this ill-begotten illegal massacre, it was in the works years prior.

It's just an economic grab to control their economy before France, Russia, Germany or others had the biggest piece of the pie... that's all it ever was about, had nothing to do with terrorism, nothing to do with democracy, these are just window dressings to legitimize and obscene and immoral attack on a sovereign nation who was dumb enough to do bidness with prior administrations as an ally... I guess this will teach other nations to do bidness with the devil.

[DemoTex]

3. Again, I post the Four Nuremberg Indictments (the shoe fits Bu$h in 2005)

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”

Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html

God have mercy on the USA when the reckoning comes. We are so fucked it is unreal. The world has the right to hang us all.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

4. kick

[Supersedeas]

5. what are the chances this will get any play in the 'Merikan MSM

[NNN0LHI]

6. Feared Iraq War Could Be Illegal -- Report

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050223/wl_nm/iraq_britain_legal_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government's top lawyer warned less than two weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) that military action could be illegal, the Guardian newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Lord Goldsmith expressed his doubts to Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites), Washington's staunchest ally in Iraq, in a document on March 7, 2003, the paper said.

The newspaper said the British government was so concerned about legal challenges to war that it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for any action in an international court.

The Guardian said it based its report on a book to be published this week called "Lawless World," by law professor and lawyer Philippe Sands, who shares the London offices of the prime minister's barrister wife, Cherie Booth.

more

[OneBlueSky]

7. of course it was illegal . . .

and immoral, and unethical, and just plain stupid . . . as is the current occupation, btw . . . what remains to be seen is whether any of the guilty parties will ever be called to account for their actions and punished accordingly . . . I doubt it . . .

[redirish28]

8. I couldn't agree more

[dbt]

12. Welcome to DU, redirish28!

[solinvictus]

9. Let's see...

You assist in attacking a nation that has not threatened you over weapons it was found not to have. Seems like an unjust war to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Hmm some may be worried that the World Court

may haul their asses over there...

[Disturbed]

11. The UK signed on to the World Court but..

the U.S. has not.

According to Intl. Law the Iraq invasion was illegal, thereby making the Occupation illegal, as well. Of course, nothing will be done about it.

[emad]

13. Blair hit by fresh allegations over Iraq

By Jason Beattie Political Correspondent, Evening Standard
23 February 2005

Tony Blair was hit by fresh allegations today that Downing Street manipulated the legal advice in order "to rush" Britain into the Iraq war.

A new book claims the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith warned less than two weeks before the invasion that military action could be illegal.

It says Lord Goldsmith never wrote an unequivocal legal opinion saying the war was lawful. It alleges the crucial Parliamentary answer eventually setting out the legal justification for the invasion was drawn up not by the Attorney General's chambers, but in Downing Street.
The disclosures are contained in the book Lawless World by Phillipe Sands, a QC in Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers and a professor of international law at University College, London.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/16807947?source=Evening%20Standard

[xchrom]

14. would it be too obvious to say

DUH!

[cthrumatrix]

15. AWOL is not concerned about laws