Leak of Iraq war letter 'shows attack was legal'

[Freddie Stubbs]

By David Charter, Chief Political Correspondent

THE Attorney-General insisted last night that a leak of his analysis of the case for war in Iraq stood up his opinion that the invasion was legal, despite his private doubts that the document disclosed.

Lord Goldsmith, QC, said that his evaluation of the legal arguments for war, obtained by Channel 4 News, backed up the summary issued to Parliament which justified military action.

The leak looked set to ignite a firestorm under the issue of Mr Blair’s trustworthiness over events leading to the Iraq war as the general election campaign nears its climax. There were calls for his advice to Tony Blair to be published in full after the leaked summary showed that he believed that a second UN resolution was “the safest legal course”.

Ten days later, after Britain and the US abandoned attempts to secure a second resolution, Lord Goldsmith gave a verbal summary to the Cabinet. In this, he said that the war would be lawful based on the “combined effect” of previous UN resolutions.

more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1588842,00.html

[Stand and Fight]

1. "combined effect"... Whaaaaat?

Can everyone repeat after me?
Lies, lies, and damn lies. War crimes trials needed. Bush administration right along with Blair.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Yet instead of being tried, it looks like he will get

reelected.

[Just Me]

7. Making up "precedent" seems the habitual path to breaking laws.

It's a form of legal "hocus pocus" that has been spread by the neoCONs to justify breaches of the rule of law.

Stunningly sneaky means of getting away with a form of tyranny.

[aquart]

2. Brit Battle Becoming Brutal

Bitchin'

[Straight Shooter]

10. Bingo.

;)

[gratuitous]

3. Let's just build this skyscraper from the top floor

That way, we won't have people falling off the top of the structure!

Is Lord Goldsmith a complete buffoon, or just a lackey?

[MrPrax]

4. Kinda Moot...

and misses the point...

1) lots of evidence to suggest the attack was planned long before any UN resolution was spun
2) the legality would be based compliance anyhow--it appeared in HINDSIGHT that Iraq was in compliance of previous UN resolutions as the UN's own inspectors suggested...

Was this the 'combined effect'...

[NNN0LHI]

6. United Nations Secretary-General begs to differ.It was and still is illegal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Iraq war illegal, says Annan

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".

more

[unhappycamper]

11. And this is exactly why we need bolton in the UN.

He'll quash these ugly rumors.

[Spazito]

8. Blair's office says Iraq war memo to be released

LONDON — Prime Minister Tony Blair's office, trying to defuse a row over Iraq a week before Britain's general election, said Thursday that the attorney general's advice on the legality of the U.S.-led war will be published in full.

The announcement came after a TV channel said it had obtained a leaked copy of a memo sent to Blair from Attorney General Lord Goldsmith in which he warned the invasion could be deemed illegal without a second UN Security Council resolution specifically authorizing military action.

The document again thrust the ferocious debate about the U.S.-led invasion and Blair's integrity to the forefront of the election campaign.

snip

Blair's Downing Street office said the full text of the memo, which was leaked to Channel 4 news, would be released later Thursday, something Blair had adamantly refused to do in the past.

more

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1114683521095_79/?hub=World

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. Advice has been released

See links and discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1429349

The advice points out that any military action taken would have to be for the sole purpose of reinforcing the UN resolution; it would have to be proportionate to the breach; and that invading for the purpose of regime change is illegal - no ifs or buts. Therefore, I think this shows Blair had been told that the full scale invasion he 'ordered' (ie that Bush ordered) was clearly illegal.

Impeach Blair.

[Spazito]

12. Thanks for the link to the pdf!

Will definitely read it!

Edited to add: Having just read the full report, there are many things that stand out but the final paragraph shows why Blair refuses to admit there was no WMDs and refuses to admit what bush has declared as the latest reason for the illegal invasion, that of 'regime change':

"That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change CANNOT (capitals my addition) be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign."

Blair lied and continues to lie.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Does UK law have provisions for the impeachment of the PM?

:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Not used since the 19th Century

but a legal opinion held they are still usable. About 30 MPs tried to get a debate on it in the last parliament, but they weren't enough; they've said they try again in the next one.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=446842005

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. But that would require a majority of MP's to vote for the impeachment

motion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_Kingdom

It appears that Labour will once again hold a majority. How likely is it that a significant number of members of Blair's party will vote to impeach him?