Downing Street to publish legal advice R.E. Iraq

[tjwmason]

Just got a text message news-alert.

They are going to publish the full report from the Attourney General regarding the legal consequences of invading Iraq.

Check http://news.bbc.co.uk for updates.

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Full story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm

PDF (ie photocopy image of 13 pages) from the Guardian website: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf?gusrc=ticker-103704

[tjwmason]

2. Thanks for the link

A gentle surf of D.U. is one thing - but I really should wait until I'm off work before reading 13 pages of legal argument.

Oh and I love the picture in your sig file.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Picture is from Steve Bell's cartoon in today's Guardian :-)

I've just scanned the argument. My (subjective) summary is:

The UK's historic position is only consistent with the Security Council determining if Saddam has made a serious breach of UN resolutions - and Straw said in Parliament the breach must be "something significant"

The US, and only the US, agured that any breach of UN resolutions gives the right to attack him, and the member countries can decide that for themselves without further discussion in the UN

A 2nd resolution is the preferable route; it's no use saying that a veto (or threatened veto) of a 2nd resolution is 'unreasonable'; if a 2nd resolution is impossible, or defeated, then the reports of UNMOVIC and IAEA are crucial in determining the significant breach.

For military action to be lawful, it must also be proportionate to the cause (ie stopping the breach of the UN resolution): "But regime change cannot 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."

My comment: Blair reversed the UK's stance that the Security Council should determine a breach of UN reoslutions, and caved in to the US's assertions (and no other country supported the US in that). Blair (and Bush), by ignoring the request of Blix to allow the inspections to continue, did not show that the invasion of Iraq was necessary to enforce the UN resolution. The invasion was therefore illegal. Blair's subsequent comments of "I'm glad we got rid of Saddam" just dig a deeper hole for him - he was warned that such an objective was illegal.

[Capt_Nemo]

4. Yes, that bit about the proportionality of military action

is the cherry on top of the cake.

Mind you this Goldsmith fellow is as corrupt as they come. What a bastard!
His rationalizations for 1441 as basis for military actions would
have got the Nazi leadership at Nurnberg scott free from the accusation
of crime of aggression.
A fictitious threat can now be invoked for self-defense... pathetic...

[Briar]

6. Not only does Bliar say he's glad he got rid of Saddam

in his defence he has just said that the basis of his decision was the desirability of getting rid of Saddam. This wasn't his argument at the time, and it is blatantly in defiance of Goldsmith's advice (though it parallels Bush). Yet he is happy today to justify himself by citing an illegal reason for going to war.

[cal04]

5. Iraq war legal advice published

Downing Street has published the attorney general's full advice on the legality of the Iraq war, after part of it was leaked to the media.

In the 7 March 2003 document, Lord Goldsmith told Tony Blair a second UN resolution was the safest legal course.

Ten days later his advice to Parliament raised no such concerns about legality.

Michael Howard suggested MPs had been "tricked" into voting for war. Charles Kennedy urged Mr Blair to "come clean". Mr Blair defended his actions.

READ THE LEGAL ADVICE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm

[Spazito]

7. The report is well worth reading!

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.

[paineinthearse]

8. Link to document in pdf format

DOCUMENT - http://www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq%20Resolution%201441.pdf (can anyone convert to an image?)

http://community.centurytel.net/index.cfm?action=news.article&id=wed/ch/Ayb70034794.RgqT_FMS.html

Blair Releases Legal Advice on Iraq War
04/28/2005

Associated Press/AP Online
LONDON - Prime Minister Tony Blair released the attorney general's confidential advice on the legality of the Iraq war on Thursday, an embarrassing reversal forced by a leak and relentless pressure from political rivals only days before a national election. Blair had hoped to focus on the economy, health care and education before the May 5 vote. But the document thrust the ferocious debate about Britain's support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and Blair's integrity to the forefront of the campaign. "Whatever I say, I will never, ever convince some people who have been opposed to this war," said Blair. "I cannot apologize for that decision because I still think the world is a better place with Saddam in prison rather than in power."

The dispute hinged on the advice given to Blair by his top legal adviser Lord Goldsmith on March 7, 2003. The confidential note has been the subject of intense press speculation in recent months and, finally, a detailed leak to Channel 4 News on Wednesday night. The memo, released in full Thursday by Blair's office, confirmed reports that Goldsmith had warned it would be safer to go to war with a second U.N. Security Council resolution specifically authorizing military action. It also warned that British troops taking part in the conflict could be open to legal action.

Ten days later, in a written statement to Parliament on March 17, Goldsmith's reservations had disappeared and he said the war would be legal without a further resolution. The Bush administration was forced to withdraw a Security Council resolution seeking U.N. authorization for the military action in Iraq because of deep opposition from many council members. Political opponents have questioned whether Goldsmith was pressured by Blair's office to change his mind in the final tense days leading up to the March 20, 2003, invasion.

"Mr. Blair has said that the attorney general's advice to the Cabinet on the 17th March was 'very clear' that the war was legal, and that the attorney general had not changed his mind," Conservative leader Michael Howard told a news conference in London. "It is obvious that he did. So what the public must now have an answer to is this: what, or who, changed the attorney general's mind?" Howard, who has branded Blair a liar, said the document reinforced doubts about the prime minister's integrity. "If you can't trust Mr. Blair on the decision to take the country to war, the most important decision a prime minister can take, how can you trust Mr. Blair on anything else ever again?" he told journalists.

more........

[Spazito]

9. Blair's response proves he went against the advice in the report

Blair said:

"I cannot apologize for that decision because I still think the world is a better place with Saddam in prison rather than in power."

The report said:

"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."

The whole report, imo, proves Blair a liar.

[struggle4progress]

10. 'Prove You're Not A Liar' Kennedy Challenges Blair

By Jamie Lyons and Vivienne Morgan, PA

The Liberal Democrats today challenged Tony Blair to prove he was not a liar by publishing the legal advice on the Iraq war.

Party leader Charles Kennedy said it was not “absolutely guaranteed to be true” that the Prime Minister had lied over the legality of the war.

The Lib Dem leader said the only way people would know for sure was for the Government to publish the Attorney General’s advice. <snip>

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4468703