War in Iraq illegal, and they knew...
Discussion
Channel 4 just broke the story...
www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=91#jumptostory
Ace-T
www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=91#jumptostory
channel 4 News said:
Channel 4 News has obtained a copy of the summary of the confidential legal advice written by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and sent to the Prime Minister on March 7th, two weeks before the war with Iraq.
The document reveals that Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair that failure to secure a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising military action would force the government 'urgently' to reconsider its legal case.
Resolution 1441 had been passed in November 2002 and gave Iraq 'a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations'.
Extract from Lord Goldsmith's summary.
"26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.
27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. [...] The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.
28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.
29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non- compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.
30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view.
I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do requ1re a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained.
However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.
31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter.
So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution.
If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time."
Ace-T
Blood and stomach pills.
Just to add to it >> press release today
www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.press.release.page&obj_id=122488
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 27th April 20:51
Just to add to it >> press release today
www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.press.release.page&obj_id=122488
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 27th April 20:51
Step back from the debate of whether the war was a good idea or not, and ask yourself how you would feel if you had paid a lawyer to do some research for you, and he had come up with some inconclusive bollox like this?
He basically says, unless we get a second resolution, blimey, we're going to have to think about this some more. That's like the Irish man saying "if you want to go to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here."
That doesn't say it is legal or illegal. It doesn't say anything at all.
He basically says, unless we get a second resolution, blimey, we're going to have to think about this some more. That's like the Irish man saying "if you want to go to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here."
That doesn't say it is legal or illegal. It doesn't say anything at all.
I supported the war and still do, but the lying is unacceptable. The problem is that the country is made up as to 308% or so of idiots who will vote for this lot whatever they do, because these idiots are too lazy to think about their pensions, taxes, kids' education or the fact that the government is a bunch of lying self-aggrandising spivs.
simpo two said:
Actually, who cares?
ATEOFT the bloke with the biggest gun makes the rules, and we'd do well to remember that.
Very true I am afraid we had to go to war to get the Arabs to toe the line.
Interesting that the Libyians gave up there NBC Weapon programme for fear of being invaded
JagLover said:
International diplomacy is not a matter for lawyers.
Who decides that the actions of a sovereign state are 'unlawful'.
Quite right regarding lawyers, the difficulty is that the majority of world leaders are former lawyers/QCs/Judges etc etc. In fact not only is our esteemed furher a former legal weasal but so are most of the front bench......
In legal circles there was muttered doubt as the legality of the War.
There's little doubt that Blair lied.
There's no doubt that the Attorney General made a u-turn under pressure.
Both went for oil over ethics.
Both are responsible for the murder and continued murder of innocents in Iraq.
Still, and on the bright side, it looks like the oil crises has been deferred for a few years. All we need to do now is destroy Iran and job done.
Has anyone noticed how Bliar is even more shifty than usual of late when discussing whether or not he lied to the country? He was asked directly, I think by Andrew Marr, a few days ago and he actually fell silent for a few seconds seemingly unable to answer. When he did answer, naturally enough he avoided the question.
Who would vote for a proven liar?
Who would vote for a proven liar?
love machine said:
All ready for chairman Blairs third term?
The amount of Lib dem signs in my area make me realise that we are justed.
For marginal seats, voting Lib Dem might not be the most attractive proposition, but it might be the best tactical move. Here in Cambridge, the local Tory candidate is in third place, and if your objective is getting rid of the Labour MP, then Lib Dem is the way to go.
As for all those disillusioned ex-Labour voters, do you really believe they are all going to jump ship straight to the Tories? Whatever you think of Labour, the fairly steady state of the economy (temporary though many believe that to be) doesn't exactly discredit Labour policies, so why do you believe people are suddenly going to go to the other political extreme? Blair's biggest weakness right now is lack of trust, not exactly Howard's strong point.
Again, if you want to get Labour out, you have to think in terms of what many voters will be considering as the 'next best thing'. Tactical voting is going to be the most significant factor in this election.
Yesterday afternoon the Tories launched their final campagin.
Calling Blair a liar.
At about 5pm Charles Kennedy came out and hit at the Tories for calling Blair a liar saying it has no place in UK politics unless absolutely true.
Its now been proved.
I can only hope that enough people will see this because for something so significant there has hardly been any media coverage at all.
The table is so far stacked in Labias favour its unreal.
Calling Blair a liar.
At about 5pm Charles Kennedy came out and hit at the Tories for calling Blair a liar saying it has no place in UK politics unless absolutely true.
Its now been proved.
I can only hope that enough people will see this because for something so significant there has hardly been any media coverage at all.
The table is so far stacked in Labias favour its unreal.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff