Clare Short keeps on stirring it mup. Make of this what you will.
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=495919This week the charges against Katharine Gun, a former employee of GCHQ, were dropped in a way that posed once again big questions about the legitimacy of the rush to war in Iraq. She was accused of passing a document to The Observer which showed the US asking the UK for help to spy on non-permanent members of the Security Council: the purpose was to strengthen the ability of the US and UK to "persuade" them to vote for war.
Her lawyers made clear that her defence would rest on the argument that her action was justified because the war was illegal. They therefore intended to call for evidence on how the Attorney General came to the conclusion that there was legal authority for war. The lawyers concluded that the case was dropped because he did not want his advice to be subject to scrutiny.
The suggestion, however, that the Attorney General's opinion may have been manipulated is very serious. There is no doubt that the way in which a truncated opinion authorising war appeared at the very last minute was very odd. Foreign Office lawyers disagreed on the legality of war. Senior officials in Whitehall worried that they were being asked to prepare for illegal action. I was informed that the military would not move without the Attorney General's authorisation. Then on the day Robin Cook resigned, the Attorney General came to the Cabinet, sat in Robin's seat and circulated two sides of A4 which said that successive UN resolutions provided legal authority for war. I tried to ask why he was so late and if there was any doubt but was told in no uncertain terms there was to be no discussion. No other advice was made available across Whitehall.
As I go over and over events leading up to the rush to war, I cannot help but conclude that the way in which the Attorney General's opinion was produced and handled was very strange. It is hard not to suspect that he had doubts and was leant upon.