Iraq war was illegal, top government lawyer tells Chilcot inquiry

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

The invasion of Iraq was illegal, a senior government lawyer told the Chilcot inquiry into the war today.

Sir Michael Wood, legal adviser to the Foreign Office in the run-up to the invasion, said he "considered that the use of force against Iraq in 2003 was contrary to international law".

"In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the security council, and had no other legal basis in international law," he said in a witness statement to the inquiry.

Wood told the inquiry panel that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary before and during the war, remarked that international law was "pretty vague" and offered a certain amount of leeway. When Wood disagreed, Straw said he was being "dogmatic".

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/26/iraq-war-illegal-chilcot-inquiry

---

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jan/26/iraq-iraq-war-inquiry">Follow the live blog for full coverage of today's hearing

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/">Live video stream of the inquiry

[GliderGuider]

1. Finally! Someone said it in an official setting.

Best wishes for the ICC.
:thumbsup:

[pleah]

2. K&R

[Soylent Brice]

3. K&R

[Turborama]

4. Lawyer's memo contradicts Jack Straw's evidence to Chilcot inquiry

Source: Times Online

Philippe Naughton and David Brown
January 26, 2010

Jack Straw's chief legal adviser at the time of the Iraq invasion directly challenged his former boss's version of events today when he told the Chilcot Inquiry that the then Foreign Secretary had overruled his advice against military action.

In a day of potentially explosive testimony, the inquiry also heard that Mr Straw had reassured his American counterpart a year before the invasion that he was "entirely comfortable" making the case for war .

The revelations from Sir Michael Wood run counter to Mr Straw's own evidence to the inquiry last week, when the Justice Secretary insisted that he had only "very reluctantly" supported the conflict and described his moral and political anguish in the run-up to the invasion in March 2003.

Equally damaging for the Cabinet veteran is a claim by Sir Michael, the top Foreign Office lawyer at the time, that Mr Straw told him how he had often ignored legal advice when he was at the Home Office and had always got away with it.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7002996.ece

-

[ixion]

5. of course it was... it was patently obvious at the time that it was illegal...

so now that it's "official," can we get on with holding those who orchestrated it responsible?

[Mari333]

6. Bush and his minions will skate

we cannot continue two occupations and destruction of other people's countries if we called it illegal.
corporations who profit from death and destruction wont allow that.

[dipsydoodle]

7. I thought Elizabeth Wilmshurst handled herself really well.

She's the lady who resigned her postition over the issue. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/academics/profiles/index.shtml?vp_wilmshurst

You read what she said in the blog.

[dipsydoodle]

11. A warm reception for Wilmshurst

She was the first witness to be applauded at the Iraq Inquiry.

The live feed cut out, so viewers will never see it, but inside the room the packed public gallery clapped Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former Deputy Legal Officer at the FCO, the only person to quit her job over a war she considered illegal, as she finished her evidence.

It was a short session in which she packed in mockery of Jack Straw's legal knowledge, the "lamentable" process around the Attorney General's legal opinion and condemned the war as illegal. She is now besieged by press photographers in a pub.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/a+warm+reception+for+wilmshurst/3516647

[Turborama]

16. Thanks for that dipsy. The transcript of her hearing is available online now

Full transcript: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/43617/100126pm-wilmshurst.pdf

And her statement:

4. Before the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1441, the advice given by FCO legal advisers was that an invasion of Iraq would be contrary to international law in the absence of a new Security Council resolution. I shared and contributed to this view. The legal principles are well-known. In summary, the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against another State; the exceptions to this prohibition are first, action in self-defence, as referred to in Article 51 of the UN Charter, second, action authorised by UN Security Council resolutions and, as a possible third, more controversial, exception, action to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Of these exceptions, force in self-defence may be used only against an attack, actual or imminent; only where it is necessary to use force in the absence of other means; and only where the force is proportionate to the object of averting the attack. In the circumstances of Iraq, the facts did not justify the use of force in self-defence. Existing Security Council resolutions did not authorise the use of force. There was no other legal justification. A desire to change the regime did not give a legal basis for military action.

5. After the adoption of resolution 1441, the legal advice given in the FCO, and to which I contributed, was that a second Security Council decision was necessary if military action were to be lawfully taken against Iraq; resolution 1441 was not sufficient. The reasoning has been sufficiently explained elsewhere. In summary, the resolution had introduced an enhanced inspection regime to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its obligations; it stated that reports of non-compliance by Iraq would be referred to the Security Council for assessment. ‘Assessment’ did not mean merely an inconclusive discussion in the Council. The decision that Iraq had failed to take its final opportunity was to be one for the Council and not simply for individual governments. Advice that a second resolution was legally required was given by the FCO Legal Adviser consistently after the adoption of resolution 1441 and in the following three months.

6. An alternative view was discussed in the Attorney General’s minute of 7 March 2003. The view was that resolution 1441 itself constituted the decision of the Council to revive the authorisation - given in resolution 678 in 1990 - to use force in order to restore international peace and security in the region. The Government participated in the invasion of Iraq on this basis.

7. I regarded the invasion of Iraq as illegal, and I therefore did not feel able to continue in my post. I would have been required to support and maintain the Government’s position in international fora. The rules of international law on the use of force by States are at the heart of international law. Collective security, as opposed to unilateral military action, is a central purpose of the Charter of the United Nations. Acting contrary to the Charter, as I perceived the Government to be doing, would have the consequence of damaging the United Kingdom’s reputation as a State committed to the rule of law in international relations and to the United Nations.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst
18 January 2010

Full statement: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/43474/wilmshurst-statement.pdf

[Peace Patriot]

8. K&R! And thanks for the links! nt

[dipsydoodle]

9. Tony must be

quickly revising his lies ready for Friday.

[deminks]

10. Much more on Straw here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/26/chilcot-iraq-inquiry-jack-straw

They've apparently nailed him. He knew the war was illegal. He manipulated and hid the truth. Now on to Blair and Brown. And the Hague.

[Kaleko]

12. Good. Keep going...

[Arctic Dave]

13. Why is this not the top story?

[goforit]

14. Tony Blair should be off to the Guillitine.

[LeftishBrit]

15. k & big R

[Turborama]

17. Video & Transcript of Michael Wood & Elizabeth Wilmshurst's Hearing Available Here>>>

Plus the relevant documents that were used as evidence: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/transcripts/oralevidence-bydate/100126.aspx

[dipsydoodle]

18. I watched it live

Enthralling stuff and I'd recommend to everyone they watch the link you provided.

[dipsydoodle]

19. I had meant to tell you

that the subject of "crimes of agression" were mentioned yesterday. Currently that is not an ICC offence but they are currently considering making it so. Unfortunately it could not be used retrospectively. However - the subject was rediscussed by Jeremy Paxman on BBC2's late news and what was mentioned was that currently Blair needs specialist advice on which countrues it is safe for him to travel. That is due to the fact that least 50 countries have their own laws on "crimes of aggression" and apparently he would definately be arrested when if stepped foot in any of them. I'm guessing the same is equally applicable to certain US officials. Oddly enough Azerbaijan is one of those countries - much to Paxman's amusement given that countries own record.

[bamacrat]

20. And yet nothing will be done about it. n/t