Blix: Iraq war was illegal

[Emillereid]

Blair's defence is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector

By Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice


05 March 2004



The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.


Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.


His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today.


An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologise for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.


But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=498039

Blix is tenacious! The revenge of the mild, mannered bureaucrat! Don't you love it!

[Just Me]

1. Mr. Blix,...thank you!!!

Would you kindly hammer on the son-of-a-bush who is not only wreaking havoc abroad but also at home?

I mean,...slamming the evil neocons would give so many people additional hope and inspiration.

[Manix]

2. Bravo!

[peterh]

3. The only US outlet to be carrying the story….

Is the Washington Times…go figure….

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040305-071144-1968r.htm

Blix makes a very valid point here:

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."
He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.



Me thinks the US media and the populace in general, could care less….

[ignatius]

4. This is like so yesterday, we've got Martha to talk about now.

'sarcasm'