Simon Carr: When legal opinion became a political embarrassment (Iraq War)

[cal04]

So, to summarise. They fixed the facts, tortured the texts, invented the evidence, blitzed Blix, gelded Goldsmith, framed the French, wrecked Iraq and hanged Hussein.
What energy these people have, what a range of talents, it's hard not to admire them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/simon-carr-when-legal-opinion-became-a-political-embarrassment-1879658.html


We had two interesting witnesses - Michael Wood the legal leader of the Foreign Office and one of his team members.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst is a formidable legal personality projected from remarkable moral structure. When the Attorney gave legal approval for the war she resigned. In civilian terms, there was something heroic about that, something most unusually admirable.

In the year before the war, all the legal advisers at the Foreign Office were of one opinion. This has probably never happened before. In private practice such unanimity constitutes professional malpractice. That is by the way. Going to war without a second UN resolution, all agreed, was illegal.

Every time ministers or officials alluded to regime change, Michael Wood wrote to them pointing out they were wrong. Once he wrote to Jack Straw telling him he was "completely wrong". And "occasionally you'd get the PM saying the wrong thing privately and I'd jump in." There was no deniability for any of them. They can't have liked that, not one bit.

[Arctic Dave]

1. Now that we know they are guilty, I am offering my services for the firing squad.

[Vincardog]

2. Where is the firing squad circle?

[Arctic Dave]

3. Must be at your place. Have fun. :)

[igfoth]

4. The Reich Wingers need to protect their criminals at all cost

This is why the Criminal Bush regime and the PubTards are so against the ICC, because if the US was a member Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminal cabal would have already met the same fate as Saddam by now.